Earlier this summer, retail giant VANS announced their collaboration with the Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam in their latest clothing drop. VANS has collaborated with huge corporations before, such as Disney, Nintendo and Mark Jacobs, however this partnership has certainly stood out for its controversy. In a statement, the Van Gogh Museum announced the project appeals to a younger generation of viewers. But is this achieved? Does a portrait on a shoe make artwork accessible to many, or cheapen it down to a passing trend?
Vincent Van Gogh stands as a huge pop culture icon. Even if a gallery doesn’t possess his work, you will likely find a pair of Starry Night socks in their gift shop and a poster or two. His image and oeuvre has been consistently gentrified. This is understandable as his work is very easily marketable. His paintings are colourful, distinctive, secular and striking. On top of this, Van Gogh perfectly fits the mould of the “tortured artist”; his work is consistently marked as a triumph over suffering. With this appeal and with so many works to choose from, gift shops are soon stocked. If any artist is a staple of consumerism, it’s him.
In choosing its pieces, the museum selected those “that speak to the creative ethos of Vans’ design”. However, their presentation of the items themselves certainly lack creativity. The Self Portrait in Front of the Easel t-shirt is exactly what it says on the tin. A self-portrait slapped onto a white t-shirt with the VANS logo garishly emblazoned underneath, in the artist’s own handwriting. The only piece in the collection that isn’t just a direct copy paste of a Van Gogh work are shoes inspired by his letters. However, when you consider Van Gogh’s letters largely detail his struggles with money and mental health, it leaves a rather bitter taste in the mouth. Previous collaborations with VANS show at least some level of artistic vision. The most recent Disney collection actually boasts some original funky designs, classic Mickey and Minnie with a 90s hip hop aesthetic because why not? The lack of originality is perhaps the Van Gogh collab greatest weakness.
Certainly VANS has achieved its aim of making artwork more accessible, taking the paintings quite literally “off the wall”. However, does Van Gogh’s work really need more attention? Does one of the most famous and acclaimed artists in the world need such press coverage? Although the museum has consistently stated their aim is to promote accessibility to his works, one cannot overlook the profit to be made in making trendy clothes of one of the world’s best loved artists. On the VANS official website, the collection is completely sold out.
This article isn’t trying to discourage anyone interested in purchasing something from this collection, or from any item inspired by any artist in general. VANS has designed their campaign to appear trendy and hip, appealing to the youth. However, the attempt to make Van Gogh seem an edgy underground sensation by having models pose next to blatant copies of his masterpieces in an abandoned dirty warehouse is quite far-fetched. Boasting some of the most expensive auction prices, I somehow doubt any owners of Van Gogh’s would allow their paintings to be propped against a dirty brick wall. It almost reads as Van Gogh being an up-and-coming urban artist.
To their credit, each item comes with a tag with detailed information on the painting it features. Is this in vain? Is it possible to view an artwork in its original and intended context when it passes by in a flash on a stranger’s foot?
Art does not have to be quarantined to a galley by any means. Consumerism is a great way for artists to make money and establish themselves, be that through selling a print or a tshirt. But when you take the work of someone like Van Gogh, who never intended for his art to be the back of a bomber jacket, are you destroying his vision? Have we reached saturation point with his paintings to the point that we may be inclined to pass him off as overrated and boring? This may be the case, with huge corporations like VANS only speeding up this process.
There’s no doubt this collection has made Van Gogh’s imagery accessible to a younger generation, but is this truly the best way to view his imagery? If the museum really wanted to attract a younger audience why not make the venue itself more accessible, by offering complimentary tickets for students or lending out their collection, or even by making an online database. At this point, most young people view Van Gogh as a brand, and not an innovative artist. Although not the most accessible method to view Van Gogh (indeed any artist), no shoe, shirt or cap can ever do the canvas justice.
