Louvre Atlanta limps to the finish line by Catherine Fox

Art & Design

Louvre Atlanta limps to the finish line

By Catherine Fox | Sep 4, 2009

I can’t say that I’ve ever changed my mind in print, though I’ve done it in my head many times. Writing about the final rotation of works in the High Museum’s “The Louvre and the Masterpiece” — published in the Sept. 6 AJC — gave me that opportunity.

When I revisited the show, I found myself mystified by my enthusiasm when it opened a year ago. The newest focus exhibit, prints from the Rothschild Collection, was a delight, but the rest of it looked like a strand of pearls that had snapped, leaving the luminescent little orbs scattered about the room, much diminished by their isolation.

In other words, the “masterpiece” idea was a flimsy and unsuccessful framework. The lack of context left the works stranded in incomprehension. In this, the show mirrors the larger enterprise, Louvre Atlanta, which ends Sept. 13.

While it brought some great treasures to Atlanta, the curatorial premises of many of the individual exhibitions didn’t do the contents justice. Seeing great artworks is one thing; seeing them together in a way that makes them more meaningful is just as important.

In today’s review, I mused a bit about the three-year project:

A product of the High’s admirable energy and entrepreneurial spirit, Louvre Atlanta was important in many ways. It drew 1.2 million visitors, whose admission fees keep the museum going, and established it at the leading edge of a strategy of art-sharing that benefits institutions both object-rich and object-poor.

The numbers suggest that many visitors enjoyed the opportunity to see these works without a trans-Atlantic flight, or to see familiar works in a different context. Yet viewers with different interests expressed regret that Louvre Atlanta sucked up space, money and attention that might have gone to more intellectually substantive projects.

It’s a tough balancing act. Now more than ever, museums feel pressure to mount shows that draw crowds. The Catch-22 is that crowds now expect spectacles. Hopefully, the High will be able to find a middle path in its next partnership, with the Museum of Modern Art.

There’s plenty more to be said about Louvre Atlanta, which represents a strategy the museum deems critical to its future, and there will be other thoughts and other voices on this subject right here on ArtscriticATL.com. In the meantime, I hope that you will use this space to share your thoughts on this and other subjects.

5 Comments

Jerry Cullum

1

Something vital went out of the show when the number of examples highlighted for comparison (as “masterpieces” versus “average” examples of a genre) was reduced and some others of what I regarded as the linchpin pieces had to be swapped out for work that failed to make the original point. You were enthusiastic about the show when it opened because it was a better show, in terms of defending its thesis. Simple as that.
Or that’s my opinion, anyway.

04 Sep
Scott Ingram

2

Well said Cathy. I’m not sure the “space, money and attention” did anything to raise the profile and better position Atlanta as an arts and cultural community.
1.2 million visitors sounds like a lot but, I’m guessing it wasn’t even enough to cover the cost of such exhibitions.
love the blog, keep it up.

04 Sep
Cathy Fox

3

Scott,
Glad you like the blog.
As for the Louvre, it’s so complicated. It probably raised the High’s profile in certain quarters but not its standing as a serious institution. Which is to say, I agree with you.

04 Sep
Cathy Fox

4

Jerry, Thanks for bringing up that point. You are right; It was a better show.
I still feel ambivalent about the Louvre enterprise. Love to hear your thoughts….

04 Sep
Susan Cofer

5

I had the exact same experience as you when I went back to the last show. The new configuration seemed stretched thin. Not even the true masterpieces could hold the space. As I look back on the entire experience, though, I gained something from every one of the exhibits. Seeing the true masterpieces in my own hometown caused me to reassess my own art and all the art of today. If one doesn’t travel much and can only judge art by reproduction and the art held locally it’s possible to have lower expectations of what art can be about. Let’s hope the Louvre experience makes for better art patrons and better artists. I have to add that if given the choice I probably would have preferred Cezanne and Beyond.

04 Sep

ArtsCriticATL.com

Art & Design