The Louvre Museum is one of the eighteen grand Western museums that have signed the Declaration on the Importance and Value of Universal Museums in 2002. The signatories of the declaration announced themselves to be “universal museums”, arguing that their collections, which are “encyclopedic” in scope, give them the ability to depicture the world as one [1]. Furthermore, the signatories argue that the objects acquired whether in the past or at present have become a part of the museum as well as the nation that houses it. Therefore the declaration and the signatories situate themselves in a defending position against the calls for repatriation of objects by highlighting the role the major museums play in rendering artworks widely available to an international public (“Declaration”). The contested declaration is considered to be an attempt to refuse to engage in the dialogue about the repatriation issue (Abungu). Many critics also point to the problem of the label “universal” in terms of its meaning, function, and outcomes; among others, the Artsy journalist Isaac Kaplan remarks: “while the term implies a hermetically sealed institution where knowledge floats above nationality, museums are actually political spaces tied to very specific histories and contexts”.
Arguably one of the most splendid examples of such an aim of “universality” is the Louvre Abu Dhabi, a controversial topic just like the declaration itself. The long-established Louvre Museum undertook an ambitious project by establishing a branch overseas in 2017, planned as a thirty-year agreement between the French Government and the city of Abu Dhabi. Within the limits of this intergovernmental agreement, the role of France was and still is to provide expertise and to loan artworks as well as the name ‘Louvre’ in return for over one billion dollars (Haines). This writing aims to examine, on the one hand, how Louvre promoted the “desert” branch as the first universal museum outside the West and legitimized the Project; and on the other, the content of the controversies and criticisms raised by this decision.
The French government’s decision of establishing a foothold abroad was made public in 2007, which until that time remained a secret from the public. The publicly expressed aim of the project was to “create together a museum destined to foster cultural dialogue by exhibiting works of major importance … spanning all historic periods,” and thus to form a universal history of human creativity as was said by French Culture Minister Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres, who signed the deal (Noueihed). However, it is known that the Louvre administration was reported to be “unenthusiastic” at the beginning of the plan, which indicates that the French government took neither the public opinion nor the opinion of a cultural institution into account (Riding). The subjecting of a government-owned cultural institution to commercial interests was criticized by the opposers of the plan and was compared to the example of Guggenheim. The criticisms relating to the underlying motivations for the Project, voiced especially in artistic and academic circles, include an accusation of Louvre of “behaving like a Corporation with a clearly defined strategy: profit maximization” and a criticism of the French government for exploiting cultural heritage as commodities and thus “selling the soul” of France (“Louvre Abu Dhabi Gets Green Light”.).
When the statements of the government officials and the managers of the museum- especially those of Jean Luc Martinez- are examined it can be inferred that the governmental decision was justified and defended mainly in two ways: one is by promoting it as a step that enables a wider circulation of knowledge as an act in line with decentralization and globalization of cultural goods, all serving to the agenda of reaching an alleged universal ideal; and the other is by making the French citizens sure that no permanent change will occur in the collection of the museum- to quote Mr. Donnedieu de Vabres: “There is no question of changing the Fundamentals of French cultural policies or museums. Above all, there is no question of changing the inalienable character of the works of France’s heritage. It is about making sure that they circulate and spread their influence through the world with a limited period of the exhibition”- and it was presented as a decision that “enhance the image of France abroad” as well as “help invest in French culture through revenues made form the deal (Riding). The discrepancy of the co-existing discourses of nationality and universality ascribed to the same decision brings to mind that the plan might be “an expression of hidden nationalism, of which universalism is the instrument” (Marceau). Since, through this limited and temporary circulation of art objects the museum act just enough open-minded about the discussions relating to ownership of cultural artefacts, issues of repatriation without actually participating in the dialogue with other museums on these issues.
Because contrary to the statements of the officials, the reasons for the opening of Louvre Abu Dhabi seem more nationalistic and political rather than universal and humanistic, considering the fact that UAE is a major ally and customer of France. Within this context, the funding of the museums in Saadiyat Island, the cultural district where Louvre Abu Dhabi is located marks another important point of discussion. Alexandre Kazerouni argues in his book “Sheiks’ Mirror: Museum and Politics in the Kingdoms of the Persian Gulf” that monies gained from the arms trade possibly been used to fund Louvre Abu Dhabi, a decision that is rather in opposition with the values of the museum. Furthermore, in line with the French government’s economic and political agenda that exploits cultural values for these ends New York Times reports that the new museum in Abu Dhabi serves also sort of a “payback” to the purchase of UAE of 40 airbus 380 aircraft and armaments worth of 10.4 billion dollars (Riding).
Jean François Charnier explains the stance of the museum as one that focuses on humanistic values in accomplishing a “universal museum”- which provides a uniting story of human creativity that transcends individual cultures, times, and places- rather than having an encyclopedic ambition in achieving the “universalism of the museum” as the institution has only limited number of works in its collection (“International Conference”). Charnier further indicates that the goal of the museum is to retrace global history and to produce a collective identity by bringing together works from different cultures and exhibiting them thematically rather than geographically or in a time-based order. However, granted that one is convinced that Louvre Abu Dhabi is indeed a universal museum, the question of its efficiency and sincerity in actualizing this quest is under suspicion, letting alone the elusiveness of such an ideal. Moreover, considering the allegations made concerning the looted objects with Iraqi origins and how exactly did they end up at the Louvre Abu Dhabi triggers ethical questioning relating to the purchase of these artworks (“Seeing”) that makes up the collection of the museum which is supposed to be governed by humanistic values. Another problem relates to the representation or the conveyance of concepts such as multiculturalism and universalism in relation to each other. The art history professor Joseph Hammond criticizes the museum for not providing a space that stimulates discussion and contemplation on the uniquenesses or the similarities of cultures as the labels do not provide enough guidance on “how and why the objects might look alike despite diverse origins” and “how despite their similarities these items were created, used and understood differently by different cultures.” Therefore it is valid to say that the approach of Louvre Abu Dhabi in creating a “collective identity” (Hammond) at the expense of ignoring the differences and particularities, which serve to enrich the human existence rather than causing division, seems to result in flattening out cultural differences and forming a superficial, mindless totality.
[1] Jean François Charnier, later on, dismisses the description “encyclopedic” in an international conference and highlights that, within the context of Louvre Abu Dhabi, the aim was to uphold humanistic values in creating a universal museum. However, these “universal humanistic values” remain unexplained to this day.
WORKS CITED
Abungu, George. “The Declaration: A Contested Issue”. ICOM NEWS. №1, 2004. canwas.uw.edu
“Declaration on the Importance and Value of Universal Museums”. ICOM NEWS. №1, 2004. canwas.uw.edu
Hammond, Joseph. “Louvre Abu Dhabi and From One Louvre to Another: Opening a Museum for Everyone”. CCA Reviews. http://www.caareviews.org/reviews/3575#.YGLBlWQza3I
Haines, Gavin. “At a cost of £1bn and five years late, controversial Louvre Abu Dhabi finally gets an opening”. The Telegraph. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/middle-east/united-arab-emirates/abu-dhabi/articles/louvre-abu-dhabi-to-finally-open-in-november/
Kaplan, Isaac. “The Case Against Universal Museums”, Artsy. 2016. Accessed 21 March 2021. https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-the-case-against-the-universal-museum
“International Conference: Notions of Universality in Universal Museums”. Universal Histories and Universal Museums. http://wp.lancs.ac.uk/universalhistories/events-2/international-conference-notions-of-universality-in-universal-museums/
“Louvre Abu Dhabi Gets Green Light”. Spiegel International. https://www.spiegel.de/international/art-in-the-desert-louvre-abu-dhabi-gets-green-light-a-470356.html
Louvre Abu Dhabi Website. https://www.louvreabudhabi.ae/en/about-us/abu-dhabi
Louvre Website. “The Louvre Abu Dhabi.” https://www.louvre.fr/en/the-louvre-in-france-and-around-the-world/the-louvre-abu-dhabi
Marceau, Cecile. “The Ethics of Collecting: universality questioned”. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-0033.2007.00616.x
Noueihed, Lin. “France signs deal to open Louvre in Abu Dhabi”. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-abudhabi-louvre-idUSL0657417920070306
Riding, Allan. “Abu Dhabi is to Gain a Louvre of its Own”. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/13/arts/design/13louv.html
Riding, Allan. “The Louvre’s Art: Priceless. The Louvre’s Name: Expensive”. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/07/arts/design/07louv.html#:~:text=the%20main%20story-,The%20Louvre's%20Art%3A%20Priceless.,and%20regions%2C%20including%20Islamic%20art.
“Seeing the Louvre Abu Dhabi in Another Light: Is it exhibiting loot from Iraq?”. Sarat. https://www.saratprojesi.com/en/resources/sarats-features/seeing-the-louvre-abu-dhabi-in-another-light-is-it-exhibiting-loot-from-iraq
