The postwar return of the Louvre’s collection to Paris and the rebuilding of the institution’s physical and security infrastructure over the following decades brought it progressively closer to the modern configuration that visitors encounter today. The specific protective arrangements for the Mona Lisa — bulletproof glass, climate control, dedicated gallery space, visitor barriers — were the product of this long evolution, combined with the specific threats the painting had faced: the 1956 acid attack, the 1956 rock attack, and the continuing recognition that the painting’s global fame made it a potential target for any person or group seeking maximum cultural visibility for a destructive act.
The institution that Peruggia walked through on August 21, 1911, in his white smock, is unrecognizable in security terms from the Louvre of today. The specific transformation of how that institution protects its most valuable object is, in a direct sense, a consequence of what he did that morning. The vulnerabilities he exploited generated the corrections. The crime produced, as a long-term effect, the security apparatus that now makes the same crime impossible.
This is not unusual in the history of institutional security. Systems that have not been tested don’t know what they’re protecting against. The Louvre in 1911 was an institution that had not been tested in this specific way. It learned from the test. The lesson was expensive — two and a half years without the painting, the embarrassment of the investigation’s failure, the false arrest of a significant literary figure — but it was learned.
—
## The Persistent Power of the Story