http://www.ecole.org Guest Speaker Discussion Series Organised thanks to the patronage THE TITANESQUE STRUGGLE of the following companies : Accenture FOR THE LOUVRE PYRAMID Air Liquide* Algoé** based on the film ANRT AtoFina «La bataille de la pyramide du Louvre» Caisse Nationale des Caisses in the presence of its director d'Épargne et de Prévoyance CEA Frédéric COMPAIN Chambre de Commerce et d'Industrie de Paris with CNRS Jean LEBRAT Michel MACARY Cogema Former Chairman of the Établissement Architect in Partnership Conseil Supérieur de l'Ordre public du Grand Louvre with Ieoh Ming Peï des Experts Comptables Centre de Recherche en gestion discussion chaired by de l'École polytechnique Michel BERRY Danone École de Paris du Management Deloitte & Touche DiGITIP École des mines de Paris Monday, March 20th 2000 EDF & GDF at the Ministry of Research, Paris Entreprise et Personnel Report by Elisabeth Bourguinat Fondation Charles Léopold Mayer Translation by Rachel Marlin pour le Progrès de l'Homme France Télécom FVA Management Overview Hermès How is it possible to successfully carry out a construction project worth IDRH about eight million Francs, entrusted to a foreign architect who refuses, on IdVectoR Lafarge principle, to submit to a competition ; a project which is booed by Lagardère government officials in charge of historical monuments, creates a media Mathématiques Appliquées storm and raises huge and hitherto unheard of technical problems ? And PSA Peugeot Citroën Reims Management School all this, concerning one of the most treasured symbols of French culture... Renault Such is the background for Frédéric Compain’s film ‘La Bataille de la Saint-Gobain pyramide du Louvre’, compiled with interviews from the main actors in SNCF this epic story. Socomine* THALES A discussion with Jean Lebrat, former Chairman of the Établissement TotalFinaElf public du Grand Louvre, and Michel Macary, architect in partnership with Usinor Ieoh Ming Peï, followed the projection of the film. * For the "Tchenical ressources and innovation" seminar ** For the "Business life" seminar (liste at August 1, 2001) The ‘Association des Amis de l’École de Paris du management’ organises discussions and distributes the minutes ; these are the sole property of their authors. The Association can also distribute the comments arising from these documents. © École de Paris du management - 94 bd du Montparnasse - 75014 Paris tel : 01 42 79 40 80 - fax : 01 43 21 56 84 - email : [email protected] - http://www.ecole.org 1 THE FILM Frédéric Compain’s film is based on a series of extracts from studio interviews with the main actors in the so-called ‘battle of the pyramid’ : notably, the architect Ieoh Ming Peï ; his assistant Yann Weymouth, who kept precious sketches which helped illustrate different stages of the project as it progressed ; Émile Biasini, chosen by François Mitterrand to chair the Établissement public du Grand Louvre ; Jack Lang, Culture Minister at the time of the launch of the project ; Hubert Landais, former Director of the Musées de France ; Michel Laclotte, former Chief Curator of the Picture Gallery and first Chairman and Director of the Louvre ; Pierre Rosenberg, current Chairman and Director of the Louvre ; Jean Lebrat and Michel Macary, and also Michel Caldaguès, Mayor of the first arrondissement of Paris and ardent opponent of the project. By switching from one point of view to another in turn, the director achieves a very lively narrative which can even be comic at times when the characters present - each in his own very convincing manner - two radically different versions of the same facts : who was the first to suggest the extravagant idea of moving the Treasury in order to vacate the Richelieu Wing ? who had the great idea of entrusting the direction of the project to Emile Biasini ? As Jack Lang remarks « it’s strange how people’s memories reconstruct or change the events ». Essential building work Whatever the precise origin of the project, it was clear to everyone concerned that the museum was in a sorry state and that important work was necessary : the cour Napoléon was overrun by cars of government officials at the Treasury, and by postcard sellers ; the entrance to the museum was difficult to find, almost as if it was a disreputable place ; inside, the museum did not have enough space either to exhibit thousands of works of art which therefore had to be kept in vaults, or to organise the collections more coherently, let alone welcome the public : it lacked a bookshop, a restaurant, telephone boxes, toilets, etc. The choice of architect The first job of Emile Biasini was to sound out the architects. He immediately thought of Ieoh Ming Peï, but Peï, who had had his fingers burnt over the failure of a project in la Défense, was only prepared to accept the proposition if it was a certainty, in other words, if the project was not subject to a competition ; the French President gave his consent, and Peï got to work. Why a pyramid ? Peï started by coming on four different occasions to Paris in order to study the history of the Louvre but also to visit the museum incognito, making lots of notes which enabled him to make a diagnosis : the ‘L’ shape of the museum was not conducive to visits ; if the Richelieu Wing were vacated, then the museum would take the form of a ‘U’, making it much more compact, but the entrance would then have to be situated at its centre of gravity, in other words, right in the middle of the cour Napoléon. Furthermore, in order to prevent this underground entrance looking like the entrance to a métro, it had to be a big opening and one which would let in a lot of light. A horizontal glass roof would bring in light but not volume ; a high glass roof would bring both volume and light, and it would have the added advantage of making the entrance very visible. But what form should this modern structure, which was to be placed right in the middle of the cour Napoléon, take ? Ideally a simple shape, in its natural state, but one which at the same time had a symbolic value ; this shape also had to be the most discreet possible and not visually © École de Paris du management - 94 bd du Montparnasse - 75014 Paris tel : 01 42 79 40 80 - fax : 01 43 21 56 84 - email : [email protected] - http://www.ecole.org 2 obstruct the façades of the museum. The idea of a pyramid was accepted because the orientation of its sides avoided reflections which would have distracted the eye ; moreover, one only had to take a few steps in order to put the apex to one side and see the building behind. Determining the right angle of the slope presented a further difficulty : the pyramid should not be too high, but, on the other hand, if the slope was too slight it would give the impression that the structure was in the process of melting and getting flattened ; finally, the angle which was chosen was that which the Egyptians had used for their own pyramids, namely close to 51 %. The prince’s consent The first person to discover the pyramid was Émile Biasini when he went to New York to see Peï’s model ; it showed the cour Napoléon void of cars and trees. Peï then took a little pyramid out of his pocket and put it on its intended place. Following a moment of astonishment, Émile Biasini exclaimed « It’s like a diamond ! » The model was then presented to President Mitterrand. Since Peï insisted that no-one else should see it before him, his assistant had kept it shut in a box whose lid had been screwed on. Having inspected the model for a few minutes, the President asked « Is anyone repulsed by this project ? » ; a deathly silence came back. He then congratulated Peï and told him that he would not allow him to leave like Le Bernin, referring to the architect to whom Louis XIV had entrusted the completion of the Louvre and who had been banished by a coalition of French architects back in the seventeenth century. Public outcry A more difficult step was the presentation to the Commission supérieure of historical monuments which had to give its opinion before work could begin. Émile Biasini had warned Peï, who was not used to these commissions, that he most likely would be heavily criticised by the architects and inspectors who made up the commission, but that this would not in any way prevent the continuation of the project. The government officials, for their part, had received instructions to ‘kindly follow the government line, regardless of personal opinions’. Journalists were also invited to this meeting. Firstly Peï presented his project, then the discussion started. Criticism immediately came from all sides : what right did he have to cast a slur on the grandeur of this place ? During the slide show, under the cover of darkness, people were talking during Peï’s explanations, laughing at inopportune moments, making fun of this Chinaman, or shouting out « It isn’t Dallas here ! » etc. In the end, the translator was struck dumb and then burst into tears. According to Émile Biasini, whereas Peï had thought that he had come to meet representatives of French culture, the atmosphere he found was closer to that of a classroom racket. Little by little, however, the morning progressed, and when lunchtime approached, the government officials got up one by one, whereupon one of them took it into his head to ask when the vote would take place. Jean-Pierre Weis, Heritage Director, reminded everyone that the regulations of the commission did not allow for a vote systematically, and, in view of the circumstances, this seemed superfluous, inasmuch as everyone had been able to express his opinion at length, as the minutes taken at this meeting would surely show.