The day after the stunning jewelry heist at the Louvre in Paris, officials from across Washington’s world-famous museums were already talking, assessing and planning how to bolster their own security.
“We went over a review of the incident,” said Doug Beaver, security specialist at the National Museum of Women in the Arts, who said he participated in Zoom talks with nearby institutions including the Smithsonian and the National Gallery of Art. “Then we developed a game plan on that second day out, and started putting things in place on Days 3, 4 and 5.”
Similar conversations were of course happening at museums across the globe, as those tasked with securing art asked: “Could that happen here?” At the same time, many were acknowledging the inherent, even painful tension in their task: Museums are meant to help people engage with art — not to distance them from it.
“The biggest thing in museums is the visitor experience,” Beaver said. “We want visitors to come back. We don’t want them to feel as though they’re in a fortress or a restrictive environment.”
It’s an issue many are grappling with — most of all, of course, the Louvre, whose director, Laurence des Cars, has acknowledged “a terrible failure” of security measures, as have French police and legislators.
It was crystallized in a letter of support for the Louvre and its beleaguered leader, from 57 museums across the globe. “Museums are places of transmission and wonder,” said the letter, which appeared in Le Monde. “Museums are not strongholds nor are they secret vaults.” It said the very essence of museums “lies in their openness and accessibility.”
A number of museums declined to comment on the Louvre heist when contacted by The Associated Press, not wishing to discuss security while avoiding criticism of the Louvre at a sensitive time. French police have acknowledged major security gaps: Paris Police Chief Patrice Faure told Senate lawmakers that aging systems had left the museum weakened.
François Chatillon, France’s chief architect of historical monuments, noted nonetheless that many museums are located in historic buildings that were not constructed for securing art. This includes the Louvre, originally a royal palace.
“Faced with the intrusion of criminals, we must find solutions, but not in a hasty manner,” Chatillon told Le Monde. “We’re not going to put armored doors and windows everywhere because there was this burglary.”
Even within security, there are competing priorities, noted attorney Nicholas O’Donnell, an expert in global art law. “You’re always fighting the last war in security,” he said, emphasizing how museums have focused on recent trends of violence towards art rather than theft.
O’Donnell is certain that museums everywhere are reevaluating security due to fears of copycat crimes. The Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation, which oversees Berlin’s state museums, stated it is using the Louvre heist as an opportunity to review security architecture and calls for international cooperation.
Beaver predicts the Paris heist will spur museums to implement new measures. One area of focus is managing the access of construction teams, who the Louvre thieves disguised themselves as. “Our goal isn’t to eliminate risk, it’s to manage it intelligently,” he said.
The security measures must not detract from the visitor experience, as Patrick Bringley noted, “Museums are wonderful because they are accessible.” He cautioned that the heist threatens the welcoming spirit of such institutions.
“Art should be inviting,” Bringley said. “But when people break that public trust, museums will have to step up their procedures, which will make it a little less magical.”
