Fine art is used in all sorts of ways that are neither for public nor private viewing. Advertisers cheerfully plunder visual images from the whole history of art explicitly, and implicitly, and to achieve a variety of effects. Movie makers and television producers also freely utilize visual art and architecture, and the settings in which these items are displayed.
They use them as props, elements in the plot, and handy backdrops for the action. Their reasons are as varied as the movies themselves, but art and architecture are almost always positive elements when used in other media. This generally positive aura that clings to fine art and famous architectural monuments is true for advertising as well.
Advertisers have long been borrowing from fine arts. Works of fine arts and architecture offer many strong advantages. They are often well known. They carry with them the atmosphere of history, if they are old. If they are modern, they carry with them the idea of newness, innovation, and being in the know (Gibbons). They are, if they are well, known, probably composed and executed in a way that appeals to many viewers. They are also often free of copyright restrictions that would make their use more expensive.
Their familiarity a and the fact that many works of fine arts are well known mean that the advertiser can convey a message in the brief interval that is permitted.
Ads of any kind must compete with other stimuli in the environment for the viewer’s attention. There are other ads, street signs, articles in a magazine, programs on television, web content, and other such media also trying to get the consumer’s attention at any given moment.
There is additionally the press of life. Consumers are concerned with being safe, with getting their meals, with getting to work, and with taking care of kids and pets. Everyone is spending a significant portion of their time and mental energies on getting (and keeping) themselves clean, clothed, and prepared for work and school.
In the midst of all these activities, advertisers are simultaneously trying to alert consumers that they could accomplish all of the above better, faster, more efficiently, cheaper, more ecologically, and with better style, if they would just buy the advertiser’s product! This is a massive challenge.
The consumer’s time and attention may be measurable in seconds or fractions of seconds. Displaying an instantly recognizable image or portion of an image, or even a reference to such a well-known image saves the advertiser time. Part of their work – that of explaining themselves ‘is already done, accomplished, achieved when a very familiar work of art is shown or referenced. The advertiser’s job of getting across whatever impression or message they intend is given a major shortcut to the crucial synapses in the consumer’s brain.
An example of such a short-cutting image is the Mona Lisa, by Leonardo da Vinci (Da Vinci). Although painted in the 1500s, this work is still recognizable today. For many Western-educated people, the image of the serenely smiling Florentine lady instantly evokes some sort of response, if only to note that is a famous painting. As such, it offers great scope for parody, as by the Dadaist artist Marcel Duchamp in the first years of the 20th century (Duchamp).
While this defacement or enhancement of the original image was not advertising anything except the iconoclastic orientation of the Dadaists, this spawned subsequent re-purposed uses of La Giaconda. Any advertising presentation of the Mona Lisa evokes both the original work, and Duchamp’s satire, for most visually literate observers. Her fame is one reason that she is such a popular element for advertisers, according to Hoffman (Hoffman 60).
As one among many possible examples, Thomas Hoving, the former director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, chose to use the Mona Lisa the front cover of his guide to art for amateurs (Hoving). This suggests that even the Mona Lisa would benefit from reading this book. Anyone considering purchase will know this image, and associate it with art.
The observer will also possibly associate it with things that are venerable. This venerability suggests that the item has the characteristics of being potentially wise or learned. In the example noted above, the art work is intended to convey the message that this book could make the reader learned as well.
Additionally, the composition has for 400 years been associated with serenity and restfulness. Even for those viewers who are not familiar with the painting, the girl who posed for the painting is still attractive enough to be a cover model (although better nourished than a Kate Moss). The composition is simple and unobtrusive so it works, again, even if the viewer has no prior experience with da Vinci. Finally, the image is un-copyrighted, and its use is free.
For movie and television producers, art serves a variety of purposes as well. Sticking with the Mona Lisa, the movie The Da Vinci Code takes Leonardo da Vinci’ s paintings as the basis for much of the plot (Hanks).
The mystery surrounding this particular painting (who is she and why is she smiling?), the artist himself, his genius, and the obscure way he recorded his inventions all help to support the plot. Linking the search for unknown, hidden secrets, which is the main action of the movie, to the works of a known genius, helps to add credibility to plot elements which might otherwise seem silly.
Other movies use the nicely laid out rooms of museums as handy sets. They are designed to be looked at, so they are architecturally ready to serve as backgrounds for human actors. An example is How to Steal a Million. This includes an attempt to slip into the Claybell Laffette Museum after hours (Hepburn, O’Toole and Wallach). It also includes an artist’s studio and all the works of art being forged there. These are all scenic settings for a lovely actress.
The use of art or notable architecture also situates a character in place and time, and very importantly, class. This is the case in The Thomas Crown Affair (Brosnan). A theft of money or a car by a bored, spoiled handsome fellow might seem heinous. However, when the heist involves a painting, as it does in this film, theft just seems a bit classier.
Furthermore, the movie was shot at least in part against the gorgeous backdrop of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. This gives the viewer a chance to vicariously experience the delights of being in New York, near such great cultural institutions. It also adds credibility to the story. Making the theft from some boxy featureless place would be less exciting and perhaps not worth the risk, the viewer is led to believe.
The movie also includes other recognizable architectural monuments in New York City. These are conveniently built and in place already, relieving the producer of creating elaborate sets from scratch. These locations send messages to the viewer that these characters move and operate in an elite world where everyone knows and appreciates art.
As an example of how art in the movie setting might be used to opposite effect, imagine a movie set in a store or home displaying mass-produced paintings on velvet of kittens or Elvis. This would convey a very different impression of the intellectual and cultural sophistication of the residents, occupants, or customers of such a shop or home.
Television shows, with their smaller budgets, use famous architecture and art work as well to save money and convey a powerful impression. The television show It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia uses the distinctive architecture of South Philadelphia row-homes (Howerton, McElhenney and Day). These buildings, shown in establishing shots throughout the show, add plausibility to the notion that these grotesquely amoral misfit characters are representative of the residents of the city.
The show uses real Philadelphia buildings from the mid-1800s, with the characteristic three steps up, the basement windows, and narrow width with no more than two or three tall windows on the first floor front. The interiors are less plausible because they are so expansive. They also use the iconic public architecture of the city from time to time.
In this context, the directors can safely stage plots that are generally extreme, shocking, and quite insulting to the actual residents of the city. The visual referencing of the homes of the middle class provides a believable setting for the funny, pitiable, and largely unbelievable actions of the protagonists.
Works of art, like architecture, also lend themselves to television productions. The use of artwork to provide a sense of place and a lived-in atmosphere is very important. Without artwork, the bare walls look like a set and not like a home or even an office of an upscale organization.
This has become such a major part of creating settings that a new procedure for licensing art for use has been created. This is meant to make the process of getting art for sets a faster process (Fine Art America). (Of course, using works of art that have no copyright issues is also helpful.)
The great works of art and architecture, and even colloquial architecture, have served advertisers and the producers of media for many years. They have exploited the familiarity of the public with the images of famous works to access the customer or viewer’s memories and impressions directly.
The use of fine art can save time for the advertiser, and associate their product with the positive aspects of the piece of art. In film, art can serve as a subject that adds status to a plot. Art used in a movie can help the viewer to figure out swiftly what the education and intellectual level of the character is. It also offers ready-made settings.
This is true as well for television. Architecture, especially when it is distinctive and characteristic of a time, place, or demographic group, provides a shorthand for establishing a setting quickly in the compressed time format of TV. This is actually generating an increasing market for art work. In all these uses, art and architecture add a positive and powerful set of signals for the viewer/consumer.
Works Cited
Da Vinci, Leonardo. Mona Lisa. Pars: The Louvre. Oil.
Duchamp, Marcel. Mona Lisa with Mustache. 1919 version. Paris: Private collection, Paris, on loan to the Musée National d’Art Moderne, Centre Georges Pompidou. Printed Postcard and Pencil.
Fine Art America. “Fine Art America Sample Licensing Agreement.” 2013. Fine Art America. Web.
Gibbons, Joan. Art and Advertising. London: I.B.Tauris, 2005. Web.
Hoffman, Barry Howard. The Fine Art of Advertising. New York: Stewart, Tabori & Chang, 2002. Web.
Hoving, Thomas. Art for Dummies. New York: Hungry Minds, 1999. Book.
How to Steal a Million. Dir. William Wyler. Perf. Audrey Hepburn, et al. 1966. Film.
It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia. Dirs. Rob McElhenney and Glenn Howerton. Perf. Glenn Howerton, et al. 2013. Film.
The Da Vinci Code. Dir. Ron Howard. Perf. Tom Hanks. 2002. Film.
The Thomas Crown Affair. Dir. John McTiernan. Perf. Pierce Brosnan. 1999. Film.