Mona Lisa Has a Side Hustle
Cultural liquidation is a concept I had never heard of until recently. Rooted in the work of scholars from the Frankfurt School, the idea is that when great works of art (music, film, sculpture, and painting) are mass reproduced, they lose their "aura". In doing so, these works are stripped of their ability to offer alternate realities or challenge the consumers' way of thinking.
Historically, many significant works of are were created as refusals of the status quo. They functioned as tools for resistance against prevailing powers, dominant ideologies, and social systems. When these same works are mas replicated and commercialized, particularly through advertising as shown in the videos here, we have to ask: are we stripping them of their ability to inspire?
When art is given a fixed, commercial meaning, as it is in these ads, I would argue that it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to look past the assigned repurpose. While the pieces may still be recognizable, their original intent is diluted. The aura that once invited interpretation and reflection is replaced with a clear marketing message.
I have been fortunate to travel and experience art firsthand in many places. In France, I saw the Mona Lisa and the Venus de Milo. In Naples, Italy, the Farnese Atlas and Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel in Vatican City, alongside countless other statues, carvings, and paintings. I have also witnessed monumental works by local artists and musicians. Across all of these experiences, I cannot refute that each piece of art exudes an unreplicable aura—something that cannot be captured through reproduction. How many times have you listened to an album by a favorite artist, but when you see them perform live, it inspires you in ways you never imagined when listening on the radio or your favorite streaming app. That is part of the aura.
While these advertisements are clever and great forms of "marketing art, if you will, they ultimately dilute the incredible presence and meaning these works hold. At the same time, replication is not inherently bad. It allows those without the privilege of travel or access to museums to experience art they might never otherwise encounter. This creates tension: while reproduction increases accessibility, it also risks stripping art of its depth, power, and transformative impact.
If art is originally meant to provoke resistance and alternate perspectives, how do these advertisements land once that meaning is reassigned?
The concluding statement is an excellent point. It dives into the area known as deconstructionism. Does what the author intended matter, or is the interpretation solely the responsibility of the individual? If the original artwork is meant to make a statement, but that statement is filtered through alternative viewpoints bent on self-beneficial gain, does the original statement no longer have meaning?
ReplyDeleteIn many ways, deconstructionism is oppressing the artist's intent. Maybe it is through the replication of these works of art that one is capable of reimagining the meaning of the art. For as you said, to stand in the presence of the art, there is an 'aura.' Without this aura, it is easier to strip the "art of its depth, power, and transformative impact."