The Center Pompidou, model of French cultural policy?

The numerous studies on the Georges-Pompidou National Center for Art and Culture (CNAC–GP) are accustomed to insisting, rightly, on the singularity of the project, its exceptional character. It is true that in many respects (architectural, financial, legal, artistic, cultural), this cultural institution is extraordinary and appears without ancestors or posterity. However, far from the image of “ aerolite placed in the heart of old Paris », of the « énigme » put forward by the art critic André Fermigier, or «Â spacecraft » promoted by its designers Renzo Piano and Richard Rogers, the CNAC–GP is part of a genealogy as much as it establishes a new relationship between politics and culture. Genealogy, explored by Nicolas Heimendinger and Boris Hamzeian [1]has been the subject of efforts by the institution to retrace its history. What about “ the aftermath » ? The CNAC–GP was he at the origin of a new tradition, a new way of making culture an extension of politics ? Yes, yes CNAC–GP was able to serve as a model for major works or presidential projects in the field of culture, we can wonder about the future of a “ Utopia » very concrete, some of the key ideas of which still structure today the debate on the «Â French cultural exception ».

The Georges-Pompidou Center, the first of the major presidential cultural works

While Charles de Gaulle had given André Malraux carte blanche to conduct the “ cultural affairs » Throughout the 1960s, things changed with the presidential election which brought Georges Pompidou to supreme power in 1969. The latter had tastes and skills which led him towards modern and, to a lesser extent, contemporary art. If he left his ministers of cultural affairs (four in five years, from Edmond Michelet to Alain Peyrefitte, with quite different styles) a certain latitude in the conduct of cultural policy, he did not hesitate to give them advice and instructions, and above all to intervene directly in the field of culture, in particular in the context of Expo 72 (“ 72 artists for 1972 ‘), a review exhibition of contemporary art at the Grand Palais which turned into a political fiasco with the intervention of the police and the withdrawal of a certain number of artists. 1972 is also the year in which Georges Pompidou, in an interview with the newspaper Le Monde, expressed his passionate desire “ that Paris has a cultural center like we have sought to create in the United States with hitherto unequal success, which is both a museum and a center of creation, where the plastic arts would coexist with music, cinema, books, audiovisual research » [2].

This idea of ​​a cultural center had been in the making for three years already, since a restricted council of ministers in December 1969, when Georges Pompidou announced his decision to create in Paris a large cultural institution focused on artistic and cultural modernity. It found its sources in the project of “ you museum XX^e century » imagined by Le Corbusier a few years earlier as well as in the large library project which was missing in Paris, but also in institutions such as the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington D.C. We can add certain European museums (the Moderna Museet in Stockholm, the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam) which, under the leadership of avant-garde directors (Pontus Hulten in Stockholm, Willem Sandberg in Amsterdam), had added to the heritage function that of creation and, even more widely, had become multidisciplinary places open to societal issues. The Maisons de la Culture desired by André Malraux were also able to inspire Georges Pompidou – even if their success was uneven – again with a concern for mixing the arts and the public. The difference here was the direct, personal and prolonged commitment of the head of state who would watch over the birth of the Center which would bear his name, by decision of his successor Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, to the end of his powers.

Institutional spin-offs

The latter, also keen on art and culture although in a less modernist version, launched in October 1977, a few months after the inauguration of the Center Georges-Pompidou, the project of a museum of art and civilization of XIX^e century in the Orsay station, which his predecessor had saved at the last minute from the demolition to which it was promised. In doing so, he took up not only the idea of ​​a place open to the diversity of forms of expression (fine arts, furniture, architecture) but even the legal form of project management best suited to ensuring the smooth running of the project over time, that of the public establishment. 1977 was also the year in which the architect Robert Taillibert was commissioned by Valéry Giscard d’Estaing to carry out a study on the possible reconversion of the old slaughterhouses in La Villette. His report concluded that this building could house a museum of sciences, techniques and industries, which was announced by the President of the Republic during a visit to the site on August 8, 1978. A few months later, a decree created the public establishment of the park de la Villette responsible for developing the site. At the same time, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing announced the creation of an Arab World Institute, imagined in 1974 to ease tensions between France and the Arab countries and “ promote knowledge of Arab culture and civilization by the French people HAS”. On February 28, 1980, the founding act of theTHERE IS.

As Jean-Philippe Lecat recalled, who was his last [3] Minister of Culture, the president’s intervention in each of these files was uneven. In the case of the Musée d’Orsay, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing imposed the procedures and means of acquisition, personally chose the architectural project among the six which were in competition, and fairly broadly set the program for the new establishment. On the other hand, for the Cité des sciences et de l’industrie, an international competition made it possible to select Adrien Fainsilber’s project, a project which was reminiscent of that of the Center Pompidou, in its dimensions, its futuristic architecture (including the famous Géode), the design of a place open to the Cité, the association of a museum and a library. As for the Institute of the Arab World, a first project provided for the construction of a building on land located in the 15^e district of Paris and belonging to the State but which was rented to the Paris town hall. The architect Henry Bernard was chosen after an engineering consultation with four teams, a procedure criticized for its lack of transparency. He was dismissed by the government resulting from the presidential election of May 1981.

Just as Valéry Giscard d’Estaing (under pressure, it is true, from his Prime Minister Jacques Chirac) did not ultimately call into question the Center Pompidou project despite his lack of taste for contemporary architecture and, more broadly, for the very concept of the cultural center, so did François Mitterrand, barely elected President of the Republic in May 1981, confirmed that the “ major cultural projects » undertaken by his predecessor would be carried out, in the name of republican continuity and respect for the word of the State. But these projects were changed, sometimes very significantly, to respond to the criticisms that had been made and to correspond to the new spirit of the times. Thus, Orsay opened more widely to the history of XIX^e century (there was even thought of installing a steam locomotive there) and social movements, without however the president following the idea of ​​his Minister of Culture, Jack Lang, of “ give this place another vocation and another layout HAS”. On the other hand, the project THERE IS was profoundly modified, with the movement from the 15th^e district where it aroused opposition from local residents and the mayor of Paris around the 5^e district, near the University of Jussieu, as well as the choice of another architect, Jean Nouvel, selected following a national competition which made it possible to distance itself from the choices of the former president. As for the Cité des sciences et de l’industrie, it was decided to flank it with a Cité de la musique in the Parc de la Villette, which was initially to include a “ popular opera » – which, as everyone knows, was finally built on Place de la Bastille. The three institutions were inaugurated at approximately the same time, between 1986 and 1987.

Pompidou, matrix of French cultural policy

The construction of the Grande Arche to complete the development of the Tête Défense, the enlargement of the Louvre, “ returned to the History of France “, the reconstruction of the Théâtre de l’Est in Paris, the opera project at the Bastille, the transfer to Bercy of the Ministry of Economy and Finance, a room for “ rock, jazz and popular music “In Bagnolet: the monarchical logic of patronage but also Parisian centralism established a form of continuity beyond political alternation.

We nevertheless observe a change of scale, first because President François Mitterrand had more time than his predecessors, then, because he demonstrated unprecedented obstinacy, a desire to build and leave his mark on the urban landscape. HAS” In any city, I feel like an emperor or an architect “, he wrote in La Paille et le grain (1975). Perhaps nowhere has the personalization of power that candidate Mitterrand denounced and that President Mitterrand knew how to use to his advantage been more vividly manifested. Two points, in fact, were particularly remarkable in these announcements. First of all, most of these projects were not among the “ réalisations de référence » promised by candidate Mitterrand ; the surprise effect was considerable, reinforced by the personalization of the decision-making and communication process. Secondly, Paris took the lion’s share, while the program of the socialist presidential candidate had emphasized the urgency of decentralizing the action of public authorities, including in cultural matters. Hence the rapid announcement of around forty “ major presidential projects » in the regions, the cost of which, however, was not equivalent to the investments planned in Paris. The second seven-year term of François Mitterrand was less lavish in new projects, the most notable being the construction of the very Great Library – which will be given the name of its founder just as the name of President Pompidou was given to the Beaubourg Center. But when will the projects of the first seven-year term be completed? was even the great cultural affair of the second.

Thomas Hélie underlined the importance of the reference to the Center Pompidou for the great cultural works of President Mitterrand, a project both used as “ symbolic reference » (the « Beaubourg of music » proposed by Jack Lang in La Villette, the «Â Beaubourg of the Arab world » which was censored by the otherTHERE IS) and like “ strategic resource » to neutralize right-wing opposition to its own projects [4]. Indeed, the support given by Jacques Chirac to Mitterrand’s projects, in particular to the Pyramid desired by Mitterrand for the Grand Louvre, is partly explained by the memory of the support given by Mitterrand to the Center Pompidou against some of his political friends – for example Dominique Taddéi, national secretary for Culture and critic of the Center Pompidou as a symbol of Parisian centralism Let us recall that the new president’s first official outing, in June 1981, was for the Center Pompidou, in the company of Claude Pompidou, in whom he found a strong ally (with Pierre Boulez) to convince Jacques Chirac to support him on the Grand Louvre project.

But, as Claude Mollard pointed out elsewhere, the Beaubourg influence was even deeper. The former general secretary of the Center Pompidou between 1971 and 1978 even saw it, by stretching the line a little, as “ matrix of French cultural policy “, at least that of the 1980s and 1990s [5]. On the one hand, the Beaubourg project made it possible to develop the rules for piloting large cultural projects (in particular the idea of ​​a small group, “ commando “, able to manage these projects, to circumvent or force legal and administrative obstacles, to move quickly, “ créer de l’irréversible » to avoid them being called into question during a change of political majority). On the other hand, a number of actors in the Pompidou adventure then made their way into the circles of Mitterrando-Langien cultural power: François Barré at the Plastic Arts Delegation then at the Architecture Department before taking charge of the Center, Germain Viatte at the direction of the Mnam and the African Arts Museum and of Oceania, Alfred Pacquement at Mnam and DAPFrançoise Cachin at the head of the Orsay Museum before taking charge of the museums of France, etc. But the essential, perhaps, is elsewhere: according to Claude Mollard, “ the Beaubourg matrix inaugurates and conditions part of the policy which will impose itself in the following thirty years: there we find the ambition to leave a lasting mark on cultural life through “machines” to democratize culture, a strong dose of functional deconcentration and decentralization in the management of establishments, but also a stated desire to encourage to creation » [6]. We could add other strong points present from the beginning, which have structured the Center Pompidou program without always being able to sustain it over time: the decompartmentalization of disciplines and audiences, interdisciplinarity, artistic education, internationalization [7]. Ideas which still animate current debates on French cultural policy.

Une machine é démocratiser ?

On most of these subjects, it seems an exaggeration to make the Center Pompidou the place where French cultural policy at the end of the century originated. XX^e century. These themes pre-existed the CNAC–GP and, for some, had already found forms of realization (for example, as we have said, the breaking down of disciplinary barriers within the framework of the Maisons de la culture). It remains that the Center Pompidou appears in retrospect as the place par excellence in which these various themes and ideas were able to materialize, solutions to be tested, limits, perhaps insurmountable, to the voluntarism of public action, to be put in place. obviously.

Thus the democratization of culture, a major imperative of all cultural policy since, at least, the Popular Front (or even the French Revolution). Extending the benefits of culture to the greatest number, allowing access or even participation of a majority of French people (if not all) in cultural life, was early considered as inseparable from the republican and democratic project, its very condition, in despite the recurring weakness of the means committed to achieving these objectives. Cultural institutions, in particular large establishments financed with public funds, were designed, Claude Mollard is right, as “ machines émocratiser HAS”. The figures produced by the CNAC–GP seems to attest to the success, at least partial, of this mission. The average annual attendance, in recent years, has been around three million visitors. ; although there are no official cumulative attendance figures, we can estimate between 200 and 240 million the number of people who have passed through its doors since their first opening in 1977. A success which was immediate (20,000 people per day in the first weeks, while we hoped for 5 000, 7 million visitors in the first year) and which has hardly been denied over the years. Some major monographic exhibitions attracted hundreds of thousands of visitors, like the two exhibitions Dali (1980 and 2013), Kandinsky (2009), Lichtenstein (2013), Soulages (2009), which each attracted between 500,000 and 800,000 visitors.

This undeniable success (although misleading due to the counting system which confuses visits and visitors, the same visitor being able to be counted several times if he accesses different areas of the building) is it nevertheless a guarantee of a true “ democratization », if we mean the social enlargement of the audiences of culture [8] ? We can doubt it, reading the different studies on the audiences of the CNAC–GP. « Le public de Beaubourg reste léternel public cultivé » notes Olivier Dufour in 1987 [9]like Gérard Vincent two years earlier: 26% of visitors belong to the liberal professions or are senior executives (who only represent 5.6% of the active population), 3% to the working world (which then constitutes around 35% of the active population). The surveys also note an over-representation of Parisians and higher education graduates. Thirty years later, “ nothing has changed », confirmed in 2017 by Bernard Hasquenoph and Marion Rousset. « The typical user is always Parisian and qualified. In 2016, the museum welcomed 1% workers and 12% employees and service personnel. » [10]. The CNAC–GPfrom this point of view, is no exception to the rule observed from the first sociology surveys of the public in the 1960s: cultural institutions attract above all a well-off and qualified public and the so-called policy of “ cultural offer » carried out by all governments since that time has led this public to intensify its practices rather than broadening its social base.

Usages légitimes et illégitimes

However, the studies carried out on the CNAC–GP invite us to qualify this observation, showing that it applies mainly to exhibitions, less to the public information library and even less to the public who frequent the forum. We could speak of isomorphism between the social position of the different audiences and the floor where the activities are located in the building, from the least to the highest. The case of the BPI is interesting in itself. Draining some 40% of visitor flows, the library mainly attracts a student public but also a whole public of readers… and non-readers who come to look for a pleasant place in which to spend a few hours.

Laurent Fleury, in his book on “ the Beaubourg case “, insists on the diversity of uses, including those which are not considered as “ légitimes » by those responsible for cultural action. Recalling in passing that the CNAC–GP was “ at the forefront of empirical knowledge of audiences through attendance surveys “, that he was as much a “ observatory » that a «Â laboratory » of cultural practices, it shows that the scholarly or serious delight in art is only one of the possible uses of such a place and that there are numerous modalities of material and symbolic appropriation of spaces and contents. He also emphasizes that the CNAC–GP was a pioneer in the establishment of mediation, animation and pedagogy systems (conferences, guided tours, introductory workshops), contrasting with the haughty and mysterious conception of the relationship to art favored by the Ministry of Culture since its foundation, a “ public policy » which then spread to many cultural institutions.

Likewise, concerning the only BPIthe design of a free access library, with regularly renewed collections, open to all, where one can sit almost anywhere, the antithesis of the model of the National Library (except for the obligation to consult on site) constituted a small revolution in the then still very traditional world of public reading. We can add, another innovation, the opening in 1977 of a library for children, which opened directly onto the esplanade of the piazza » Beaubourg, a space entirely dedicated to welcoming children and with an offer entirely designed for them. With the BPIthis was the other – rare – reason for rejoicing that René Barjavel found in his famous article, both funny and severe, published at the time of the opening of the CNAC–GP [11]. The children’s library subsequently closed (replaced by the reconstituted Brancusi workshop) but its model was adopted in numerous municipal libraries. The place of children, more generally, has always been important in the Beaubourg project, as evidenced in recent years by the Children’s Gallery, the Children’s Workshop and Studio 13/16 (the first space dedicated to adolescents in a large cultural institution) which offered workshops and programs to raise awareness and experiences. artistic works adapted to young audiences.

« Beaubourg effect » and the internationalization of the museum

Le succès public du CNAC–GP was the subject of another type of criticism, this time from the angle of the massification and commodification of culture. This is, from the opening of the Center, one of the angles of attack most used by the project’s detractors, starting with Jean Baudrillard who, in the Beaubourg Effect, implosion and dissuasion published in 1977, believes that “ Beaubourg is for the first time on the scale of culture what the hypermarket is on the scale of merchandise » [12]. Beaubourg would be aimed more at consumers than at art and culture lovers; this criticism would often be used later, to the point of making Beaubourg the precursor, this time, of a liberal and mercantile drift of cultural institutions that had become cultural industries, machines for generating cash rather than the love of art. The very success of the “ monster exhibitions » would in reality signify the failure of a real policy of democratization, going against the post-68 ideals of breaking with the alienation of the commodity. Following the market, the rental of works for exhibitions abroad (instead of the usual free loan between institutions), the sale of the brand “ Pompidou Center “abroad would be as many “ evidence » of the distance from the initial project.

However, in addition to the commercial spaces, if we except the Flammarion bookstore which had been there since the opening (the publisher also had under concession the bookstores of the Arts déco, the Cité des sciences et de l’industrie, the National Library of France but sold the bookstore of CNAC–GP at the Meeting of National Museums in 2021), remain very modest inside the Center, we can also read some of these “ dérives » as so many signs of the success of a model admired in France and abroad. It remains that the concern to constantly increase the share of own revenues (both due to a relative drop in public budgetary allocations and the pressure from private institutions which have appeared in recent years in Paris and Ile-de-France), the race for profitability through the privatization of spaces, through exhibitions “ blockbuster “, through the transformation of patronage into sponsorship, indeed constitutes a worrying development, of which the Palais de Tokyo offers another example [13].

This is the place to point out a double movement of internationalization and decentralization which constitutes both a specificity of the Center Pompidou and a feature of the current era. International, the Pompidou Center was from the outset, if only because of the international competition which made it possible to select the tandem of architects, also international, Renzo Piano – Richard Rogers. He was also involved in the dual mission of making up for a certain number of French delays (in terms of collecting and exhibiting modern art but also in public reading) and of spreading the French cultural model, a mission assigned to him by President Pompidou himself, wishing to give to France and Paris an institution capable of competing with the great American museums and cultural centers. The choice to entrust Pontus Hultén, a Swedish museum man with a cosmopolitan vision, with the direction of the National Museum of Modern Art in 1973, eloquently testifies to this desire. For the latter, it was a question, with the emerging Center Pompidou, of “ situate Paris in the flow of trade “, and to place French artistic creation in a constant dialogue with international scenes. The major monographic and especially thematic exhibitions bear witness to this ambition, allowing artists and the French public to discover new geographies, not always Western (we are thinking in particular of the “ Earth Magicians » in 1989, « So China » in 2003, « Africa Remix » in 2005 or even «Â Plural modernities, 1905-1970 » in 2014-2015).

The creation of “ franchises †or “ antennas » Abroad, the multiplication of institutional partnerships outside France characterize the most recent period and the CNAC–GP is part of both an overall movement and its own particular path. An overall movement since in France and abroad, the largest institutions have tried to export (the Louvre, the Guggenheim Foundation, the Hermitage) while the smaller ones strive to establish partnerships allowing their exhibitions to travel. The Pompidou Center did it before and more than the others, establishing itself in Spain, China and Belgium, through operations at the limit of profitability but important for the prestige of the institution, thus becoming one of the spearheads of French cultural diplomacy. Its recent disappointment in the United States (the project planned in Jersey City will not see the light of day, by decision of the new mayor of the city who considers it out of financial reach) however shows the limits of a strategy which clashes with economic reality as well as geopolitical tensions. These limits are not specific to the Center Pompidou: signed in 2019, the project for a joint museum between the Giacometti Foundation and the Musée national Picasso-Paris in the heart of 798, a former military zone that became an artistic district in Beijing, never saw the light of day. The Rodin museum also saw its installation dreams come true in Shenzhen vanished with the pandemic, as did its project to set up in Santa Cruz de Tenerife, a port city in the Canary Islands, this time due to local opposition.

Decentralize the Parisian institution

As for decentralization, it has been a long time coming. The name “ Beaubourg Center » or « Georges Pompidou Center ” clearly indicates: here we had a new manifestation of “ Parisian centralism “, followed by many others from the 1980s to 2000, justified by the need to give Paris the means to fight in the international competition of large cities but contested by a number of actors and observers of political and cultural life.

Michel Guy, Secretary of State for Culture, had hoped that the CNAC–GP devînt the « decentralization power plant “, that is to say a network head for cultural institutions spread across the entire French territory. Initially, only the Industrial Creation Center was able to report cooperation with regions, taking the form of traveling exhibitions, at the risk of creating CCI « a simple provider of turnkey events [14] HAS”. In recent years, the Mnam rotated its collections through regional museums and attempted an experiment in “ Mobile Pompidou Center » which lasted two years and stopped due to lack of funding, set up Millesformes in Clermont-Ferrand, in Auvergne, a place dedicated to art for young children, but the big project «Â in region » Obviously remains the Center Pompidou-Metz opened in 2010, which took up the philosophy of the Parisian Center without itself constituting a collection.

That said, decentralization can also be understood in another way, by the example given by the Center Pompidou which inspired other places, from regional contemporary art funds that appeared in the 1980s to certain institutions such as the Carré d’art in Nîmes, art centers and museums in Amiens, Rouen, Nantes, Grenoble, or even the Champs Libres inaugurated in Rennes in 2006 (library, Museum of Brittany, Espace des sciences, place for exhibitions and meetings) “ including the architectural gesture of Christian de Portzamparc, the interdisciplinary spirit and the place given to current events also come from “the Beaubourg spiritâ€Â Â»Â [15] according to Laurent Fleury. Raymonde Moulin attributes the success of artistic decentralization in the 1980s to the influence of Beaubourg [16].

« Beaubourg Spirit and contemporary creation

We finally find this Beaubourg spirit at work in a certain relationship to contemporary creation. Originally, the Center was to include a Museum of Modern Art, a public library and the Industrial Creation Center (CCI) created by François Mathey, chief curator of the Museum of Decorative Arts. In 1971, under the direct leadership of Georges Pompidou, it was decided to also include a musical creation center entrusted to Pierre Boulez, who agreed to return to France, where he had ceased all his activities since 1966, and which was to become theIRCAM (Institute for acoustic/music research and coordination). These various components (with the exception of the BPI) were all conceived from the outset as instances of creation as well as dissemination, which contrasted with a French museum landscape generally refractory to contemporary art. Purchases on the art market for the Mnam, the public commission of the CNAC made the Center Pompidou a place of discovery and consecration for the new generation of visual artists (“ With Beaubourg, we moved from the concept of artistic creation to that of “plastic arts”. We introduced design, photography, video, comics, at a time when we only talked about painting and sculpture. This movement was amplified in the Ministry of Culture after 1981 ») [17].

This function of discovery tended to take second place behind the nagging question of the role that the Center should play: museum of the art of XX^e siècle ou centre dédié à la création contemporaine ? Likewise, the ambition of interdisciplinarity or multidisciplinarity, so strongly put forward during the first years (notably with the major thematic exhibitions) struggled to be translated concretely over time, each of the components preferring to hoe and weed its ready square rather than attempting improbable collective adventures. All were nevertheless drawn into the whirlwind of what is commonly called “the contemporary art dispute » in the 1990s, the Center Pompidou becoming one of the symbols of the institutionalization of the avant-gardes and a «Â out of print story » who would have established the reign of «Â anything and almost nothing » (Jean Clair), un art « null, official, fake – a pure creation of the market – with the active complicity of public authorities sensitive to fashion and network effects – while being cut off from the general public who would understand nothing and would have turned away from it [18].

Thirty years later, the contemporary art market is flourishing, collectors have never been so numerous, visitors flock to the doors of major events… and those of the Georges-Pompidou Center for Art and Culture have closed for a new renovation which will last five long years.

Conclusion

At the end of this journey, it seems quite obvious that the CNAC–GP has not been without influence or posterity in a whole series of areas, from artistic and cultural mediation to contemporary creation, including public reading, artistic decentralization and even major cultural projects. Less hapax, therefore, than model or “ matrix “, to use the term used by Claude Mollard, of French cultural policy, but also a more or less willing witness and victim of its excesses, of its impasses, of the reduction of public budgets to the massification-commodification of culture.

Today there is much talk of a return to the original project, which would be prepared by the renovation work which has just been undertaken. This seems doubtful, as the artistic, cultural and institutional landscape – without even mentioning the geopolitical context – has changed since the 1970s. But if the Georges-Pompidou National Center for Art and Culture can once again be this agitator of emotions and reflections, this incubator new ideas that he was during a good part of his existence, then this work will not have been undertaken in vain.