At the risk of sounding like I just stepped off a church-sponsored group tour of Rome, I've gotta say that this Bilotti proposal sounds like it totally blows. The Borghese is a place where one goes to be brought to one's knees by Caravaggio, Bernini, and the ancients. It's a place where one can shrug off the sharks and pharmacutecals for another time. God, I love Italy.

So apparently Rome doesn't have the same embargo on new buildings that Florence has? Anyone know?

Perhaps not surprisingly, I agree with Sarah. Regarding Saatchi and Hirst, I'm of two minds. That the former "says that Hirst's art will survive over time" while selling it off sounds about as convincing as John Snow claiming the administration wants a strong dollar. Then again, the fact that Hirst's most famous work will be in the MoMA institutionalizes him to a degree not previously attained. Same's been true of a lot of folks who've had their rep fade, but still, it's something. It also makes one recall the stories from last year that the MoMA was deaccessioning works by Pollack, de Chirico, and others, in order to get a Hirst.

I'm not sure I understand the objection to the proposed museum on the grounds of the Villa Borghese. The estate is huge -- the villa itself is really just a mote in the larger landscape. I can see how putting up a museum of modern art next door to the work of Renaissance masters could be discordant, but the grounds themselves never seemed particularly tied to the art, to me. Maybe I'm assuming too much, but it seems likely that the proposed museum won't even be within eyesight of the villa. Seems okay to me -- but maybe you all can convince me otherwise.

Well, if it is any dead shark the Tate has an answer, doesn't it?

That's a good question, Tom. Here's my stab: When I was in school for a summer in Italy, some students whined endlessly about a garden history/architecture course they were foolish enough to volunteer for. Had I taken it, I could probably give you a more convincing account, but as I understand it garden design was a holistic enterprise up until the point that these sorts of gardens stopped being designed, and the larger grounds were intended to be unspoiled and rustic.

Seeing as how the Villa Borghese itself has grown in territory and added small museums and buildings, you could argue that the integrity of the design has already been weathered, and so long as new buildings aren't promoted on the sylvan and royal grounds then you more or less have the same garden. There's reason to accept the letter-of-the-law violations of the garden, but a contemporary art gallery would be the kind of compromise of the spirit of the place that would seem to signal a free-for-all on the outer grounds.

And, come on, dead sharks? With all that real art? Who knows where the slippery slope leads once these perversities are introduced?

I heard that the Tate spent all its money on coke, before it blew the corpse of Andy Warhol. Or was it drummer from the Dandy Warhols? Hey, it's just what I heard.

"And, come on, dead sharks? With all that real art? Who knows where the slippery slope leads once these perversities are introduced?"

Smartass! One calls the other one out!

I spent half of my six months in Italy bitching about the lack of contemporary art. But I now pine for the Borgese as an escape from such of-the-moment anxiety. It's a much more taxing mental exercise to find the modern in Bernini and Pontormo, anyway.

Oh hell, maybe there is room on the estate for both. Damn you and your garden design, Kriston!