Louvre part 2: history's painful lessons
david jacques Posted on Monday, May 28, 2012 at 1:50AM 
I like doing historical research by going to museums. Currently, my favorite is the Louvre, and this is my second time writing about it. I also view other cities as living museums, so that will also be in here. I promised this article would read satirical, I assure you, the content is serious.
After the stuff I saw and wrote about in my previous article, I saw some things that soured my taste for history. I stumbled into the Napoleonic wing and temporary exhibit of the Louvre. I didn't realize it at the time but I was supposed to pay extra for that. Based upon what I saw and how upset it made me, I'm rather satisfied that I didn't pay the extra for it.
If you thought you had any clue as to the opulence that some people enjoy or enjoyed, namely celebrities, royalty, etc. I'd say, we really don't know the half of it. As I walked through Napoleon's living quarters, I was rather astonished at the sheer level of gaudiness I saw. Crystal chandeliers, one larger and more extravagant than the next, burgundy velvet everywhere.
There was a rather small throne in one of the rooms, and though I could poke fun at his stature, that's not the point. Perhaps though the reason for the sheer level of greed on display is to make up for his own feeling of inadequacy on some level. That stretches to all extravagant displays of wealth. For example, the sheer size and magnitude of the living quarters, combined with the level of detail paid to the contents is shocking.
Sure, it could be reasoned that he "earned" it, but I think we all know that is a copout by people who think there are those better than them. It could also be stated, that by demanding such ludicrous things. He employed and thus supported a whole host of people all the way down the chain. Wouldn't it have been more helpful to instead have distributed that wealth and helped his people as a whole?
Perhaps that would have created a spoiled and entitled people. It could have been viewed as weakness by his enemies, or his people. Instead he had his gaudy quarters built, and had the Arc de Triomphe started. Mind you this Arc is so large and grandiose that it actually has two smaller arcs on its ends. So large it's virtually impossible to capture entirely on camera unless across the street.
That's with a wide angle lens and professional camera. Why on that scope? Again I think it's because he had something to prove. The Arc's saving graces are the tomb of the unknown soldier, which I doubt Napoleon would have allowed had he been alive to see the construction finished. It's only fitting that after the Emperor, a King had the Arc finished.
Now it plays a role, reminding us about the past, but do they see it as a warning, or just history? Perhaps Napoleon was also merely playing a role then, and in history, reminding us what not to do nowadays. Unfortunately that lesson and role has been repeated multiple times. Also unfortunately I think that sometimes those chosen for the roles step out of bounds. Thinking that they need to go farther and I think that actually sets humanity back.
I mean, this is all old hat by now, isn't it? Next up, we'll examine the recurring themes along these lines.
Class dismissed.
