The space at Orsay is much smaller than that at the V&A, and as such there is a smaller amount of works on show, as well as the spatial arrangement being very different. The overall look of the show is similar however; the background colours on the wall being identical – purple and green. The most significant difference in the aesthetic of the show was in the use of text. While the V&A went with the traditional main text and label duo, the Orsay version added quotes by Oscar Wilde on the wall of each room. The emphasis on Wilde is surprising, since his role in the V&A version was reduced to his contributions to the Yellow Book. In the French version, Wilde is given prime billing, with an inclusion in the title. His presence is omnipresent throughout the show thanks to the aforementioned quotes. The reasons for this are hard to decipher. Historically, giving such predominance to Wilde (as opposed to Leighton for example) is questionable. The French curator, Yves Badetz, justifies this by stating that Wilde is iconic to the Aesthetic movement. 2

And indeed, this might be true for the French public. Many French reviews underline that the subject matter is quite obscure to the viewers.  While the name Wilde is familiar, the turn of the nineteenth century in England is not, and this show is clearly using the name of Wilde as a marketing ploy. Furthermore, the title of the exhibition itself, with the addition of the words Morality and Voluptuousness, is far more enticing in its mystique than The Cult of Beauty, as well as neatly echoing Baudelaire’s – a contemporary of Wilde - L’Invitation au Voyage’s famous rhyme “Là, tout n’est qu’ordre et beauté //Luxe, calme et volupté.” 3.  The title change, initially surprising, is reflecting the need for the show to market itself for a French public, both by calling upon knowledge of Oscar Wilde, and by hinting at a cultural context that is much more familiar to Parisians – Baudelaire and Paris at the end of the nineteenth-century.

One might wonder then, if the show itself has been similarly adapted to the French public? A good example is the use of the Peacock Room. While one might argue about how successful the V&A 360° view of the Peacock Room was, it is undeniable that it provided the viewer with an immersive experience.

The Peacock Room at The Cult of Beauty. © Victoria and Albert Museum, 2011

This viewing experience could echo the one contemporaries might have had. The Musée d’Orsay, in contrast, projected images on a blank flat wall. While issues of space might have been at the origin of this choice, it remains nonetheless quite representative of the French version of The Cult of Beauty. Furthermore, the projection of patterns onto the walls of the exhibition was not repeated in Paris. The exuberance of the V&A was criticised, however it is arguable that the lushness of the show reflected the ethos of aestheticism. 4. In contrast, the Orsay version comes across as almost cold, with none of the exuberance that so impressed upon the first viewing of the London version. How can this be explained?

View of Beauté, Morale et Volupté. © Soersha Dyon, 2012

There was at Orsay a clear bias for paintings, with less decorative objects being put on show than at the V&A. The reviewers nonetheless remarked upon the “mixity” of the show, most underlining that the objects took away from seeing the paintings.5.  One reviewer went so far as to remark that the “clutter so dear to the V&A’s heart had thankfully been culled”. 6. Can we ascribe these remarks to a French distaste for mixing art and design? Could they also reflect the confusion in terms of marketing? Even though Orsay holds a very good collection of decorative arts, it is never advertised nor shown off in exhibitions. In fact, it was not even included in Orsay’s rebranding of its galleries. In that context, it is not hard to understand why visitors to the Museums expect paintings and not decorative objects.

 Sadly, I cannot help but feel that scaling down the input of objects in the show was detrimental to its overarching message on Aestheticism. The London version could be seen as overwhelming, but it did pay homage to the all-encompassing way of life of the Aesthetes, who had – literally – surrounded themselves with ‘Beauty’.

Can a show be successfully translated in another country? While the Orsay version of The Cult of Beauty was uneven, it suffered from a vierwership who came to the show with little knowledge of its content. However, reworking the exhibition in a profound way would not make it the show shown at London, nor, I suspect, at San Francisco. As design historians, we study exhibitions as evidence for our research, but should we need to look at these like objects, in context?