There is a major row taking place in France at the moment over the decision by the Louvre to make long-term loans to the High Museum in Atlanta and the future museum by Frank Gehry in Abu Dhabi in exchange for payment (see p21). What a pity. It is inspired by an unrealistic vision of the museum economy today, combined with chauvinism that sees such loans as a loss to France rather than an opportunity. Françoise Cachin and Jean Clair, both art historians, and Roland Recht, the historian, who published their appeal against the new policy in Le Monde newspaper on 13 December 2006, say that French museums are envied by museums the world over, especially in the US, for their public funding. Total public funding is, however, just a memory in France and, in any case, it was never enough. When I was a curator at the Victoria and Albert Museum (VA) in the early 70s, I was astonished to discover that the Louvre had far fewer curatorial staff than the VAnot nearly enough to cover the range of its collections. I was also shocked by how dirty and neglected the galleries were in that so-called heyday. Then came the Grand Louvre project, the no-expense-spared funding of capital projects by President Mitterrand, who rightly wanted the Louvre to be worthy of its glorious collections and past. Unfortunately, there was not the same generosity when it came to funding running costs, and so the Louvre found itself in crisis around 2000. The government's solution was to give the museum the right from 2004 onwards to keep any income earned, but to take on the responsibility for any shortfall in public funding. The truth is that the Louvre has to raise a lot of money if it is to be run according to the standard of public service that the great American and British museums have set. If the Louvre wants to re-display a gallery it has to find the money itself, and that is exactly what the nine long loan exhibitions to the High Museum in Atlanta will pay for. The decorative art galleries, which were looking very sad indeed, will now be completely re-presented. The great masterpieces such as Raphael's portrait of Castiglione will be missing from Paris for no longer than an ordinary exhibition. There is not the slightest reason to suppose that the works are unsafe in the very professionally run, modern, High Museum (the fact that Coca Cola has its head quarters in Atlanta, as emphasised by the three protesters, is irrelevant except as a sign of their anti-Americanism). The exhibitions from the Louvre are already being splendidly promoted and have given rise to excellent educational programmes; the citizens of the American South are having an artistic feast. And why not? I can only think of one disadvantage to museums sharing their collections around when they have more than they can put on display at any one time: it is annoying for the scholars who need to examine a specific work to discover that it is not where they expect it to be. Against that, think of the advantage to the wider public. Quite rightly, the Louvre has decided to make numerous long loans for free from its collections to the depressed northern French industrial town of Lens. But are only the poor to be saved? We should all rejoice that the rich Gulf States are beginning to look to the West to give themselves some cultural depth. When Abu Dhabi and Qatar and Dubai start to want museums and libraries to collaborate with our universities, this is our opportunity to exercise soft power (as opposed to the sort we are exercising so disastrously in Iraq), to make ourselves known, to enlarge the areas of common dialogue. Of course, it would be delightful if the Louvre could afford to lend its works for nothing, but the reality is that it cannot. The museum's new policy is not a scandal, nor is it unique in Europe, as the protesters say, because the VA has been contemplating a similar arrangement with Hong Kong for some time. What would be a scandal, however, would be if (Le Monde, 11 January) the French Ministry of Finance were to help itself to part of the e700m Abu Dhabi is said to be paying. This is where the lobbyists should be directing their attention, not to keeping the stores of the Louvre crammed with unseen works.