10 million for Restos du Cœur in 2023 or 200 million euros these are the amounts donated by Bernard Arnault or his LVMH group to charities. Without forgetting the creation of the Louis Vuitton foundation and other patronage actions… What is the logic behind this spending? Are these investments? What do the businessman and his group gain? What risks are they taking?
The reopening of Notre-Dame de Paris is reminiscent of the controversy following Bernard Arnault's donation of 200 million euros for the restoration of the cathedral. Although this donation seemed surprising at the time, it was nevertheless part of the continuity of the role of patron fully assumed by the founder of the LVMH empire, as shown by the inauguration in 2014 of the Louis Foundation Vuitton in Paris. The recurrence of these colossal donations (donations of 200 million to Notre-Dame, 10 million to Restos du coeur), could however suggest that Bernard Arnault is adopting an increasingly Americanized vision of patronage. What is it really?
Between the boss of LVMH and culture, a marriage of convenience?
Luxury is above all a matter of know-how, art and passion which often transcends current tastes. Taking a long-term perspective, luxury brands highlight their competence not only in terms of design, but also in production techniques. Luxury brands such as Chanel, Hermès or Louis Vuitton explain that it is necessary to train artisans over several years so that they are able to reproduce the precise movements necessary for making the most coveted pieces of leather goods such as the famous quilted bag, the Birkin or the monogrammed trunk. Other luxury houses are joining forces with crafts for the renovation of stores. It is therefore this convergence of skills and intentions that brings luxury companies closer to the world of art.
Another reason that helps explain the interest of luxury houses and the wealthiest individuals in the conservation of works of heritage is the concept of secular immortality. This concept refers to the idea of achieving a form of symbolic permanence through the association between a person and historic buildings or works. Major American industrialists and financiers thus give their names to lecture halls, buildings, or university departments and schools. Symbol of their success and way of passing on to posterity during their lifetime.
Read more: Fashion and cinema: romantic comedy or marriage of convenience?
These strategies can be understood as strategies allowing one to leave a lasting imprint, effectively inscribing one's identity into the social fabric. Such actions are not only about material wealth or altruism, but also about expressing the deep desire to transcend mortality by inserting oneself into the collective memory of society. By associating their names with prestigious objects or important causes, individuals attempt to achieve a form of symbolic permanence, ensuring that their contributions – and by extension, their identity – endure beyond their lifetime.
Luxury and culture: a marriage of interest?
Bernard Arnault is a patron and is also part of the long tradition of the Italian Medici or the French King François 1is who received Leonardo da Vinci. During the Renaissance, being a protector of the arts and artists was a sign of good taste. Pierre Bourdieu would have said that it was a way to increase and show off one's cultural capital. Throughout history, patrons have drawn prestige from their connections with this or that artist: thus when Bernard Arnault appears alongside Jeff Koons he is well regarded, as when François 1is invited Leonardo da Vinci to his banquets. The businessman is also said to be a “connoisseur”, an “art collector”, and he is respected for that.
Whether you are managers looking for strategies or employees wondering about the choices of their hierarchy, receive our thematic newsletter “Company(s)”: the keys to research for professional life and advice from our experts.
Subscribe today
If art and business have always gone hand in hand, we can also see it as a marriage of convenience, even as a forced marriage. This is what the research work of Yajing Wang, Alison Jing Xu, Ying Zhang reminds us. In this work, researchers compare consumers who leave an art gallery and those who have not seen the works of Monet or Van Gogh. They show lower interest in neighboring luxury boutiques on the part of consumers exposed (vs. not exposed) to works of art. Researchers then explain that art transcends and moves the individual, bringing them back to values of aesthetics and disinterestedness, rather than antagonistic materialist values.
However, when patronage is transformed into corporate foundations, in the American fashion, it tends to arouse controversy in Europe. Bernard Arnault is no longer seen as intrinsically passionate about art, but as an investor who can profit from art and artists (by benefiting, for example, from tax exemptions). The notion of “gift” itself is distorted. In Larousse, the donor is a benefactor, he seeks the good of others (the general interest) before his own. The question is therefore whether Bernard Arnault wants to embody disinterested patronage or whether he wants to compete with American billionaires, such as Ford or Rockefeller and more recently Bill Gates, who use their foundations as a tool of power or personal enrichment. What does Bernard Arnault really risk by adapting the posture of these American icons?
Beware of the clash of cultures
The American influence is notable in the strategy of the LVMH group, whose two biggest brands – Louis Vuitton and Dior – have become, over the decades, ostentatious markers of social success. The Louis Vuitton canvas bag is thus regularly seen as a rite of passage among young people, a first luxury purchase and a way of celebrating their newly acquired social status. The perception of conspicuous luxury consumption varies across cultures. Where it is accepted, even celebrated in the United States, it is more behind on the old continent which prefers luxury products – and brands – more quiet. Like Hermès, which cultivates a passion for art and the quality of raw materials, highlighting know-how rather than the designer. We thus understand why Bernard Arnault remains a controversial figure in France.
The strength of Bernard Arnault, a French billionaire turned towards America, was however fully expressed during the last Olympic Games in Paris. The official sponsor of Paris 2024 not only placed its products and brands from the opening ceremony to the closing ceremony, but also invited numerous international personalities to a gala dinner at the Louis Vuitton Foundation, alongside the games . Bernard Arnault thus used his dual influence, financial (via sponsorship) and social (to ensure that VIPs appear in the stands of the events).
A question of balance
Some commentators have even said that LVMH helped make Paris 2024 a hip and glamorous event. Through this example, we better understand how the soft power of the business leader can express himself, in the interest of French influence. We also note that this power remains better accepted when it does not leave the framework of a private (sponsorship) contract, that is to say, when it does not deviate from its issues.
Ultimately, Bernard Arnault's sponsorship strategy is part of a tradition combining the flashy American style, open to society and where financial donation is seen as one of the ultimate vectors of professional success; and the Franco-Italian tradition, where patronage actions are intended to be more discreet and respectful of the will and heritage intention of the curators. However fragile it may be, this balance has every interest in being preserved by the richest man in France.
