A few days ago, I noticed a
post from the New Yorker’s
Culture Desk that talked about “something essential and meaningful in the
Walmart universe.” This caught my eye for several reasons.
1)
When did Walmart become a universe? Is that like
the Marvel Comics universe? Can a person become a Walmart ‘fanboy’? Is Walmart
so prolific now that it has become a system of interconnected narratives from
which infinite possibilities of character can arise, as long as they don’t
contradict previous iterations?
2)
“Essential and meaningful?” What intrinsic
quality of Walmart could be so inspiring (especially since Walmart is notorious
for being attached to things like horrible working
conditions and incidents in its overseas factories)?
The latter question is what
concerns me here, though I would be very interested in opinions on the former.
According to the New Yorker, what is
essential and meaningful in the Walmart universe is its customers, whose
narratives have been revealed through art. The post is actually about artist
Brendan O’Connell, who has been painting scenes from Walmarts for a decade—the
implication is that his art, which originally got him thrown out of the stores,
has been able to uncover some deeper meaning in the lives of Walmart shoppers,
or in the life of the store itself.
The connection between art and
commerce is not surprising. What is surprising is that art is not being
appropriated here to make Walmart
seem more humanistic—in this world, Walmart is
already humanistic, already exists as art, and O’Connell’s paintings are merely
taking up its artistic spirit.
Consider a slightly different
example: The Huffington Post recently
linked to a Tumblr called “Swoosh Art”
that inserts the Nike logo into famous paintings. While some may object to the
defacing of classical artwork with a modern, commercial imprint, the intent of
the juxtaposition doesn’t appear to be anything other than general whimsy. It,
like the artist’s Walmart, does make a curious observation about the
intersection of art and commerce, however. A quick Google search of “swoosh
art” brings up a page full of art blogs and news sites that have mentioned the
Tumblr, suggesting that simply pairing art and commerce (as opposed to
commercializing art) attracts a wealth of attention that isn’t ordinarily paid
to classical paintings by anyone other than art enthusiasts, historians, or
Wikipedia. Though the popularity of the site may be due mostly to its novelty,
the burgeoning taste for these types of combinations indicates that there is
some inherent quality about both art and commerce that makes them suited to an
aesthetic union.
We spend so much time—as producers
and consumers of Art—believing that its deep capacity for inspiration and
change defies commodification, and that it loses something when it becomes
commercialized. What if, however, we were to place them alongside each other
without asking one to create value for the other? What if we were to imagine
them as forming a natural alliance? Maybe that is the answer to my first
question as well—maybe the artist’s Walmart and Nike’s Caravaggio are really a
system of narratives that work together to form the 21st century
universe.
No comments:
Post a Comment