Is the museum a product that can be exported internationally?

It has been a while since, at the end of the 18th century, a few European men were lead by their concern about art to gather up the treasures of the past, along private collections, in dedicated locations in order to protect them. It was thus essential to take them away from everything that could put them into jeopardy : erosion, revolutions, ignorance or more simply stupidity…
The goal was not only to protect them but also to show pieces of art (sometimes for free) to the people. It was one of the actions of the French Revolution which created the Museum and thus the basis of what was to become the "Grand Louvre".

However, love for art and an almost religious stringency resulted in the creation of a sacred wall between art and the people. A piece of art in a museum was, it seemed, doomed never to leave it.

Throughout the different decades, museums, thanks to art historians, have classified, chosen and widen their collections until they presented them in a coherent spirit to represent a precise culture and time. Along with that, pieces were loaned and exchanged towards foreign museums. Further on, new museums settled around the original museum to show masterpieces or experimentations, with references to the time they belong. The Tate Britain - as it was renamed - with its three recently opened extensions, is a brilliant example, alike the Musée d'Orsay of Paris which is dedicated to the art of the second half of the 19th century and whose impressionistic collection appeals at every crowd.

Art, when showed this way, is part of a process of enlightenment and is thus source of knowledge. It calls out to the man of today to allow him to identify more efficiently the pieces of the past and thus to start thinking about Difference. The museum, and its crowds proves it, fulfils his duty to offer art to everybody. Moreover, it offers a quality of visit that undoubtedly leads to the birth of a personal artistic emotion.

That is why, the Western museum - or American/Western museum, with its unique scenography, is one of a kind. It appears as an original entity which is likely to widen its collection in the future. It thus becomes a product with a universal influence, and we are to wonder if it would be better for it to stay closely linked to one nation rather than to access the multiplicity of the world of tomorrow.

The first relocation of the museum is no doubt its access to the internet. That is why every museum is now represented by web pages, so much that each country is making up lists to facilitate the access to its museums.

One must pinpoint the success of the "Canadian Virtual Museum" which offers more than 500 exhibitions online, along with the viewing of all the collections of the museums of the country.

Though this media is revolutionary, it is only following the ancient spirit of the first museums, which is to show art to as many people as possible. It does not revolutionize the image of the museum, nor does it assimilate it to a brand of cultural excellence, which though seems to be today's main process.

All American museums, except the National Museum of Washington, are private institutions and we can easily understand that they are part of policy of voluntary expansion.
That very policy is upsetting the manager of the Metropolitan Museum of New York who is afraid that the museums may lose their soul throughout financial processes dealing with the lending of their pieces of art. But what is there to be said about the reinforced prestige of the Guggenheim Museum, process happening each time new installations are made on other continents? What about the prestige of Contemporary art going towards its audience?
One cannot help evoking the magnificent production of the box-like appearance of the building of the Museum. The architect that's working for it aims at creating a structure which is both in harmony with the target of the Museum and prone to reveal the Beautiful. The building ought to serve this purpose; it magnifies it and constitutes a genuine piece of art.

We all remember the Guggenheim of New York (1959) designed by Frank Lloyd Wright: Its inner spiral aims at confronting art and the sight of the audience, in a totally spiritual rising movement. This is Symbolism hinting at more symbols.

The Museum as a building is a genuine signal in the city. It is going to perpetuate its image as a testimony of the time when it was built. It is the case in Bilbao where Frank Gehry designed a building made of arabesques, a genuine architectural sculpture that expresses all too well the spirit of modernization of the City.

The project of a "second" Louvre was confided to the French man Jean Nouvel. It is to be built in Abudhabi, on the island of Saadyat, in 2012. This creation is part of a program of four museums that are to open on that very year: The Centre for Living Arts, by the Anglo Iraqi woman Zaha Hadid, another Guggenheim by Fran Gerhy and a Maritime Museum to the Japanese Tadao Ando.
All of this to prove that, as far as architecture is concerned, globalization has been existing for a long time.

The pieces of art that shall be transmitted to the future generations snap their brushes at the "national made-in". And, still, every time an international high-tech creation is made, national pride grows, throughout the aura of the citizens working on the great works of the 21st century.

Thanks to the huge financial means displayed, the Architect makes tomorrow reachable for everybody. A project, along with its fulfilment, shows how intellectually committed a country is. And that is why we will have to be able to distinguish the universal and humanitarian spirit of the Museum from the trap that awaits us if we intend to include it in a semi cultural El Dorado.

We've just figured out that the Museum aims at a universal symbolism which is looked for by a growing audience. The number of visitors of the "Grand Louvre" need not be commented upon: 8.3 million paying visitors in 2006, and as many people in 2007! And, thanks to the talent of the Japanese architects of the Sanaa, the first annex Louvre-Lens is to open at the end of 2010.

The first annex of the Centre Georges-Pompidou (by Shigeru Ban and Jean de Gastines) will open in Metz in the beginning of 2010. The museum thus expresses its desire to increase its international influence, as this area is considered as a bridge towards the Rhine area
The Centre is now busy trying to fulfil the project of a successful annex, ruled by the Chinese, in Shangaï. The centre would be in charge of the program. Observers are rather surprised as discussions are still being carried on since 2006, partly because of the commitment of the former president of France, Jacques Chirac.
In spite of the national competition that is to increase between Beijing and Shangai, it seems that the project is due to be completed, as the new museum is to occupy already existing buildings. However, the staff of Beaubourg is ready to settle in Asia: temporary pieces of art were produced at the end of 2007. This very project includes an outline of interactivity between the pieces of art from both countries, and one should take advantage of the extraordinary creative movement happening right now in China.

It is to be remembered that the Centre Pompidou owns 59 098 pieces of contemporary art, and only 1500 are actually shown in Paris. It is high time they were displayed to the visitors!
Obviously, many are those who think that a collection belonging to the nation is due to serve it as a medium of opening towards other cultures.

The Guggenheim, who was the first to advocate the concept of the globalized museum, must widen its resources by reinforcing its audience, precisely because it is a private institution.
French public museums are not in the same situation. They have to connect to the most dynamic areas of the planet to testify that the country wants to play a major role, and to assert its influence and its prestige.

Moreover, it would be a pity to minimize its backlash over international artistic creations simply because those annexes are profitable for the museums. Whether one likes it or not, cultural institutions have become businesses and one can easily imagine their acquiring new pieces of art if they get wealthy by their spreading away. The most important is that the audience, and its freedom to go, whenever it feels like it, towards a piece of art, is protected. Because it is still Art, obviously, we are talking about.