Defending Versailles

Since the topic of Contemporary Art seems to be cropping up more and more, here are two images of works by Japanese artist Takashi Murakami on exhibit at the Chateau de Versailles, where, two years ago, Jeff Koons hung his lobster and other oddities.

Murakami, about whom I know nothing, has been called "one of the most famous artists of our time" by Jean-Jacques Aillagon, president of the Château de Versailles and of the organization that manages and makes policies for the "national domain of Versailles".

Note: The fact that I know nothing about him is not necessarly due to his lack of fame but to my lack of knowledge.

Aillagon goes on:

"The confrontation of his fame with that of the Château de Versailles allows us to measure the extent to which, over and above the centuries that separate them, the masterpieces of the past can have a dialogue with those of the present, and those of the present with those of the past."

His reasoning is preposterous.

The French never stop using "dialogue" as a justification for all things, as a cure-all for all conflict, as a weapon for silencing dissent. Do not be critical. Instead, talk talk talk... Proponents of modern music do the same thing. "Listen to this new work and you will surely hear echos of Bach, Mozart, or Schubert... ," they say. As if they must rescue the new works from certain anonymity by "vampirizing" the masters of the past, whose presence haunts them, and whose blood is needed to inject life into the lifeless works being ejected from wombs of artists lacking inspiration. "Inspiration" refers to a divine presence, the breath of the Divinity is in the great artist who has no choice but to serve his art, otherwise he would be betraying his divine mission.

I don't know what kind of dialogue could take place between Murakami's colorful and whimsical, albeit irrelevant structures and the fabulous mirrors, chandeliers, architecture, paintings and HISTORY of Versailles, representing the height of the French monarchy. What are we supposed to see? A connection? A continuity of Art from the 17th to the 21st centuries thanks to Koons or Murakami? A mutual admiration society?

As I said in a comment to the post on the elephant of Avignon, this is all an attempt to glorify the ridiculous and ridicule the sublime. I may be off the mark, but I'm beginning to see it also as an extension of "métissage" in the realm of Art. Versailles is quintessentially French. Bringing in exhibits by Americans and Japanese, among others, only adds to the confusion already created by the grotesque juxtaposition of the sublime and the ridiculous. Not only must Versailles accept inferior works, but these works must be by non-Frenchmen.

There was (and still is) a petition to stop this exhibit that can be viewed until December 12, and there is at least one organization working to stop the trashing of Versailles, which has become a kind of really cool venue for displays of Contemporary Art. French readers can check Versailles Mon Amour. So far there are well over 5000 signatures.




A demonstration was held at Versailles by the opponents of Contemporary Art on the day after the exhibit opened. Le Parisien derided their rally headlining its article "The Anti-Murakamis have their circus". The article said that about fifty demonstrators had shown up with objects such as toilet seats intended as a parody of Contemporary Art.

However, some Le Parisien readers disagree with this figure, and with the whole exhibit:

- Why give this figure of fifty demonstrators? There were more than 200 people at the entrance of the Château and not fifty as indicated in the article. I was there and I can confirm this.

- The politics are very clear: trivialize the Château de Versailles, a property of the reigning BOURBON family that is both private and diplomatic. Very few people understand this aim of Louis XIV. We want to conserve the original character of this monument to the glory of French civilization, the noblest and most beautiful in the world. Its trivialization into a vulgar posh museum for pseudo modern artists is an anti-French policy. I signed the petition, but could not attend since I was 800 km away. That's why there were so few people.

His last statement was ridiculed by another reader. It IS funny - as if his presence would have changed everything. He may mean that lots of people who signed the petition were far from Paris. Or, maybe he does after all mean that his presence would have been equivalent to hundreds.