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.
