The "Amour" Exhibition: in praise of love or celebrating misogyny?

Reviewing this exhibition again (see my first review a few days ago), I’m still perplexed. What was this exhibition about ? I looked at the guide, by the exhibition curator Zeev Gourarier, and his choice (presumably) of themes is reasonably clear : "to explore the history of love relations … in order to measure the supposed universality [of love], its cultural and social components."  Yet the image of women presented in this exhibition is very negative, and it would appear the exhibition guide even supports this interpretation : « Starting with original sin, whether it stems from Eve or from Pandora, the exhibition emphasises the female figure. Stigmatised then adored, at times prudish, at times libertine, she occupies the exhibition up to the beginning of free love [amour libre] in the 1960s." 

What free love ?  I didn’t see any. Does amour libre mean something different to free love ? Why does a study of love emphasise Adam and Eve, the expulsion from Paradise, and Pandora’s Box? What do they have to do with love?  The Wikipedia entry for Pandora’s Box, for example, is more than 3,000 words long, but there is no reference to love. There might be a discussion about whether Pandora’s Box contains evils or good things, but love is not one of them.  According to the exhibition guide, « Pandora was created by the Gods as an object of seduction to arouse male desire, while Eve was created as the companion of Man ». In neither case does this involve love, just an unmistakeably negative image of women. 

The scene is set in this exhibition; from the start of history, women are inferior, responsible for the evils of the world, and they never really recover, especially after being seduced throughout the 18th century (of which more later, although it's clear even here that love has little or nothing to do with it). 

The Hesiod myth describes Pandora opening a cask, which released all manner of evils: “But the woman took off the great lid of the jar with her hands and scattered, all these and her thought caused sorrow and mischief to men [Loeb, http://data.perseus.org/citations/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0020.tlg002.perseus-eng1:83-108].” But love is nowhere mentioned in the original Greek source. 

Other images in the exhibition show the evil power of women (Samson and Delilah, Judith and Holofernes) and emphasises that classical art “condemns rape in principle but rarely condemns it in practice”, and by way of example, the exhibition includes a well-known mosaic image of the Rape of Europa, with Zeev Gourarier in the audio guide pointing out that Europa seems very cheerful to be abducted by Zeus. What are we to infer from this? Is this a model of love we should follow?

There is a horrific Allegory of Chastity  by Hans Memlinc that shows a woman surrounded by lions and sharp rocks to protect her reputation. Is that love? It's an attitude that will make many viewers scratch their heads to try to understand it. The handful of positive images of women are often unconnected with love, for example a Virgin and Child with saints. Where’s the connection?

We look in vain for positive images to correct these early misogynistic images. One image, from 1525, looks at first glance to be an expression of love, the exchange of rings, but the caption sternly reminds us that "the woman placing her hand on her partner's shoulder is doubtless not a gesture of tenderness but ... a seizing of power."

Apart from the very first room, which shows couples smiling, giving me the impression of a shared and equal love, there are no images of mutual, celebratory love in the whole exhibition. 

What is termed « free love » repeatedly by the guide is exemplified in Niki de saint Phalle’s rather self-centred and winsome expressions of love, without any partner in sight. They might be "expressing a power" but they are hardly positive images to be celebrated. Niki de saint Phalle is the only post-19th century artist in the show (ignoring the last corridor, which comprises hundreds of record sleeves from the 1960s, none of which are credited to any artist).  

Another way to see the limitations of this exhibition is to think about what could have been included. Without thinking for very long, I came up with several possible themes, to include :

•  Art that depicts genuine loving couples: Rubens and his wife, Rembrandt’s The Jewish Bride. 
•  Different forms of Greek love – not just Eros, sexual love, but  also Philia (affection, friendship) and Agape (love for others); what about Montaigne's celebration of friendship in his essay de l’Amitie?
•  Acceptance (or otherwise) of homosexual love: declarations of homosexual passion.  One or two images are included of classical figures who have been interpreted by later commentators as possibly homosexual, but what about modern unambiguous celebrations of homosexual love, for example by David Hockney ?
• A bit more light-heartedly, perhaps the exhibition could have explored the myth of Paris as the capital of lovers ? Where did that come from? Or perhaps this might not be thought appropriate for a show in Lens.

If you removed the main title from this exhibition and just asked viewers to suggest their own heading for the exhibition after viewing it, the collective title would certainly not be love. That's about as damning a comment as you could make of an exhibition entitled "Amour".