That said, I do not see anything subversive about their 'greatest-hits' tour through the Louvre in this video: these are easily-recognizeable works that are reduced to cliche in this video. I also don't imagine that the Carters solely chose the artworks in the background of each shot: I would guess that this was a collaboration between the director, the production designers, wardrobe, the Louvre itself, and the artists featured. I don't see how the Mona Lisa, for example, could mean anything more than a cultural destination and exclusivity in the context of this video.

Art can be mean different things to different people, it is never about one thing, but it was difficult for me to see the art which functioned as a backdrop in this video as doing little more than 'flexing,' as you put it.ĭo you get a sense that The Carters's utilization of historical artwork comes from a place of appreciation? Subversion? Both? Something else entirely? What are they trying to say?Īppreciation can mean a lot of things. For Carter, the jesus piece had belonged to Biggie Smalls, thus was something more than a piece of gaudy jewelry, and perhaps the Che shirt symbolized revolution, though of a very different sort than the rudimentary capitalism of the drug dealer, rapper, or entrepreneur. It reminds me of the story he recounted in Decoded when a reporter who had been interviewing him got distracted by the paradoxical pairing of his Jesus piece above a Che Guevara t-shirt, and that Carter was so taken aback by that. I do think, however, that the public persona of the rapper and hustler unfortunately strips the acquisition and appreciation of art to commodity. I also know the difference between the persona of the rapper JAY-Z and Shawn Carter the entrepreneur and, perhaps, aesthete. I know that JAY-Z is an art collector, and his in-ness with art world types has been well-documented (see “Picasso Baby”). The enshrinement of an image, especially something as ubiquitous as the Mona Lisa, can be dangerous, as it strips the work of art of its multivalent interpretations and only uses it as a sign that essentially reads: status. Another uneasy response was immediately thinking of those memes of Puff Daddy standing in front of the Mona Lisa, etc. Art was being used to signify status with no meaning outside of cultural capital and luxury. It's not the responsibility of the artists featured nor the director to give each painting its proper due, but I did feel like the art was only being used as a backdrop in this case. Now, obviously JAY-Z and Beyoncé looking at art at the museum would be a really boring music video (though I would love to be a fly on the wall to overhear their conversation about the Mona Lisa). Art is not merely a photo-op, and posing in front of art is reducing it to a backdrop. People photograph everything, look but don't see, understanding very little of context. My second thought, and I'm not proud of this, was, ruefully 'cool, more museum selfies.' One of my pet peeves is, in spite of how many visitors there are in museums, how little time people actually spend looking at the art. I'm less sure about this current project. The relationship between Julie Dash and Arthur Jafa's Daughters of the Dust and Beyoncé's Lemonade was, to my mind, a brilliant way to incorporate art in a music video, elevating the music and, in some ways, highlighting the artistic inspiration. The video itself is gorgeously shot, and does show a continued interest in art on behalf of the artists, JAY-Z and Beyoncé, to engage with art (notable precursors being JAY-Z's 'Picasso Baby,' and Beyoncé's use of David Hammons and Richard Prince in “7/11”). My first reaction, was being thrilled that art was being featured in a music video at all. First of all, what were your initial reactions to the “APESHIT” video?

Beyonce jay z louvre music video