Analysis of a Postcard Reproduction of Leonard Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa by Duchamp Essay

Introduction

Separating the phenomena of daily routine from art and aesthetics, Clement Greenberg used the terms avant-garde and kitsch for contrasting high art and low-quality commercial works. Taking into account Greenberg’s model and aesthetic criteria for evaluating the works of art, Marcel Duchamp’s reproduction of Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa can be defined as a clear representation of kitsch.

Main Body

Analysis of the aesthetic value of Duchamp’s reproduction of the world-known Mona Lisa requires taking into consideration the artist’s objectives in creating this painting. As opposed to Greenberg’s definition of high art as “pure poetry”, this work is meant to captivate public attention and consequently achieve certain economic goals. Incorporating mustache and a brief note which was meant to sound like a French pun, the author of the famous reproduction pursued the goal of entertaining the public and affecting their consumer behavior. On the one hand, inserting a mustache unavoidably spoils the world-known masterpiece and decreases its aesthetic value significantly.

On the other hand, it demonstrates the level of public literacy and expectations. Moustache, as a generally accepted cliché for caricatures, is characteristic of schoolchildren and ill-literate people being incorporated into the world’s masterpiece looks weird but was effective for not only attracting but also maintaining the public attention. Implementing low-quality marketing strategies for achieving certain commercial goals, Ducamp made his reproduction which did not meet the objective of art for the art’s sake mere kitsch in terms of Greenberg’s aesthetic model.

The questionable artistic merits of Duchamp’s work illustrate Greenberg’s model even though represent kitsch as its negative implication. Supporting Greenberg’s main arguments, the reproduction under consideration proves that historical and social contexts play an important role in perceiving the work of art by the target audience.

In contrast to high art which neglects the environment as well as possible appreciation or depreciation, Duchamp as a creator of kitsch took into account the following reaction of the audience and the level of the viewers’ literacy, trying to come up to their expectations and amuse them. “’ Art for art’s sake’ and ‘pure poetry’ appear, and subject matter or content becomes something to be avoided like a plague” (Greenberg 190).

Taking into account that the majority of the audience is not ready to rate Da Vinci’s masterpiece at its true value, the author was induced to incorporate certain elements which would be understandable to the spectators into the reproduction, transforming it into a caricature but invoking more emotions in particular segments of the audience at the same time. Notwithstanding even the author’s commercial intentions for creating this reproduction, the aesthetic value of caricature itself is rather low. Both mustache and French pun are aimed at demoralizing the woman in the picture and Da Vinci’s idea in general.

Not corresponding to Greenberg’s definition of high art, Duchamp’s reproduction still fits the theoretician’s aesthetic model as a clear representation of kitsch, an artistic phenomenon aimed at achieving certain commercial goals by considering the level of the audience’s literacy and aesthetic expectations.

Conclusion

Summing up Duchamp’s main objectives for creating his reproduction, the lack of aesthetic values of the postcard and low quality of work in general corresponding to the level of audience’s expectations and literacy make Duchamp’s Mona Lisa an example of kitsch in terms of Greenberg’s aesthetic model. Contradicting the main principles of high art, this reproduction of the Mona Lisa represents kitsch as the reverse side of avant-garde, demonstrating a negative impact of commercialization upon aesthetic taste.

Works Cited

Greenberg, Clement. “Avant-Garde and Kitsch”. Post-Impressionism to World War II. Ed. Lewer, Debbie. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2006. Print.