Image taken from the Louvre-Lens Facebook page |
When one thinks about the role of culture in urban regeneration the case
of Liverpool comes immediately to mind, as well as the work of J. Pedro Lorente
in analyzing this and other case studies of cities which attempted a revival,
more or less successfully, through culture and the arts. In the introduction of
the working paper The role of museums and the arts in the urban regeneration of Liverpool (1996), Lorente writes: “... any derelict area in the heart of a prosperous
city is bound to be revitalized by urban developers anyway. However, the
prospects of redevelopment are less likely when dereliction lays in the middle
of a declining city facing economic recession, unemployment, depopulation,
social/ethnic unrest and physical decay. (...) Liverpool is such a case: in the
last decades, everything seems to have gone wrong there, except the arts
(...)”.
In a way, Lens seems to be such a case too. It is a former mining town
of 35.000 people in the north of France, proud of its football team and hit
hardly by the crisis. Lens is also, since December 4, home to the new
Louvre-Lens,
presenting objects from the parisian museum´s collection, including highlights
such as Delacroix´s Liberty leading the People. In his speech at the inauguration ceremony, French President François Hollande used words such
as “regional development”, “cultural decentralization”, “cultural democracy”
and seemed confident that visitors will be coming from the whole region, the
whole of France, the whole of Europe and maybe the whole world (the annual
target at this moment is 500.000 visitors; 100.000 visited the museum in less than three weeks after its opening). On the other hand, Louvre President Henri Loyrette
explained in an interview for the newspaper El País:
“[when deciding on the location] what interested me was that it could have a
social character, not [to be] a city with culture. This is an industrial zone,
very much affected by unemployment and which suffered in all wars. It is a kind
of reparation.”
We are quite used to listening to politically correct statements, for
which almost noone is ever held accountable for in the years that follow, but a
museum that aims to compensate a region for its hardships is a new concept for
me. I read numerous articles and reports regarding this new museum, some of
which may be found at the end of this text, but I would like to highlight three
of them, which, in my opinion, raised some important questions.
On the french blog Option Culture, Jean-Michel Tobelem analyses the three challenges the museum is asked to face – attendance, territorial impact
and democratisation – and
argues: 1. although access is good and exhibitions are of high quality, the
building will not be enough to attract the large number of visitors those
wishing for a “Bilbao effect” are dreaming of; 2. even if visitors come in
great numbers, he doubts there will be an opportunity for wealth creation if
there is no infrastructure (hotels, restaurants, commerce, etc.) that would
respond to those visitors´ needs and make them want to stay longer and spend
more; 3. he also doubts that the chronological approach adopted in the Gallery
of Time, the educational activities proposed and open storage would actually be
able to attract what we generally call “new” visitors. Bernard Hasquenoph also
criticised official references to cultural democracy and decentralisation by
making a point in his article Louvre-Lens: la culture comme alibi that the region where Lens is situated could harldy be considered a “victim” in
terms of cultural offer and quoted the Louvre´s President who actually said
that Lens is a town in a “... region with a reputation for its exceptional
cultural dynamism and the density of its museum network”. Finally, Jonathan
Jones of The Guardian warns that The Louvre risks losing its magic with Lens move and calls the move “political correcteness gone mad”.
He urges british museums not to make the same mistake and to continue forging
links and promote loans between the capital and the regions.
These three texts resume my views on this subject. Lens is an hour away
from Paris by train. Does it really make sense (in the name of “cultural decentralisation
and democracy” or as a means of making amends...) to break up a world famous
collection, visited by millions of people living in France and also coming from
abroad, in order to take it closer to people that could easily have access to
it? And if this is not the case for all (which probably isn´t), wouldn´t it
make more sense to make transport to Paris more accessible to all those
interested in visiting the museum? Furthermore, in a region that seems to have
already got a rich cultural offer, wouldn´t it make more sense to support
existing structures and their links to the capital? Or, if it was actually considered
that it was the right time and place to create a new cultural venue, wouldn´t
it be more appropriate, in competitive terms as well, to create something
unique and distinctive of that region? Finally, if decisions were
made in the name of regional development, is the museum expected to perform a
miracle on its own, when basic, complementary infastructures are still not in
place?
Image taken from the Pompidou-Metz Facebook page. |
The case of Pompidou-Metz, which opened in 2010 with quite similar objectives announced by the then French President Nicolas Sarkozy, also comes to mind: a town that didn´t form part of
the usual touristic tracks, a bit more than an hour away from Paris by train; a
town with a rich cultural offer; a museum that was set up in an area previously given to industry, as part of a
plan to boost tourism; a number of highways that opened in the meantime in
order to facilitate access. Still, less than three years later, the museum
failed to reach its objective of 600.000 visitors for 2012 (read here). Has something gone wrong? Is there an
explanation for this? Is anyone evaluating this case at a time when a new
museum opens apparently set to serve a similar vision?
And with all this, I feel compelled to ask: what about Foz Côa? This is one of my favourite places in Portugal. I visited the prehistoric
engravings sites in 1999 and 2000. In 2011 I went back, this time to visit the
museum too, which had opened the year before. Although the whole project was seen as a major factor in the
region´s development (and it probably does attract more people to it), the
truth is that the only novelty I encountered was the museum itself, where, on a
Sunday afternoon of November, I was the only visitor. The museum café was
closed and I had to go back to town and face the almost impossible task of
finding something to eat at a place that looked deserted and which still hasn´t
got e decent hotel (or restaurant, for that matter) that would make people
consider spending the night there. Moreover, considering the touristic traffic
in river Douro, the plans to create a connection to the boats have still not
materialized, that is, there is still not a quay and a cable car that would
allow those visitors to get to the museum and visit the prehistoric sites.
I am not an expert in urban regeneration, so I can only express an opinion based on
some readings and on my experience as a visitor as well. And it seems to me
that, just like a swallow does not make a spring, it takes more than a museum
to guarantee the sustainable development of a town, a city, a region. There is
a lot to learn from the cities that were able to manage this successfully. It
took more than culture. And it took more than politically correct statements. There is a need, above all, for a strong political commitment and for the joining of public and private forces towards a clear common goal. Arts was not the only thing that didn´t go wrong in Liverpool...
Photo: José Paulo Ruas (taken from the Museu do Côa Facebook page) |
More readings
Louvre-Lens: helping a mining town shed its image, by Oliver Wainwright (The Guardian,
5 December 2012)
The Louvre comes to town, by Edwin Heathcote (The
Financial Times, 7 December 2012)
L´ouverture du Louvre-Lens, par Didier Rykner (La Tribune de l´Art, 4
Décembre 2012)
Louvre-Lens: lanaissance d´ un musée
(Le Monde, 5 Décembre 2012)
Le Louvre-Lens ouvre ses portes au public
(Le Figaro, 12 Décembre 2012)
Le Louve Lens, le succès en dépit des grincheux (Lunettes Rouges, 11 Janvier 2013)
Le Louve Lens, le succès en dépit des grincheux (Lunettes Rouges, 11 Janvier 2013)
Les musées se remettent en scène, para Valérie
Duponchelle (Le Figaro, 7 Décembre 2012)
What's the big idea behind the Pompidou-Metz?, Jonathan Glancey, (The Guardian, 6 April 2010)
Centre Pompidou: Metz gears up for its moment,
Natasha Edwards (Telegraph, 8 May 2010)
Museu do Côa, por António Martinho Baptista (Informação
ICOM.PT, Nº 16, Mar-Maio 2012)
Amigos do Parque e Museu do Côa, por José Manuel Costa
Ribeiro (Côavisão – Cultura e Ciência, Nº 12, 2010)
World-leading urban regeneration expert: “Liverpool has assets most cities would die for”, Liverpool Daily Post 9 Nov 2012
We built way too many cultural institutions during the good years, by Emiy Badger (The Atlantic Cities, 5 July 2012)
Philharmonie de Paris: a grand design turned £300m 'bottomless pit', by Angelique Chrisafis (The Guardian, 30 December 2012)
Mais e novos museus, por Joana Sousa Monteiro (Mouseion, 7 Janeiro 2012)
Philharmonie de Paris: a grand design turned £300m 'bottomless pit', by Angelique Chrisafis (The Guardian, 30 December 2012)
Mais e novos museus, por Joana Sousa Monteiro (Mouseion, 7 Janeiro 2012)
Videos
Le Journal du Temps: Lens, le Havre et une seule cause (André Malraux inaugure le premier musée –
Maison de la Culture en 1961)
No comments:
Post a Comment