It's time to take down the Statue of Liberty, it is a security hazard, an educational obstacle and not even a satisfying bucket-list item. It’s time New York moved it out of the way.
I'd just like to point out how ridiculous of a request it is to ask a gallery to take down the piece it is best known for, and which in addition is a source of national pride.
Not only is it not in the best interest of the Louvre to take it down, nor is it for the city of Paris or the country of France.
The suggestion is to move it to its own pavilion, still in central Paris, highly commercialised and optimized for large crowds.
The article argues that this would be better for everyone: the art enthusiasts who want to enjoy the museum and the box-tickers who are only there to see its most famous attraction, as well as being financially viable.
Not addressed is the argument that some people might come for the Mona Lisa and stay for the rest of the museum, and gain a better appreciation of art that way. The author likely thinks that doesn't happen or isn't important.
The English do a good job with the crown jewels. You get on a moving walkway and stream by slowly and up close. If you want to spend more time looking, there's a raised platform behind the walkway where you can spend time.
There is precedent for it, although more typically for larger format works. As the article notes, Guernica used to be in its pavilion. In addition, in Paris, L'Orangerie is largely built around Monet's Water Lilys Cycle. (There are also other impressionist paintings downstairs--closed at the moment--but it's the big Monets people come to the museum for.)
I'd just like to point out how ridiculous of a request it is to ask a gallery to take down the piece it is best known for, and which in addition is a source of national pride.
Not only is it not in the best interest of the Louvre to take it down, nor is it for the city of Paris or the country of France.