﻿Is it sacrilegious to say that you don’t like the Mona Lisa? How bad is it to say that you find
it unchallenging, unappealing or downright boring? How bad is it to say that it does,
for the perception of the arts in the world, more harm than good?
What if you want to dethrone the Mona Lisa?
I don’t really need to introduce this painting, do I? Made by Leonardo da Vinci,
the most popular painting in the world, you know the deal.
However, it’s not uncommon for people, after seeing the Mona Lisa at the Louvre,
to be disappointed, to feel cheated in some way. In a study recently published, 8 in 10 britons
say that it’s a “let down”. What does that say about the most popular painting in art history?
First, the experience, to many, is tarnished by having to share it with dozens of other tourists.
Second, and most importantly it seems, people are
disappointed by the relatively small size of the painting, at least that’s what they say.
But I’m willing to bet that it isn’t the size of the painting that’s disappointing,
but the painting itself. The excitement around the Mona Lisa, its promotion, its fame, its legendary
aura makes the average viewer believe that the experience engaging with the Mona Lisa would be,
quite literally, sublime. You perhaps expect to face the greatest work of art in history,
you expect a standoff with one of the most culturally impactful items in the world and,
turns out, all you end up facing is a seemingly conventional and normal portrait.
Even if the painting was twice the size as it is right now, you’d still feel disappointed.
It’s not to say that the Mona Lisa is your average portrait. Leonardo is undeniably a
master and a genius. His revolutionary techniques, notably his use of sfumato,
or using dozens of layers of thin glazes to soften gradients of tones, really brings the subject,
Lisa del Giocondo, to life. But is this really enough to justify the artwork’s popularity?
Well, to many, no. Comes in the enigmatic smile which is very often used as one of
the main justifications for the Mona Lisa’s fame. Perhaps, yes, the smile is nuanced and mysterious
but is that really enough to make this painting the most popular in art history? To me,
it doesn’t and to many disenfranchised Louvre visitors, it doesn’t neither.
But why did the Mona Lisa get so popular in the first
place? It’s necessary to find the source of its popularity to be able to reevaluate its standing.
Even though it’s 500 years old, it only achieved world-renown about 100 years ago.
Before that, it was in the Louvre since 1797 and, yes,
it was known in the art-world, but it wasn’t even the most popular painting in the museum
and it was far from having the reach it would later have. Alright so what happened?
On the 21st of August 1911, the Mona Lisa was stolen. It was only noticed the next
day by the artist Louis Béroud who reported the missing painting. That’s when the news,
through sensationalism, blew the story up. There’s a saying that goes: “You never realize the value
of something until it's gone”. Well, once the Mona Lisa went missing, it’s value spiked. Its
absence made everybody miss it and its brilliance was, of course, exaggerated. As the media wrote
about the missing painting, more people regretted not seeing it before it was lost, or some people,
who had seen it in the past, would overstate their appreciation of the painting. 2 years later,
the painting was returned and, in only two days in the Louvre, over 100,000 people went to see it.
So where does this leave us?
Well, I think we need to reevaluate the importance we give to the Mona Lisa,
not because it isn’t a nice painting, not because it isn’t an important painting,
but because it’s famous for the wrong reasons.
At this point, and I’m sure you’d agree with me, it’s famous because it’s famous and this kind of
circular reasoning turns the Mona Lisa from a work of art to a relic. To engage with a work of art,
you need to recognize the artistic properties you find important in that work of art. For example,
what makes a great work of art for you? In the case of a painting, is it the fact that it looks
real? Is it the fact that the painting depicts something even more beautiful than reality?
Is it the fact that the artist expresses themselves, regardless of representation? Is it
the fact that the painting challenges you, your perception of the world or some of your ideas?
No matter what you think makes a great work of art,
these defining characteristics will definitely impact the way you see the painting and,
more importantly, the way you engage with the painting. There is, in this engagement,
a reflection. This engagement, at least to me, is characteristic of a work of art.
All that being said, if you face a painting, not as a work of art, but as a cultural relic,
then you lose the engagement which is necessary to appreciate art.
Personally, I want art that makes me think and that’s the form of
engagement I appreciate the most. I will actively seek out, for example,
Wanderer Above a Sea of Fog to think about the intersection between humans and nature.
Stanczyk, will challenge you with the struggle between private states of mind
and public presentation. Kent Monkman will challenge you with Canada’s past in relation
to indigenous communities. Kerry James Marshall will challenge you with Black Invisibility,
Basquiat with Police Brutality, Sylvia Sleigh with the male gaze, Duchamp with the definition of art.
These are all paintings and artists I love
and I’ve all made videos about them if you’re interested.
All of this to say, the Mona Lisa has become a cultural relic and I
personally find it hard to engage with it as a work of art. I feel like many people do.
And the reason why I dislike the Mona Lisa is because I find that it does, for art,
more harm than good. This isn’t because the Mona Lisa is a bad painting, of course not,
but it’s because many people’s rare interactions with art will be through this painting, will
be limited by this painting. Many people’s rare interactions with art will end in disappointment.
If most people are going interact with only a handful of paintings, I want them to engage with
famous artworks for reasons that go beyond their fame. Goya’s Saturn Devouring His Son is a famous
painting, but people enjoy engaging with it, not because it’s famous, but because its haunting.
It gives a glimpse into Goya’s psychological state and it speaks to some of our own fears.
I want to dethrone the Mona Lisa. I think she’s doing a terrible job as a monarch.
Art is about engagement and, though her stare and her smile are maybe slightly engaging,
they aren’t nearly enough to put her at the top. We need engaging art, the kind of art with which
engagement is rewarding, thus incentivizing people to open their minds and crave meaningful artworks.