Ape-shitting the Louvre: the Carters abide

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbMqWXnpXcA

Last June, just in time to celebrate summer, a striking music clip was put online. It featured mega pop star Beyonce and her husband Jay-Z, taking by storm the largest museum in the world. That is, the Louvre. This six minute film, apparently meant to throw their overpowering and carefully staged relationship in the face of viewers, traces the couple's navigation through the most iconic artworks and galleries of the Parisian cultural institution. They appeared in a various array of costumes - amongst them, some questionably tasteful pastel suits - dancing nearby black dancers. Directed by Ricky Saiz, this first hint at their new album Everything is Love costed no less than 40 000 euros and two nights. For the record, Bey and her beloved had already asked for the shutting of the whole museum for their all-too private visit in 2014, already proving to you that no, the Carters aren't just the average tourists (seriously, who tours the Louvre in 10cm high heeled boots and is able to get that close to the Mona Lisa?).

Now don't get me wrong: of course it's not the first time the Louvre's been privatised to be shot in. The museum has been elected as one of the best renown Parisian movie sets for decades. It is a highly photogenic space, the Great Gallery of Italian masterpieces and the "red rooms" of French paintings featuring as one time favourites, starting in 1927 (the first Belphegor movie). From  New Wave Band of Outsiders by Godard to blockbusters like The Da Vinci Code, the Louvre has inspired countless numbers of directors. Personnally, my preference'll go to Funny Face and this amazing still of Audrey Hepburn singing nearby Winged Victory under the lens of Fred Astaire. However, through all these examples, the museum never embodies a key aspect of the plot. Some do not even deal with the art at all, and when they do, it is to treat it as an imaginary domain, as the basis of fantasy of detective fiction.

These days, the Louvre welcomes more than 100 filmings per year (Youtube videos, documentaries, fiction, etc etc). Since 2008, the museum's politics has been two-fold: spreading the Louvre's image abroad (as if it didn't attract tourists already) and re-locating French cinematographic production. Problem is: where does the money go? In a time when public subventions get scarcer and scarcer, privatisation of galleries represents of a good way to obtain revenues. Nevertheless, these are still kept secret by the museum staff. 
The days of big cultural budgets are over, I grant you that. I totally understand how some museums have to resort to diverse commercial strategies to enhance their value, collections and make heritage look sexy to various audiences. What I find increasingly disturbing though, is the dumbing down of their initial educational purpose in the process. 

Like many clips before this one, the Louvre appears in "Apeshit" just as a setting, purely for its aesthetic qualities. There is absolutely no referencing of the artworks, even the lesser known ones, such as this canvas by Marie Benoist, located on 2nd floor. Yet it's been argued the video would provide a fresh look onto the collection, to attract a younger audience. 

Marie Guillemine Benoist
Portrait of a black woman, 1800
Oil on canvas
81 x 65 cm

Indeed the attendance numbers of the Louvre have soared up, even more than usual for a regular summer season. In this regard, the Carters have succeeded in their fantastic marketing entreprise. Apparently, more than 500 000 tickets have been sold these past few days and the Louvre took this opportunity to extend its late night opening times. 
Already watched by about 70 millions of viewers, the clip has "inspired" what is deemed as some new thematical tour to walk into the steps of the stars. But there is actually nothing advanced in this: most of these 17 masterpieces are already included in the route proposed by tour guides and so damages the quality and research they put through their work. Besides, it makes already crowded areas even more congested, rendering a traditional Louvre visit a living nightmare. The traditional Mona Lisa stop, a long-time victim of popular culture, has now become the hit of massive entertainment. It would certainly be interesting to ask one of these visitors why he or she should take a picture, whether that person truly appreciates the artwork and why (and if he or she is not inconsciously reproducing their peers' behaviours). When I see this, I feel more like a user of the metro surrounded by throngs compulsively dialing on their phones, or within an gig audience recording everything by video. 

"When you go to Paris, you have to do it"
Well, no, actually you don't. Nothing compels you to

There is no reflection nor debate proposed by this themed course and the erratic order of artworks makes navigation through space even more difficult: for instance, the Apollo Gallery on 1st floor between the Denon and Sully wings should be seen before the Sphinx of Tanis (Sully, underground) to then end up on the 2nd floor gallery of 17th paintings... Considering the fact that the Louvre is probably the less user-friendly museum I know because of its history and architecture (lifts further than staircases, horribly heavy buggies you have to rent for babies at the entrance and miles and miles of walking from one wing to another), I really start to wonder in which part of their production they wish to invest nowadays. And reading the journey description on the museum's website, it feels more like an average orientation game than an actual tour where you can learn about art.

But there is some sort of social level issue too: this "new" audience is definitely middle-class American, already representing a very high percentage of Parisian tourism. In terms of cultural democratisation, we can do much better. Secondly, don't try to argue and tell me Beyonce and Jay-Z represent some kind of indie pop figures, they stand for nothing but the utmost mainstream (and to be honest, if you ask me, I think the tune is absolutely un-listenable). They're hip, fashionable, wealthy, and they certainly make a  show it. Queen B already sold 180 millions of albums, while her husband's fortune has been estimated around 800 millions of dollars. Do simple maths and you'll realise that "Apeshit" cost 6666 euros/ minute. Take a close look at the video and lyrics: they do nothing but rehearsing all the worst clichés in body language of bad rap and hip hop music.
In other terms: you don't have to be vulgar to attract crowds and money, or to engage young people in art. You can do it in a clever way. And let me make myself clear: not one second will this pure product of cultural capitalism benefit curators, tour guides and art professionals who attempt to shed new lights on the collections by delivering creative content. 

Charles Gaines, Faces, Set #4, Stephan W. Walls, 1978
Photograph, ink on paper; tryptich: 58,4 x 144,8 cm
Hammer Museum, Los Angeles

Last but not least: the so-called political implications. Probably what made me cringe the most these past few days was the incredible amount of nonsense I read on the couple's giving a voice to black culture. According to journalist and anti-racism activist Rokhaya Diallo, these two emblems of contemporary pop were able to enhance Afro-American visibility in "Apeshit". So that's it? The 2018 version of the American Dream? Two giants of the music industry privatising a costly cultural institution? How odd. How odd indeed, when one realises the Carters stand for an extremely rare minority of priviledged coloured people, e.g, the close circle of world famous millionaires. And Bey might have distinguished herself for her philanthropic activities in favour of the Black community, but this seems all the more ironical with the leaking, last winter, of a scandal involving her own clothes label, Ivy Park. Papers like The Sun and Huff Post revealed the outrageous conditions of its Sri Lankan female workers, while the fashion company aimed at "celebrating every woman and the body she's in".

Edouard Manet, Olympia (detail), 1863
Musée d'Orsay

We are far from the Black Panther marches or the shocking social commentaries on race by photographer Charles Gaines. There are many ways of addressing ethnicity and the dialectics of power in the museum. For the record, the Musée d'Orsay will launch an exhibition next Spring on the role of the black model in French painting from the abolition of slavery till the 20th century by adopting an interdisciplinary approach. The poster will be a detail of Manet's Olympia, focussing, obviously, on the figure of the black attendant bringing flowers to the courtesan. 
Non white skin middle-class people and youngsters might feel overlooked when they go to the Louvre. But asserting that Beyonce and Jay-Z enforce their empowerement or that they enable them to relate to the classics is utterly meaningless, if not wrong. What we need now is the help of postcolonial studies - many of the featured artworks were trophies of Napoleonian campaigns - through a carefully tailored narrative made by cultural professionals who know how to tackle sensitive issues, are aware of contemporary aesthetics and still interpret it in an accessible way. Even journalist Diallo points out that the two singers might not be conscious of this hidden message, entirely generated by critics and social media. History teacher Nail Ver-Ndoye went as far as declaring that the video was a way to make up for how the Louvre used to consider its younger audiences and how snooty museums were towards them!

Oh yeah, baby
Let's play the ego contest now
Who's the best? The noblest?
Who's worth the most now?

With their new album release, the Carters achieved only one thing: to fashion and fancy themselves as the product of Western history, amongst many others. They don't engage in artistic dialogue, but would rather refurbish symbols of white supremacy. So let's face it and recognise the unfathomable truth: there is absolutely no sense of equity created by "Apeshit", a song that, in the end, couldn't have been christenned better.