(5 of 5)
Did the Odalisque go to France not for "reattribution" but for sale? The Met's reply is that Daniel Wildenstein's opinion was needed, that the painting had to be compared with other Ingres in the Louvre and checked against Ingres documents he had. But the Met rejected Wildenstein's conclusion (he thought the painting genuine), and it seems easier to copy some documents and mail them to New York than to lug a large and valuable painting across the Atlantic. If the Odalisque went to Paris only for study, why conceal its whereabouts from other scholars?
In its answer to TIME, the museum defended "discretion" in its dealings, pointing out that other museums treat purchases or sales as confidential, and observed that many other institutions "conduct certain affairs legally, traditionally and responsibly" without necessarily being accused of secrecy. But the fact is that because of the Met's wheeling and dealing, potential donors may be scared away, finding other homes for their paintings or else entangling their bequests with a profusion of restrictive clauses. The solution can only lie, if the museum must sell, in doing it through public and open sales, preferably to other museums and with advice from the large scholarly community, which the museum's recent actions have so violently alienated.