I misunderstood you. Now I see. You object to the apparent chaos of the museum, to
its lack of detailed information, and to its seeming inconsideration of the
aesthetic and educational needs of visitors. Without diminishing such concerns, I
would point out that as a national museum the Louvre is obliged to serve an
extremely diverse audience -- diverse in educational backgrounds, among other
categories. I know the museum offers superb educational programs to those so
inclined. Some galleries may mismatch artworks and the decor, or cram objects in an
unpleasing and uninformative manner. But isn't "open storage" (no-frills
installation with a minimum of label text) preferable to sending such magnificent
works to the storerooms? What is truly unappealing is the museum's link with the
shopping mall. I remember the cold lobby with its polished-marble shops. Now it's
actually part of an underground mall? I haven't seen this for myself, but I wonder
if it is as offensive as it sounds?

Jason Edward Kaufman

Emanuel Andrade C. Sancho wrote:

> I understand the strong reaction against such a heresy as to express a negative
> coment about  The Louvre. However I want to insist in a few points wich I think
> hasn't been quite understood:
>
> 1 - The building is surely one of the tops of the man's creative capacity.
> 2 - The collections showed are integral part of the human kind heritage of the
> highest quality.
>
> My negative feelings about it, were particullarly on the following points:
>
> 1 - It is too big. Too many objects - lack of information about them
> individually
> 2 - Labirintic disposition. Departments are not separated and in the midle of a
> greek
>      sculpture room you might get in a corridor with XVI century painting.
> 3 - In exceptional beautiful rooms with XVIII century roof and wall paintings
> where
>      has been displayed  egiptian or roman sculpture, I felt shoked with the
> context.
> 4 - Watching the behaving of those thousands of visitors, running around all
> the time,
>      I believe that something is not right. Those objects would deserve much
> more.
>
> As a responsable for a small museum in an extreme of Europe and used to care
> for
> things like " How to call the visitors attention", "How much time does the
> visitor
> spend in front of the object exposed as a sign of his pleasure or interest for
> it", etc,
> I felt that there were a lack of consideration for the visitor in general, for
> the
> extraordinary importance of the objects (individually) and for the building it
> self
> (specially the interiors). Estatistically, I believe that The Louvre is
> probably one
> of the places in the world where visitors pay less attention per object.
>
> My desapoitment is that 98% of  the visitors of The Louvre are normal people,
> (no especialists or art investigators) beeing impelled to a stressfull and rush
> visit.
>
> In spite of having no supporters on my (confessed) over reaction against the
> museological conditions of The Louvre, I want to thank you all the interesting
> comments I have received during the last days.
>
> Emanuel