An Oasis in the Desert? Issues and Intricacies Concerning the Louvre-Abu Dhabi Museum Expansion

An idea that runs alongside this “chosen” colonization is the possibility of a sort of power struggle between these two countries, with each of the participant’s major asset – France’s culture, Abu Dhabi’s money – being pulled back and forth in a political and culturally ethical tug-of-war. Michel Foucault’s discussion of power and knowledge provides a foundation for this idea. Foucault offers a strong argument for the close connection between knowledge and power. One might assume this could be a dangerous relationship – the way knowledge is used to wield power and vice-versa – but the philosopher maintains that they must go hand-in-hand.

Let us return briefly to the use of power and knowledge in the nineteenth-century French museum network to explain the current positioning of the two elements between Abu Dhabi and the Louvre. Within the early museum network, power was created and upheld through the offer of knowledge (represented by culture), situating those who were able to support culture in the most powerful positions. Interestingly, the current circumstances see Abu Dhabi doing the same exact thing, thanks to their substantial financial authority. Abu Dhabi has recognized the power contained in cultural knowledge; for this emirate thinking about a future beyond oil revenue, such power revolves not only around the reputation of the Louvre as a cultural authority, but also around the tourism generated by the Louvre and the attention that would naturally arrive with a satellite of the Louvre. Not only is the emirate acquiring knowledge through the use of their financial power, but it is also establishing itself as a veritable superpower of knowledge.

The opinion given by Anna Somers Cocks, the editorial director of the Art Newspaper, is not unlike that of Foucault in expressing the inextricable link between knowledge and power. At the same time, she presents a potential benefit of the situation between the Louvre and Abu Dhabi. “When Abu Dhabi and Qatar and Dubai start to want museums and libraries to collaborate with our universities, this is our opportunity to exercise soft power…to make ourselves known, to enlarge the areas of common dialogue.”40 The author emphasizes that the desire of Abu Dhabi to possess Western culture adds to the esteem of those institutions with which it is cooperating, and helps develop a broadened arena for international discourse. Taken at its most basic level – that of renowned institutions aiding a country in developing its cultural identity – the agreement between the Louvre and Abu Dhabi could be considered a very welcome handshake between the West and the Middle East.

However, while Cocks’s viewpoint is helpful in seeing the positive aspects of this venture, it does not account for the more difficult issues that surround the Louvre satellite project. Abu Dhabi is fashioning a cultural identity in the likeness of Western examples, encouraging a globalization of culture that, at least in the case of the Louvre, will lead to the loss of the Louvre’s unique identity. This is troublesome precisely because the Louvre is not like the Guggenheim, the poster child for globalization; the French institution has never intended to create a physical global presence41 around the world as the Guggenheim or even the Hermitage have.

To support this argument, I offer a comparison between the statements of purpose for the Louvre and the Guggenheim. The mission statement of the Guggenheim includes the aim to “engage and educate an increasingly diverse international audience through its unique network of museums and cultural partnerships.”42 Additionally, the Guggenheim Collection has almost always been an active model for international development. Solomon R. Guggenheim began collecting modern art in 1929, creating the Guggenheim Foundation in 1937 and receiving permission from the state of New York to “operate one or more museums.”43 In 1938, daughter Peggy Guggenheim established an exhibition space in London called Guggenheim Jeune.44 While the Hermitage Museum in St Petersburg may be more like the Louvre in that it too owns a history integral to the story of Russia, financial difficulties plaguing the institution have caused the need to create branches around the globe. In an interview, director Mikhail Poitrovsky admits,

Frankly, our financial situation after the end of communism was difficult, we experienced a huge drop of subsidy. Only in the last years we managed to secure the same level of state subsidy we once had. Branching out is one of our efforts to get money and make us more independent from government subsidy.45

Anything close to a mention of international expansion on the Louvre’s website merely states, “The museum of the Louvre…calls upon itself to welcome in the best way possible its visitors, both national and foreign, and increasingly strives to offer them closer access to the collections.”46 Taking this comparison into consideration, as well as both the fame of the Guggenheim and the renown of the architects of the cultural centers that will be built on Saadiyat – the Louvre by Jean Nouvel, the Guggenheim by Frank Gehry, a maritime museum by Tadao Ando and a performing arts center by Zaha Hadid – it becomes evident that the emirate is simply paying for prepackaged reputations. Abu Dhabi has proven several times over, through these costly arrangements with renowned artistic and academic institutions, that it is able to buy its cultural authority,47 proving that even though it may not have a deep-rooted Westernized culture the way Europe does (for now), it can certainly resolve this by wielding its weighty purchasing power.

Even after explanations have been offered for the possible motivations behind the agreement between Abu Dhabi and the Louvre, questions linger. Where does the venerable French institution go from here? Will it turn into a corporate chain similar to the Guggenheim? This is a legitimate worry, as arts journalist Alan Riding noted at the first announcement of the project: “So, in one fell swoop, France has changed direction and is heading down a path it once disdained, a path pioneered in the 1990s by the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum in New York….”48 I would say that despite the Louvre’s engagement with Abu Dhabi, I do not think the Guggenheim’s type of structural globalization is in the Louvre’s future. First, as its history exemplifies, the Louvre was not originally intended to someday include several branches across the globe; the network of museums that stemmed from the Louvre during the Napoleonic era were meant to glorify France to the rest of Europe – all the while firmly retaining France’s cultural treasures (native or otherwise procured) within the nation’s borders.

While I acknowledge that a museum must be flexible and adapt to fulfill the needs and transformations of its society, such adaptation should not come at the sacrifice of the museum’s inherent identity and history. Because the world is growing increasingly global and commercial does not mean that the museum, as keeper of a society’s culture and identity, should naturally follow suit. I also do not see the Louvre following the examples of the Guggenheim or the Hermitage because the Louvre does not necessitate a global presence around the world. Unfortunately, the siren song of money is worth more to an institution based in knowledge, such as the museum, than one would like to admit, and French critics are clear in their anger toward their government’s heed to this call. While the Guggenheim has made a business of selling branches of its museum and the Hermitage has had to extend its reach due to financial difficulties, the Louvre seems to have survived quite well financially prior to the final sum it will receive from Abu Dhabi. To see more branches of the Louvre rise around the world would be a disappointing reality; this cultural oasis currently being built in the Abu Dhabian desert is hopefully the first and the last.

Bibliography

Alexander, Edward P. Museums in Motion: An Introduction to the History and Functions of Museums. Nashville: American Association for State and Local History, 1979.

Bhabha, Homi K. “The Postcolonial and the Postmodern: The Question of Agency,” in The Location of Culture. New York: Routledge, 1994.

Boyd, Rachel. “Arts institute plans intensify.” Yale Daily News, 13 September 2007.http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/21282, (accessed 4 December 2007).

Cachin, Françoise, Jean Clair and Roland Recht. “Les musées ne sont pas à vendre.” Le Monde, 13 décembre 2006. Europresse.http://www.bpe.europresse.com, (accessed 23 May 2007).

Cocks, Anna Somers. “The Louvre’s loans to Abu Dhabi are soft power in action.” The Art Newspaper, Issue 177, 2 August 2007.http://www.theartnewspaper.com/article.asp?id=566, (accessed 4 December 2007).

Duncan, Carol. Civilizing Rituals: Inside Public Art Museums. New York: Routledge, 1995.

“Emirates Want Louvre Branch in Abu Dhabi.” Asharq Alawsat English Edition, 01 October 2007. http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=7&id=7603, (accessed 18 November 2007).

Fenby, Jonathan. “A new angle for a venerable Paris landmark; A glass pyramid for the Louvre.” The Christian Science Monitor, 24 October 1984. LexisNexis, http://academic.lexisnexis.com, (accessed 3 November 2007).

Foucault, Michel. Power. Paris: Editions Gallimard, 1994.

Gould, Cecil. The Trophy of Conquest: the Musée Napoleon and the Creation of theLouvre. London: Faber and Faber, 1965.

Irbouh, Hamid. Art in the Service of Colonialism: French Art Education in Morocco1912-1956. London: Tauris Academic Studies, 2005.

“Laocoön.” Encyclopedia Britannica, 2008. Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9047155/Laocoon, (accessed 10 March 2008).

Laveissière, Sylvain. Napoléon et le Louvre. Paris: Librairie Arthème Fayard, 2004.

“Le Palais devient Musée: Incendie des Tuileries.” http://www.louvre.fr/llv/musee/detail_repere.jsp?CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673227 002&CURRENT_LLV_PERIODE%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673226962&CURRENT_LLV_CH RONOLOGIE%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673226610&CURRENT_LLV_REPERE%3C%3Ecnt_i d=10134198673227002&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=9852723696500938&leftPosition=-450, (accessed 14 October 2007).

Loyrette, Henri. “Politique et Fonctionnement: Mot du president.” June 2005. http://www.louvre.fr/llv/musee/mission.jsp, (accessed 23 February 2008).

McClellan, Andrew. Inventing the Louvre: Art, Politics and the Origins of the Modern Museum in Eighteenth-Century Paris. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994.

Müller, Klaus. “The Concept of Universal Museums [Interview with Mikhail Piotrovsky, Director of the State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg, Russia].” Curator v. 48, no. 1, (January 2005). Wilson Web, http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.libproxy.nd.edu/hww/results/results_common.jht ml;hwwilsonid=TK1IAZF2L5YJRQA3DIKSFF4ADUNGIIV0, (accessed 1 February 2007).

Noce, Vincent. “Il y a une ligne éthique à ne pas dépasser.” Libération, no. 7985, Culture, 9 January 2007. Europresse,http://www.bpe.europresse.com, (accessed 23 May 2007).

Riding, Alan. “Abu Dhabi Is to Gain A Louvre Of Its Own.” The New York Times, 13 January 2007. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E02E5DA1330F930A25752C0 A9619C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2, (accessed 4 December 2007).

Sherman, Daniel. “The Bourgeoisie, Cultural Appropriation and the Art Museum in Nineteenth-Century France.” In The Nineteenth-Century Visual Culture Reader, edited by Vanessa R. Schwartz and Jeannene M. Przyblyski. New York: Routledge, 2004.

1.) Cited in Sylvain Laveissière, Napoléon et le Louvre (Paris: Librairie Arthème Fayard, 2004), 14. “Vous avez crée un Muséum; rassemblez-y soigneusement tout ce que la République renferme déjà de chefs-d’oeuvre […] et que la terre entière s’empresse d’y venir déposer ses trésors, ses singularités, ses productions; et tous les titres de son histoire: qu’il soit les archives du globe.” Translation.

2.) Concerning these historical branches, I go into further detail on page six.

3.) Edward P Alexander, Museums in Motion: An Introduction to the History and Functions of Museums (Nashville: American Association for State and Local History, 1979), 23.

4.) Carol Duncan, Civilizing Rituals: Inside Public Art Museums (New York: Routledge, 1995).

5.) Andrew McClellan, Inventing the Louvre: Art, Politics and the Origins of the Modern Museum in Eighteenth-Century Paris (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994), 93.

6.) Ibid.

7.) Ibid., 99.

8.) Ibid., 95-96.

9.) Ibid., 96.

10.) McClellan, Inventing the Louvre, 116-17.

11.) Cecil Gould, The Trophy of Conquest: the Musée Napoleon and the Creation of the Louvre (London: Faber and Faber, 1965), 76.

12.) Ibid., 76.

13.) Brussels, Geneva, and Mainz were under French rule at the time.

14.) Gould, The Trophy of Conquest, 76.

15.) Gould, The Trophy of Conquest, 44.

16.) “Laocoön,” Encyclopedia Britannica, 2008, Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9047155/Laocoon, accessed 10 March 2008. 

17.) “January 14, 2006: 500th Anniversary of the Finding of the Laocoon on the Esquiline Hill in Rome,” http://www.idcrome.org/laocoon.htm, accessed 8 March 2008.

18.) Ibid.

19.) The sculpture was taken from Italy around 1796 and was returned to Rome sometime after 1815, when Napoleon’s loss to the Prussians at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815 provoked the restitution of many of the works he had taken during his conquest of Europe. See Gould, The Trophy of Conquest, 116-117.

20.) Sherman explains that this chaotic early development of museums was due to the envoi system, in which the government bought paintings from the yearly Paris Salons and shipped them out to the provinces. He goes into further detail about the problems that arose from this arrangement. See pgs 132-133.

21.) Daniel Sherman, “The Bourgeoisie, Cultural Appropriation and the Art Museum in Nineteenth-Century France,” in The Nineteenth-Century Visual Culture Reader, ed. Vanessa R. Schwartz and Jeannene M. Przyblyski, (New York: Routledge, 2004), 134.

22.) Ibid., 134.

23.) Ibid., 137, 141.

24.) Ibid., 140.

25.) http://www.louvre.fr/llv/musee/detail_repere.jsp?CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673227002&CURRENT_LLV_PERIODE%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673226962&CURRENT_LLV_CHRONOLOGIE%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673226610&CURRENT_LLV_REPERE%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673227002&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=9852723696500938&leftPosition=-450, accessed 14 October 2007.

26.) Jonathan Fenby, “A new angle for a venerable Paris landmark; A glass pyramid for the Louvre,” The Christian Science Monitor, 24 October 1984, LexisNexis, Notre Dame. . 3 November 2007.

27.) Cachin, Françoise, Jean Clair and Roland Recht, “Les musées ne sont pas à vendre,” Le Monde, 13 December 2006, Europresse, http://www.bpe.europresse.com, (accessed 23 May 2007).

28.) Follorou, Jacques. “Le contrat Abou Dhabi,” Le Monde, 11 January 2007, (accessed 4 February 2008).

29.) “Originally” being when the project was first proposed in 2005. See Follorou, Jacques.

30.) Follorou, “Le contrat Abou Dhabi,” Le Monde, 11 November 2007, (accessed 4 February 2008).

31.) Riding, Alan, “Abu Dhabi Is to Gain A Louvre Of Its Own,” The New York Times, 13 January 2007, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E02E5DA1330F930A25752C0A9619C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2, (accessed 4 December 2007).

32.) Cachin, Clair and Recht, “Les musées ne sont pas à vendre,” Le Monde, 13 December 2006, (accessed 23 May 2007).

33.) Homi K. Bhabha, “The Postcolonial and the Postmodern: The Question of Agency,” in The Location of Culture (New York: Routledge, 1994), 171.

34.) “Emirates Want Louvre Branch in Abu Dhabi,” Asharq Alawsat English Edition, 1 October 2007, (accessed 18 November 2007).

35.) Tamar Lewin, “U.S. Universities Rush to Set Up Outposts Abroad,” The New York Times, Education, 10 February 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/education/10global.html?pagewanted=1&hp, (accessed 10 February 2008).

36.) Rachel Boyd, “Arts institute plans intensify,” Yale Daily News, 13 Sept 2007.

http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/21282, (accessed 4 December 2007).

37.) Hamid Irbouh, Art in the Service of Colonialism: French Art Education in Morocco, 1912-1956, (London: Tauris Academic Studies, 2005), 3.

38.) Ibid., 4.

39.) Michel Foucault, Power, (Paris: Editions Gallimard, 1994), 32 and 15.

40.) Cocks, Anna Somers, “The Louvre’s loans to Abu Dhabi are soft power in action,” The Art Newspaper, Issue 177. 2 August 2007, http://www.theartnewspaper.com/article.asp?id=566, (accessed 4 December 2007).

41.) The Louvre does have an agreement with the High Museum of Art in Atlanta Georgia, which precedes the Abu Dhabi project. In this arrangement, the Louvre provides three exhibitions per year to the High Museum for three years. While this presence of the Louvre abroad is significant, I do not consider it an attempt at establishing a physical presence around the globe, as in the examples of the Guggenheim and Hermitage networks.

42.) “Mission Statement,” http://www.guggenheim.org/mission_statement.html, (accessed 23 February 2008).

43.) “History,” http://www.guggenheim.org/history.html, (accessed 22 February 2008).

44.) “History,” http://www.guggenheim.org/history.html, (accessed 22 February 2008).

45.) Klaus Müller, “The Concept of Universal Museums [Interview with Mikhail Piotrovsky, Director of the State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg, Russia],” Curator v. 48, no. 1, (January 2005), Wilson Web, http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.libproxy.nd.edu/hww/results/results_common.jhtml;hwwilsonid=TK1IAZF2L5YJRQA3DIKSFF4ADUNGIIV0, (accessed 1 February 2007).

46.) Loyrette, Henri, “Politique et Fonctionnement: Mot du president,” June 2005, http://www.louvre.fr/llv/musee/mission.jsp, (accessed 23 February 2008). “Le musée du Louvre…se mobilisent afin d'accueillir de la façon la plus satisfaisante possible leurs visiteurs nationaux et étrangers, mais de plus en plus s'efforcent de leur offrir un accès de proximité aux collections.” Translation mine.

47.) Class discussion, “Theories of Art,” Professor Charles Barber, 27 November 2007.

48.) Alan Riding, “Abu Dhabi is to Gain A Louvre Of Its Own,” The New York Times, 13 January 2007, (accessed 12 February 2007).