Paris Picasso Museum Demoted

That's very interesting. I was at the museum in 2016. I was disappointed as I didn't think the collection was as large as I had expected and didn't represent all the periods of his art as well as could have been done, e.g. there were only 1 or 2 paintings from his blue period on display. I also checked online to see where it was rated with other Picasso museums and it was #5 on that list. I will be very interested to see what others on the Forum think about the demotion in triangles.

The ones in Malaga and Antibes definitely punch above their weight class, I will say that. :-)

Overkill, been there done that and it is just an opinion. Every major museum has some Picasso stuff. Then there are museums in Antibes and Malaga.
The one in Barcelona features the Blue period.

So either the museum was overrated by Rick for all those years or something about it changed in the last year to make it worse in some way.

Or Rick or Steve Smith or whichever of his guides was assigned to that chapter changed their minds....

Well yeah, someone changed their mind. It's just that changing your mind about it doesn't just magically happen, something must have spurred it. I guess without being able to read their minds we will never know. I just wondered if there was a more tangible reason obvious to all.

It's a mysterious process that results in the application of triangles. Another example is the promotion of the Pitti Palace in Florence from two to the coveted three. Someone obviously changed their mind about that as well. I wonder why.

People and their tastes simply do evolve over a life time.

Perhaps it's by comparison to other sites?
Possibly there are other places that are new or more interesting, so this particular museum moves down on the must see list.

Yeah that's true, but a triangle change really doesn't happen all that often. Also, I would have to presume that the triangle application has more to it than just Rick's taste. There are three triangle sights I'd be willing to bet Rick doesn't even visit much anymore because once you've been to them countless times you taste for them diminishes. He however won't demote them because he knows they are three triangle sights regardless, especially for those who have never been to them. A good example is Versailles. Rick rates Versailles as three triangles and Vaux le Vicompt as two even though he says in multiple forums that he personally prefers Vaux to Versailles. He rates it the way he does despite his personal taste because he writes for others.

Yeah Liz, that could be. But that would necessitate some sort of rule stating there can only be so many two triangle sights allowed which I don't think is the case. Also I don't really think there is anything new in Paris that compares to the Musee Picasso.

The museum presented a stupendous Picasso-Giacometti exhibition in 2016-2017 that investigated the friendly and formal relationship between them. That alone should have maintained the museum's status. https://www.museepicassoparis.fr/en/picasso-giacometti

What does it matter? Those triangles are just someone's opinion on what should be more or less important to the first time visitor. If they don't state why it was changed, don't worry about it.

If you like Picasso,, go to the museum. If you don't like Picasso, don't go to the museum. If you don't like Picasso but go anyway because some guidebook suggests it, then you are spending your money taking someone else's trip and not yours.

I’m just amazed that apparently people sit down with last year’s guidebook and this year’s guidebook and cross reference. Congratulations I would never have thought to do that.

The museum in Paris is the art used to pay inheritance taxes and so the family gave the state lesser work. I have always thought it a fairly disappointing collection.

janetravels44, thank you for that information, it makes me feel better about being so disappointed when I went.

I just found it interesting that previous RS books gave it a two triangle and also an entire chapter dedicated just to the museum putting it on the same level as the other major sites in Paris. It had an entire chapter, not just a description in the "sights" section. It is quite a change to go from that to one triangle and literally barely a paragraph about the museum in the latest guidebook. I mean there must be an explanation for this. This is a great museum and the old guidebooks were very helpful for it. I do compare guidebooks as it's not uncommon for me to buy each years new book for cities like Paris. It is frankly a fairly jarring change for a guidebook connoisseur like me. Thought there might be some insight as to why.

It's completely valid for a person to be disappointed in the museum. I've read endless reviews and opinions about sights in Paris and you can find people underwhelmed by literally every single sight in the city. That is fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. That's why guidebooks are helpful while individual reviews and anecdotes are not. Typically Rick's have been spot on. If you follow the triangle system the vast majority of people won't be disappointed. This in spite of the odd contrary opinion. If you want my opinion, I thought the museum was excellent, not just for the excellent content but also the setting and display, and imho I prefer it to the Pompidou if you are interested in a one time dose of modern art in Paris. That is of course only my opinion. I also visited it 5 years ago so things could have changed.

I’m just amazed that apparently people sit down with last year’s
guidebook and this year’s guidebook and cross reference.
Congratulations I would never have thought to do that.

I was thinking among these lines except I'd replace 'amazed' with impressed. But now I'm also intrigued. This is the type of info that can keep me distracted for hours from doing my Saturday chores....so thank you.

I would certainly never encourage someone to go see Picasso if they don't like modern art. I just happen to like him and thus my question on the demotion. There are sights that one "has" to see regardless of taste or opinion and in the RS world they are the three triangle sights. The triangles do matter in that sense. Of course this all devolves into a debate about subjective/objective beauty and importance. The triangles are in fact an attempt to bring an objective view to the formulation of opinion on things to see in a particular city. Because there is always a subjective element the triangles cannot be perfect but in general, and by a wide margin, RS has been pretty good at identifying and ranking the things MOST people care about. On the other hand, if one wants to take a purely subjective view, then the triangle ratings really mean nothing at all. A person might fall in love with some small town in rural Brittany and feel that a visit there is more important and enriching than any visit to the Louvre. That's fine but it won't be in my plans for taking my parents to France on their one and only visit.

In regards to the comments about comparing guidebooks, it has been a natural tendency for me to compare cities like London, Paris and Rome in regards to how RS rates the sights. For instance which city has the most three and two triangle sights. To me this is one piece of information to add to an equation which answers the question "what is the best city to visit in Europe?" For someone who has never been to Europe and may take only one trip in their life this might be a valid question to ask. Or at least the quantity of highly rated sights might be a factor in deciding. It's also fun to apply my own subjective opinion in comparison to how RS rates. For instance I feel Rome is far and away the best city to visit in Europe. By RS standards however it has less two triangle sights than Paris or London. By triangles London is the best city to visit. I do feel though that there are a handful of sights in Rome that RS rates one triangle that if those places existed in any other city they would be two triangles. That again is just my opinion. This all probably seems a little crazy, but for someone who gets to travel once a year I have a lot of time on my hands the rest of the year to think about traveling and this is what you get.

I don’t know how the museum was rated in the past, but always wanted to give it a try. This year we did, and I was disappointed! Other museums have famous painting by Picasso and unless you really are into everything Picasso, I suggest you skip it (Unless the Museum Pass is burning a hole in your money belt and you have lots of time), Maybe it was just overrated and the reality is catching up to it.

Periscope, wouldn't you say that if someone has never been to Paris they "have" to see the Louvre, Notre Dame and the Eiffel Tower? Wouldn't a first time visiter "have" to try a crepe, macaroon, wine, cheese and dinner at a nice French restaurant? If not, why go anywhere at all. Or, instead why not just pick a random point on the globe and go there? To some people that might seem like a great idea, but for a first time traveller to Europe who is interested in history, culture and the best Europe has to offer it would be a wasted opportunity. Also, opinions change and in my experience anything rated three triangles by Rick is more likely to change an opinion in a positive direction in favor of that sight. Another example would be UNESCO world heritage sights. You are very unlikely to come away disappointed by a visit to one of these sights. In the US a great example is the National Parks. Almost nobody comes away saying "I though it was going to be so great but it really wasn't." Instead it is much more common to hear "I thought it would be good but it was so much better than I expected." Would not every National Park merit a "must see" designation in any guidebook?

Jim, you may be on to something as to why the designation has gone down. I don't know. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and again in mine, on my visit 5 years ago it was highly enjoyable and definitely two triangles. That's why I wondered what has changed. It very well may be worse now. That's what I don't know.

Periscope, well maybe someone forces you to visit the Louvre and afterwards your life changes and you are inspired to visit the Art Institute. After all opinions do change and often it is at the spurring of another person's opinion pushing you in a new direction. Do you dispute my point about the UNESCO and National Parks?

And the National Parks?

Like I said. You'll always find someone who thinks something is overrated for whatever reason. It's like ice cream. I'm sure if I go around internet forums talking about how awesome ice cream is i'll find someone who hates it. The point is that in general, and by a wide margin, most people agree on the three triangles, UNESCO and the National Parks. And most people like ice cream.

wouldn't you say that if someone has never been to Paris they "have"
to see the Louvre, Notre Dame and the Eiffel Tower?

I disagree that a first time visitor, or any visitor would "have" to see any particular sight. It is good to research the major sights, but then decide if there is something about them that interests you or not. Then go to only what does. Don't like heights? Don't go up the Eiffel Tower. Not in to cathedrals? Don't go to Notre Dame. Not a fan or patron of the arts? Don't go to the Louvre. Personally, I have been to Paris a dozen times and have never visited the Picasso Museum (not a fan of most of his later career), the Centre Pompidou (don't really like so-called "modern art") or Versailles (I try to avoid oppressive crowds and lines). Some would disagree. That is their choice, their trip and their prerogative. My point is, don't go to somewhere simply because it is on someone else's list. Look at what others find interesting, measure those attractions against what interests you, and plan accordingly for your own trip.

Phil, valid points. I do think there is something to be said for the fact that peoples interests change also. Very often we are introduced to something we never knew we might like and we change. My wife for example was not all that interested in the Eiffel Tower. She imagined it was just a tall radio tower looking thing and what was the big deal. After visiting, because I took her, she was blown away and it along with the Louvre are her top favorite things about Paris. The point is that if anything might change a perspective and impress someone who imagines they aren't interested in that particular thing it's the three triangle sights in RS.

I disagree that a first time visitor, or any visitor would "have" to
see any particular sight. It is good to research the major sights, but
then decide if there is something about them that interests you or
not. Then go to only what does. Don't like heights? Don't go up the
Eiffel Tower. Not in to cathedrals? Don't go to Notre Dame. Not a fan
or patron of the arts? Don't go to the Louvre.

Theoretically you're correct, but there needs to be a starting point. Our first trip to Europe was to Rome in 2014. I never new that I wanted to go to Europe until my wife said I did, and so we planned a trip around the blockbuster sites. We went to the Vatican with no expectations and no appreciation for art. We left blown away. I'm still not much of an art guy, but I now have a fascination for religious history that I seek out wherever I go. All thanks to following the herd.

Exactly Allan.

My husband quotes Flannery O'Connor in a situation like this. I couldn't find the quote on the internet but it involves choosing what students are required to read for their education. We don't let high school literature students choose what they are going to read for class. They are assigned reading. The assigned reading is for their education. The assignments will include certain writing styles and certain topics that reflected upon the times. Any person that hasn't read Hamlet or The Scarlett Letter is missing something.

If you are traveling for rest and for beauty only, of course choose a nice beach. If you are traveling as part of your education as a world citizen, then paying attention to "triangles" is important. If you don't think that seeing The Winged Victory is important, you just might be wrong. One doesn't admire her for just personal reasons, she is an important statement regarding human development.

I got a good lesson in this recently from my 25 year old son. We sometimes travel together and will be in Paris for 2 days at the beginning of a WWII themed trip. He is "not an art guy". I knew he would want to go to Invalides, but wrongly assumed he wouldn't want to go the Louvre. "Mom, it's the Louvre, I need to see those things, right?". Yes, he was right, of course he was right.

Nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head to see certain things. I don't go to sites based on Instagram popularity. But I do want to be educated by my travel and I do pay attention to "triangles".

I did visit the Picasso museum in Paris this past September. I was there for 2 weeks and it made my list. I enjoyed the museum. I enjoyed the exhibit about his daughter. If I had only one week in Paris, I would not include it on an itinerary. I think one triangle is about right.

In the US a great example is the National Parks. Almost nobody comes away saying "I thought it was going to be so great but it really wasn't." Instead it is much more common to hear "I thought it would be good but it was so much better than I expected." Would not every National Park merit a "must see" designation in any guidebook?

Ever see the Subpar Parks series?

https://ambersharedesign.com/products/subpar-parks-national-park-one-star-review-print

Apparently there are at least a few people who aren’t impressed with National Parks, haha.

The debate over "must see" sights and triangles is interesting. I am still wondering how a sight goes from two triangles and a dedicated chapter (for years) to one triangle and barely a paragraph. In regards to a cultural education on modern art the Musee Picasso is absolutely fantastic. Name an artist that one would need to know more about than Picasso to understand art from the last 100 years.

Cezanne is my favorite artist, and I chose the Eastern France tour partially because it ends in Aix, which has Cezanne related sites. Cezanne wss barely mentioned while on the tour, and our guide told us that Rick doesn't care for Cezanne. I did not take it personally.

Liz,
That would be a good comparison if not for the fact that the situation I'm talking about now is one in which it appears Rick did care for Picasso, for years, up until this year.

I am a firm believer in two opposite points of view. Go see what interests you, not what everyone else tells you to see and try something outside your interests and expand your thinking. These two different points of view get along quite well in my trip planning.

I was in Malaga and did not have any desire to see the Picasso Museum. I didn't go. I was in Seville, wasn't really sure that I was that interested in Flamenco, but a travel companion was and I went to the show. Still not a big fan of Flamenco, but I understand it a bit better now. Sometimes, you just don't go. Other times, you give it a try. Both work.

PS I did not go to the Louvre on my first visit to Paris and did not feel deprived! I went to the Pasteur Museum instead and was delighted. It is all about determining what your "must sees" are and then leaving some room to try something new.

bradweber.....why don't you write to Rick and demand to know why. It seems it's really bothering you.

So you visited the museum when it was two stars and liked it. Now that it has less stars, does that mean you like it less?

We don't let high school literature students choose what they are going to read for class. They are assigned reading. The assigned reading is for their education.

So what you're saying is adults shouldn't be allowed to choose where they go and what they see. It should be done for them. There is something like that. It's called a tour.

This thread reminds me of the kids game "Simon Says." You can't make a move unless Simon says. Here we have a version of "Rick Says. " You only go to places Rick says you should go.

We don't let high school literature students choose what they are
going to read for class. They are assigned reading....

...If you are traveling as part of your education as a world citizen, then paying
attention to "triangles" is important.

So you think Rick Steves and team should be the arbiters of what we as adult travelers are "assigned" for our travels? How many "triangles" must we pay attention to in a 4-day trip? How about a week? How about on our repeat visits? Are we then permitted to pick what we want to see for ourselves? This sort of thinking is why people go to Rue Cler and mostly see other Americans desperately clutching their RS blue and yellow guides and trying to decide if they are getting a good score for their vacation. Instead of seeing views and samples of French culture that appeal the them personally.

oh don't be ridiculous -- if you have never been to a place before it is very useful to have someone with some expertise suggest high points -- of course you also triangulate -- using your other research to refine your plans -- but as a total newbie to an area, it is very helpful to start with the top ten and at least be familiar with what those as you build your trip plans.

I'm with Rick on Cezanne whose work I find generally dull and Provence is not near the top of my favorite areas of France -- but the world is full of people who adore his work and presumably would not seek my advice or Rick's on Cezanne related sites. I have found the Pompidou generally a bore, but there was an exhibit there this fall that blew me away and they did a Walker Percy photo exhibit a few years ago that was worth the trip as well.

I find everything interesting and appealing so I need guidebooks like RS to help me narrow down to something manageable - I was just thinking about this w/r/t the Frankfurt museum pass that CWSocial mentions in her trip report this week -- the pass is good for two days and allows entry to more than 30 museums and exhibits -- either I would need to get multiple passes to string together or I would need someone who has already been through most of them to tell me what's what.

I ran into a clever quote today that fits some of the comments on this thread -
it's from Paul Klee, the Swiss modern painter, who said,

"Art should be like a holiday: something to give a man the opportunity to see things differently and to change his point of view."

This would also go with my forum thread from last year about holidays vs. vacations, but I think that one has probably closed.

Triangles are ratings which you can agree with or not. We went out of our way on one trip to a highly rated site with several RS triangles. It was a wasted day for us, wished we had skipped it. At other times we agree with ratings. We always go to Picasso museums if they are in a location we are visiting. There is one in charming Antibes, for example.

For me, this was the most interesting topic of the week, sadly though it appears the answer for the original question will remain a mystery. I get that hotels and restaurants can be up and downgraded, but it seems to me it would be rare for an attraction like the Picasso Museum. In the overall scale of things, it doesn't really matter, but I will also remain curious. Perhaps one day Rick will call me and ask for my advice and I'll get a chance to question him on how he and his staff rate places.

aren't we glad to see places having the rating changed? I am. It means that somebody thought about the presentation of the guidebook and made decisions about what would be written (or how many little felt triangles to cut out and stick to each property).

To me that is a good sign. I'd much rather have that than have everything static and each edition just reprint what was in the previous.

Different folk have different preferences, as do the bulk of the public Rick is trying to help, and fashions come and go.

Personally, in all my trips I have never been into either the Picasso museums or the Pompidou - I don't like modern art, and especially not Picasso. It could have 10 triangles and I still wouldn't go.

This is fun.

If you've seen Matisse's cutouts at his house in Nice or in museums and liked them, you might consider checking out Picasso's forays into cutouts, also, like Matisse, done mostly late in his life.

Recent article:

https://www.nybooks.com/online/2022/12/06/cut-mold-reshape-tear-picasso/

Link to exhibition at the Hammer Museum in LA:

https://hammer.ucla.edu/exhibitions/2022/picasso-cut-papers

The exhibit closes this week, sorry!

I suspect this material will reinforce both the pro- and the anti- Picasso sentiments expressed in this thread.

To me, the quality of the Picasso museum entirely depends on the current exhibit. Permanent collection is fairly uninteresting compared to what you can see elsewhere in Europe, or even at Pompidou. So, "1 triangle/star/whatever" seems appropriate to me!

I haven't been back to this thread since my last comments which received quite a bit of wrath.

@periscope nobody gets to tell you what you like and don't like. I am not familiar with the work that you were required to read. But it is truly a shame that apparently you didn't learn what the class meant to teach you. That choice of reading material was important for a particular reason. It wasn't for your enjoyment, but for your education. Too bad you missed out on that. And if you are too cool to listen to advice from others why come to the forum at all? Is it that you feel the rest of us could benefit from your experience but not you ours?

@Frank II-give me a break. Of course I am not suggesting that adults should be required to visit certain sites or see certain things. Are you suggesting that high school students should be in charge of their own education? That seems to be happening more and more and I don't think it is going so well.

@pharmerphil-I am surprised that you fell into the same trap as to suggest that I think travelers should only see what they are told. I am surprised because I have been finding your advice about Normandy very helpful. It seems you have an above average passion and knowledge of the area. I have trusted your experience to help guide me in what to see on my upcoming trip. If I remember correctly you had some pretty strong opinionions about what is worthwhile and what is not. I can assure you that I am taking what you have said into consideration and then making my choices from there

@ongonos-I wouldn't be bragging about not reading Hamlet, but seeing the movie.

I simply used this reference as an analogy. When I was in high school and college and post graduate school, I benefited from the knowledge and wisdom of others to guide me in my education. As I am still interested in learning throughout my life I am still looking to receive advice from others. I know a lot about Rick Steves. I have experience comparing his outlook to my own. It tells me something when I see how many triangles he assigns. I don't think that there are too many experienced travelers who only visit the things that Rick feels are the most valuable, but it is a helpful reference. It is very helpful to inexperieced travelers that aren't practiced at figuring out what to see and how to see it. The threads are filled with questions like "I am going to France, what should I see." I am very grateful to Rick that he helped me get my travel shoes warmed up and pointed in the right direction.

The biggest point I was trying to make is that for all of the bluster about how certain folks here don't need anyone to tell them what is important to see, that really isn't true is it? How would you know what was significant in our human history without being told? I think that if you are too cool for triangles you just might miss out on something. So maybe you are too cool for Rick, but there is no need to act pompously.

@vandrabrud

I can assure you that I am taking what you have said into
consideration and then making my choices from there

Exactly. As should everyone. But this goes quite contrary to your comments above that:

We don't let high school literature students choose what they are
going to read for class. They are assigned reading.

There is a huge difference between "recommended" reading, and "assigned reading." Stars, triangles, etc. are all fine and good. But one must always only take the as a (someone's?) recommendation and not a requirement.

@periscope, it looks like we have something in common after all. And no, I am not retired.

@Phil-but I wasn't suggesting that adults be assigned things to see, only that after experiencing the positive affects of having been assigned reading as a child in high school, that an adult may understand that experienced, educated folks might know what they are talking about.

Of course, see what you want, but occasionally see what you otherwise wouldn't on the advice of someone else. In my family we call it "eating someone else's pizza". If you choose your someone else wisely, you are in for a treat.

Yikes, I take a 2 day vacation from the Forum and my favourite post from the past couple of weeks goes downhill. I'd like to thank my High School teachers for my assigned reading. All Quiet on the Western Front, A Tale of Two Cities, and Taming of the Shrew are three that come to mind that have left lasting impressions and helped shape my travels. It's rare now that I don't include a classic on my reading list prior to a trip. Who knows if I would ever have had an appreciation of literature or history without guidance through those teenage years.

A lump of coal to those who took an innocent comment and twisted it out of context.

What happened with Rick and England?

Rick filmed a selfie video while behind the wheel of a car. That's against the law in the UK:

https://www.lep.co.uk/news/traffic-and-travel/american-travel-writer-who-filmed-selfie-video-wheel-m6-admits-he-goofed-after-being-told-cumbria-police-664994

Isn't it against the law everywhere?

Oh yeah, I remember that now.

I will say I’m not sure what Rick accidentally breaking a law like that one has to do with whether or not his guidebooks are valuable. I think an honest assessment would conclude they are highly valuable, especially for new travelers or those looking for good recommendations. For instance, I’ve eaten at bad restaurants in Rome and very good ones. There are many ways to attempt to identify a good restaurant but in my experience, Rick’s recommendations are spot on and sure fire. Of course that can’t be 100% and I’m sure there are critics out there who want to indulge their contrarian inclinations but for the average traveler he’s spot on.

Can someone save me the trouble of googling what each of a 3-lane highway's lanes is for in England?
Is the left lane for entering and exiting, the middle for passing, and the right for through traffic?

simples.

left lane for all traffic. Also for leaving the motorway, and and entering it.

next lane for overtaking the car to the left. not for undertaking the car to the right. when overtaken, move back left.

next lane (pretty rare to have more than two except in highly urban motorways), for overtaking the car in the middle lane. when overtaken, move back left.

and so on.

But - what does this have to do with Picasso?

Well, Picasso himself did not drive, but once he became well off he kept a car and chauffeur, usually an Oldsmobile:

http://phscollectorcarworld.blogspot.com/2017/11/lost-star-cars-rides-of-pablo-picasso.html

And I bet that, like Rick Steves, he would be prone to occasional risky behavior like using a smartphone on the roadway - if there had been smartphones. I wonder if we could search out evidence that Picasso ever drew or sculpted or cut-outed any art while in a moving car?

Well it turns out I've been so vexed by this question I decided to come to Paris and find out for myself...I'll be heading to the Picasso museum tomorrow.

Also, I've had this trip planned for awhile. I didn't really just decide to come to answer this question :)

Not sure if anyone is still interested but I did just visit the museum in question today. I have to say I was absolutely shocked at how poor it was. Rick is generous giving it a one star. It was completely different from when I visited a few years ago. I am completely baffled. There was a fairly interesting exposition on Picasso's life in California on the top floor but this was mostly video and photography with a handful of his works on display. Other than that there were zero Picasso works on display. Unless they were hiding in some other part of the museum I missed. ZERO in a museum that is supposed to be about Picasso and which does in fact posses more works by the great man than any other museum in the world. The other two floors of display were exhibitions by one of Picasso's daughters and some other artist I'd never heard of and who lets face it is just derivative of Picasso anyways. I have never heard of a museum removing all its permanent collection to display exhibitions nobody really cares about. It is absurd. I am now wondering why. Why would the museum do this? Especially when the museum was so good before. It is very odd. There were spaces occupied by his works previously which are just blank now. Blank, empty rooms where works hung. The empty walls and white spaces almost have a deliberate feel. Like white out. What is going on? Does it have something to do with the retroactive, inane, pathetic, pointless and futile attempt to "me too" Picasso? To destroy the greatest artist since Michelangelo? He is a monumental figure and I suppose in this age of destruction and erasure I guess the monuments have to go. Is this what is going on here?

thanks for the update... maybe Rick was right?

There were indeed more than one article this winter about Picasso and 'cancel culture' but I don't think that explains the current state of the materials on display at the museum.

https://www.lavanguardia.com/cultura/20221227/8658005/filosofia-woke-cancelamos-hoy.html

Note that this above is about Barcelona; I haven't had a chance to look at the news regarding Paris.

I'm not sure what's going on at the Picasso Museum in Paris. I assume there's some information on the Internet, somewhere, beyond what I've described in the next-to-last paragraph below.

I think it was during my trip this year (Sweden, Norway, Finland, England, northeastern Italy) that I encountered a lot of Picasso works in a museum labeled as belonging to the Paris museum. It made me think, "I wonder what's left?" I'm sorry I don't remember where that was, and I admit it's possible I'm wrong about the timing, because I go to dozens of art museums on each trip.

The only other time I saw so many works by one artist borrowed from a single museum was in Zagreb in 2015, when I caught a special Rodin exhibition that seemed to be made up overwhelmingly of pieces from the Rodin Museum in Paris. But Rodin was a sculptor, and there are multiples of many of his works floating around, so I assumed a lot of the material from Paris had just been removed from storage.

I believe finances are behind a lot of museum loans, and sometimes they're related to building works that would require taking the material off display for some time. My first thought was that there might be an impending renovation at the Picasso Museum. I don't know for sure, but I think it's conceivable that it would be more expensive to insure works placed in storage that works transferred to another museum for temporary public display, and I imagine the borrowing museum would be responsible for the insurance premiums in the latter case.

However, according to a lengthy and interesting article about the PM published in The Guardian in late 2014, the PM was closed from 2009 until late 2014 for a renovation, so it's hard to imagine that another significant one is now in the offing.

I don't know what's happening here, but I found this November 2022 response from the museum to a rather negative October review on TripAdvisor: "In 2023, we will be celebrating Picasso's fiftieth year anniversary of his death. All the masterworks of the collections will be presented in an exclusive exhibition starting on March 7, 2023. We hope to see you then." I don't know why they would have to strip most of the Picassos off the walls to plan for an exhibition that doesn't begin for two more months, but I'm often surprised at how long parts of a museum are closed in preparation for a new exhibition.

One thing I'll say for French museums: When a substantial part of a museum is empty or inaccessible, a reduced entry fee is often charged.

Not sure if anyone is still interested but I did just visit the museum
in question today.

I was just thinking about this post earlier today after this article popped up on my feed. I'm glad you got back to us. https://www.travelawaits.com/2846594/paris-museum-picasso-celebration-2023/

A little accidental detective work shows that some of the Picasso work -- cubist, in particular -- is currently on loan to an exhibit at a remarkable show at the Met in NYC:

https://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions/listings/2022/cubism-trompe-loeil

This show connects the dots between Picasso (et aliis) Cubist abstraction and the long tradition of realistic fool-the-eye trompe l'oeil artwork.

Good overview of it in the current issue of the NYRB here:

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2023/01/19/feinting-spells-cubism-and-the-trompe-loeil-tradition/

A snippet from the article: "a specific subset of Cubism—still lifes by Picasso, Braque, and Gris, almost all made between 1912 and 1914—around which they build an argument with objects made across four centuries: paintings, furniture, dishware, and a cavalcade of works on paper. Space is given to dozens of masterpieces and to revelatory bits of social and material history. The show’s thesis—that modern art’s celebrated gateway to abstraction took inspiration from the acme of painted illusion—may sound far-fetched but quickly comes to seem self-evident. All you have to do is look."