Kitsch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Garden Gnomes and other lawn ornaments often are considered kitsch

Kitsch (English pronunciation: /ˈkɪtʃ/, as in German) is a German word denoting art that is considered an inferior, tasteless copy of an extant style of art or a worthless imitation of art of recognized value. The concept is associated with the deliberate use of elements that may be thought of as cultural icons ^[1] while making cheap mass-produced objects that are unoriginal. Kitsch also refers to the types of art that like-wise, are aesthetically deficient (whether or not being sentimental, glamorous, theatrical, or creative), and making creative gestures that merely imitate the superficial appearances of art through repeated conventions and formulae. Excessive sentimentality often is associated with the term.

The term is considered derogatory, denoting works executed to pander to popular demand alone and purely for commercial purposes rather than works created as self-expression by an artist.^[2] The term generally, is reserved for unsubstantial and gaudy works that are calculated to have popular appeal and are considered pretentious and shallow rather than genuine artistic efforts. ^[3]

Kitsch was applied to artwork that was a response to the nineteenth century art, whose aesthetics convey exaggerated sentimentality and melodrama, hence, kitsch art is closely associated with sentimental art.

Contemporaneously, kitsch also (loosely) denotes art that is aesthetically pretentious to the degree of being in poor taste, as well as, applying to industrially-produced art-items that are considered trite and crass.

[edit] Etymology

The etymology is uncertain, but, as a descriptive term, kitsch originated in the art markets of Munich in the 1860s and the 1870s, describing cheap, popular, and marketable pictures and sketches ^[4] In Das Buch vom Kitsch (The Book of Kitsch), Hans Reimann defines it as a professional expression “born in a painter's studio”. Analogously, the writer Edward Koelwel rejects that kitsch derives from the English word sketch, noting how the sketch was not then in vogue, and argues that kitsch art pictures were well-executed, finished paintings rather than sketchy drawings.

[edit] History

[edit] Early uses of the term

Kitsch appealed to the crass tastes of the newly moneyed Munich bourgeoisie, who allegedly thought they could achieve the status they envied in the traditional class of cultural elites by aping, however clumsily, the most apparent features of their cultural habits.

Kitsch became defined as an aesthetically impoverished object of shoddy production, meant more to identify the consumer with a newly acquired class status than to invoke a genuine aesthetic response. In this sense, the word eventually came to mean "a slapping together" (of a work of art).

Kitsch was considered aesthetically impoverished and morally dubious and to have sacrificed aesthetic life to a pantomime of aesthetic life, usually, but not always, in the interest of signaling one's class status.

[edit] Relationship to aesthetics debated

There is a philosophical background to kitsch criticism, however, which is largely ignored. A notable exception to the lack of such debate is Gabrielle Thuller, who points to how kitsch criticism is based on Immanuel Kant's philosophy of aesthetics.

Immanuel Kant contributed greatly to the philosophical definition of fine art, setting values that could be used to identify kitsch

Kant describes the direct appeal to the senses as "barbaric". Thuller's point is supported by Mark A. Cheetham, who points out that kitsch "is his Clement Greenberg's barbarism". A source book on texts critical of kitsch underlines this by including excerpts from the writings of Kant and Schiller.

One, thus, has to keep in mind two things: a) Kant's enormous influence on the concept of "fine art" (the focus of Cheetham's book), as it came into being in the mid to late 18th century, and b) how "sentimentality" or "pathos", which are the defining traits of kitsch, do not find room within Kant's "aesthetical indifference".

Kant also identified genius with originality. One could say he implicitly was rejecting kitsch, the presence of sentimentality and the lack of originality being the main accusations against it.

When originality alone is used to determine artistic genius, using it as a single focus may become problematic when the art of some periods is examined. In the Baroque period, for example, when a painter was hailed for his ability to imitate other masters, one such imitator being Luca Giordano.

Another influential philosopher writing on fine art was Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, who emphasized the idea of the artist belonging to the spirit of his time, or zeitgeist.

As an effect of these aesthetics, working with emotional and "unmodern" or "archetypical" motifs was referred to as kitsch from the second half of the 19th century on. Kitsch is thus seen as "false".

As Thomas Kulka writes, "the term kitsch was originally applied exclusively to paintings", but it soon spread to other disciplines, such as music. The term has been applied to painters, such as Ilya Repin,^[5] and composers, such as Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, whom Hermann Broch refers to as "genialischer kitsch", or "kitsch of genius".^[6][7]

[edit] Art and kitsch defined as opposites

The word, kitsch, was popularized in the 1930s by the art theorists Theodor Adorno, Hermann Broch, and Clement Greenberg, who each sought to define avant-garde and kitsch as opposites. To the art world of the time, the immense popularity of kitsch was perceived as a threat to culture. The arguments of all three theorists relied on an implicit definition of kitsch as a type of false consciousness, a Marxist term meaning a mindset present within the structures of capitalism that is misguided as to its own desires and wants. Marxists believe there to be a disjunction between the real state of affairs and the way that they phenomenally appear.

Gigantic kitsch by Jeff Koons displayed at Bilbao Museum has appeal described by Adorno and Broch.

Adorno perceived this in terms of what he called the "culture industry," where the art is controlled and formulated by the needs of the market and given to a passive population which accepts it—what is marketed is art that is non-challenging and formally incoherent, but which serves its purpose of giving the audience leisure and something to watch or observe. It helps serve the oppression of the population by capitalism by distracting them from their social alienation. Contrarily for Adorno, art is supposed to be subjective, challenging, and oriented against the oppressiveness of the power structure. He claimed that kitsch is parody of catharsis and a parody of aesthetic experience.

Broch called kitsch "the evil within the value-system of art"—that is, if true art is "good", kitsch is "evil". While art was creative, Broch held that kitsch depended solely on plundering creative art by adopting formulas that seek to imitate it, limiting itself to conventions and demanding a totalitarianism of those recognizable conventions. Broch accuses kitsch of not participating in the development of art, having its focus directed at the past, as Greenberg speaks of its concern with previous cultures. To Broch, kitsch was not the same as bad art; it formed a system of its own. He argued that kitsch involved trying to achieve "beauty" instead of "truth" and that any attempt to make something beautiful would lead to kitsch. Consequently, he opposed the Renaissance to Protestantism.

Greenberg held similar views to Broch concerning the beauty and truth dichotomy, believing that the avant-garde style arose in order to defend aesthetic standards from the decline of taste involved in consumer society and that kitsch and art were opposites, which he outlined in his essay "Avant-Garde and Kitsch".

[edit] Relationship to totalitarianism

Other theorists over time also have linked kitsch to totalitarianism and its propaganda. The Czech writer Milan Kundera, in his book The Unbearable Lightness of Being (1984), defined it as "the absolute denial of shit". He wrote that kitsch functions by excluding from view everything that humans find difficult with which to come to terms, offering instead a sanitized view of the world, in which "all answers are given in advance and preclude any questions".

In its desire to paper over the complexities and contradictions of real life, kitsch, Kundera suggested, is intimately linked with totalitarianism. In a healthy democracy, diverse interest groups compete and negotiate with one another to produce a generally acceptable consensus; by contrast, "everything that infringes on kitsch," including individualism, doubt, and irony, "must be banished for life" in order for kitsch to survive. Therefore, Kundera wrote, "Whenever a single political movement corners power we find ourselves in the realm of totalitarian kitsch."

For Kundera, "Kitsch causes two tears to flow in quick succession. The first tear says: How nice to see children running on the grass! The second tear says: How nice to be moved, together with all mankind, by children running on the grass! It is the second tear that makes kitsch kitsch."

[edit] Relationship to academic art

One of Greenberg's more controversial claims was that kitsch was equivalent to academic art: "All kitsch is academic, and conversely, all that is academic is kitsch." He argued this based on the fact that academic art, such as that in the 19th century, was heavily centered in rules and formulations that were taught and tried to make art into something that could be taught and easily expressible. He later came to withdraw from his position of equating the two, as it became heavily criticized.

Often nineteenth century academic art still is seen as kitsch, although this view is coming under attack from modern art critics. Broch argued that the genesis of kitsch was in Romanticism, which wasn't kitsch itself, but which opened the door for kitsch taste by emphasizing the need for expressive and evocative art work. Academic art, which continued this tradition of Romanticism, has a twofold reason for its association with kitsch.

This antique kitsch writing set allows the user to rest writing utensils in the buck's antlers

It is not that academic art was found to be accessible. In fact, it was under its reign that the difference between high art and low art first was defined by intellectuals. Academic art strove toward remaining in a tradition rooted in the aesthetic and intellectual experience. Intellectual and aesthetic qualities of the work were certainly there—good examples of academic art even were admired by the avant-garde artists who would rebel against it. There was some critique, however, that in being "too beautiful" and democratic it made art look easy, non-involving, and superficial. According to Tomas Kulka, any academic painting made after the time of academism, is kitsch by nature.

Many academic artists tried to use subjects from low art and ennoble them as high art by subjecting them to interest in the inherent qualities of form and beauty, trying to democratize the art world. In England, certain academics even advocated that the artist should work for the marketplace. In some sense the goals of democratization succeeded and the society was flooded with academic art, with the public lining up to see art exhibitions as they do to see movies today.

Kitsch postcards of Lohengrin were circulated around 1900

Literacy in art became widespread, as did the practice of art making, and there was a blurring of the division between high and low culture. This often led to poorly made or conceived artwork being accepted as high art. Often, art which was found to be kitsch showed technical talent, such as in creating accurate representations, but lacked good taste.

Furthermore, although original in their first expression, the subjects and images presented in academic art were disseminated to the public in the form of prints and postcards, which often actively was encouraged by the artists. These images were copied endlessly in kitschified form until they became well-known clichés.

The avant-garde reacted to these developments by separating itself from aspects of art that were appreciated by the public, such as pictorial representation and harmony, in order to make a stand for the importance of the aesthetic. Many modern critics try not to pigeonhole academic art into the kitsch side of the art-or-kitsch dichotomy, recognizing its historical role in the genesis of both the avant-garde and kitsch.

[edit] Postmodernist interpretations

With the emergence of postmodernism in the 1980s, the borders between kitsch and high art again became blurred. One development was the approval of what is called "camp taste" - which may be related to, but is not the same as camp when used as a "gay sensibility".^[8] Camp, in some circles, refers to an ironic appreciation of that which might otherwise be considered corny, such as singer and dancer Carmen Miranda with her tutti-frutti hats, or otherwise kitsch, such as popular culture events that are particularly dated or inappropriately serious, such as the low-budget science fiction movies of the 1950s and 1960s.

A hypothetical example from the world of painting would be a kitsch image of a deer by a lake. In order to make this camp, one could paint a sign beside it, saying "No Swimming". The majestic or romantic impression of a stately animal would be punctured by humor; the notion of an animal receiving a punishment for the breach of the rule is patently ludicrous. The original, serious sentimentality of the motif is neutralized, and thus, it becomes camp.

"Camp" is derived from the French slang term camper, which means "to pose in an exaggerated fashion". Susan Sontag argued in her 1964 Notes on "Camp" that camp was an attraction to the human qualities which expressed themselves in "failed attempts at seriousness", the qualities of having a particular and unique style, and of reflecting the sensibilities of the era. It involved an aesthetic of artifice rather than of nature. Indeed, hard-line supporters of camp culture have long insisted that "camp is a lie that dares to tell the truth".

Some create their own, simple kitsch decorations, such as this angel sculpture

Much of pop art attempted to incorporate images from popular culture and kitsch. These artists strove to maintain legitimacy by saying they were "quoting" imagery to make conceptual points, usually with the appropriation being ironic.

In Italy, a movement arose called the Nuovi Nuovi ("new new"), which took a different route: instead of "quoting" kitsch in an ironic stance, it founded itself in a primitivism which embraced ugliness and garishness, emulating kitsch as a sort of anti-aesthetic.

A different approach is taken by the Norwegian painter Odd Nerdrum, who, in 1998, began to argue for kitsch as a positive term used as a superstructure for figurative, non-ironic, and narrative painting. In 2000, together with several other authors, he composed a book entitled On Kitsch, where he advocated the concept of "kitsch" as a more correct name than "art" for this type of painting. As a result of this redefinition proposed by Nerdrum, an increasing number of figurative painters are referring to themselves as "kitsch painters".

Conceptual art and deconstruction posed as interesting challenges, because, as with kitsch, they downplayed the formal structure of the artwork in favor of elements that enter it by relating to other spheres of life.

Despite this, many in the art world continue to adhere to some sense of the dichotomy between art and kitsch, excluding all sentimental and realistic art from being considered seriously. This has come under attack by critics, who argue for a renewed appreciation of academic art and traditional figurative painting, without the concern for it appearing innovative or new. As in the surreal and figurative paintings of Lawrence Hollien.

In any case, whatever difficulty there is in defining boundaries between kitsch and fine art since the beginning of postmodernism, the word "kitsch" still remains in common use to label anything seen as being in poor taste.

[edit] 21st century kitsch issue involves copyright infringement

Because of copyright law issues, a most notable kitsch issue arose early in the twenty-first century. In 2005 Unconditional Surrender, a painted styrofoam statue that is one of several copies produced by the staff of Seward Johnson, that measures almost twenty-five feet was placed on temporary exhibit among a display of fine art at its bay front in Sarasota, Florida.^[9] Sarasota is the location of the internationally known John and Mable Ringling Museum of Art that has been designated as the state museum of art and the community prides itself on its fine arts cultural identity. As early as 1984 his work was labeled as "kitsch" by an art professor and critic at Princeton University.^[10] Instantly a debate flared up over the presence of the Johnson work because his work is panned by art critics and this huge version was seen as similar to roadside attraction kitsch by many in the community. Its immense size and kitschy sentimental appeal attracted great numbers to the venue that became a curiosity for people without concern for fine art. Letters to the editor flamed back and forth in a protracted debate. The statue was scheduled to move on after the show and those who opposed it as kitsch, waited for its departure.

Without a doubt the image is of a popular cultural icon and the profound appreciation that exists for the original is not the issue of the debate that followed not only in Florida, but in Manhattan and California as well. The issue comes back to the historical criticism of kitsch, noted above, about the commercial manipulation of such images in such a tawdry fashion that it diminishes the artistic value of the originals.

The statue is a copy of an iconic photograph by Alfred Eisenstaedt, V–J day in Times Square, that was published in Life magazine in 1945 and is protected by copyright. Johnson first built a bronze precursor to the huge statue that is just a little larger than life-size, reportedly using computer technology rather than artistic modeling. He is criticized widely by art critics because of using direct molding of subjects and for imitations of the original works of other artists.

Issues of copyright infringement arose and Johnson claimed to have used another source found through research at the national archives, that was in the public domain. Unfortunately, certain details of the image are present only in the Eisenstaedt photograph, supporting the infringement claim. Johnson also joked, saying that he got a kick out of being able to get around the people who "keep art for themselves."^[11]

Johnson proceeded with the manufacture of more copies of the twenty-five-feet-tall version, turning them out by computer in aluminum and marketing them through a foundation he created. Johnson offers copies ranging from $542,500 for styrofoam, $980,000 for aluminum, and $1,140,000 for bronze, ^[9] and ironically, they bear his claim for copyright.

Johnson is a very wealthy man who has made contributions to the appreciation of art by way of providing venues for art ^[12] and supporting technical facilities that could help other artists learn techniques he applied to build some of his own statues. The foundry he established provides excellent professional service to others as well as for his own works. Although they are pointedly self-serving, most have become identified as nonprofit facilities, organizations, and foundations. Frequently he funds completely the exhibits of his work. He often donates his statues to contribute to fund raising efforts by worthy charities, but his own statues have never received acceptance by professional art critics.^[13][14]

The availability of metal versions of the huge statue created an impetus to find locations for them, using one of the foundations established by Johnson. The next venue to exhibit one was by the Port of San Diego in a downtown park at G Street and the authority won a local anti-kitsch battle over the statue, installing one temporarily in 2007.^[15] Interest in a revisit to Sarasota in 2009 was cultivated by a director of a bay front biannual show and an aluminum copy has been placed at the bay front, again, on a temporary basis. Serious efforts have been made to convince city officials to accept placement of this copy that would become city property—permanently upon the death of a "donor who wished to remain anonymous."^[16] The director is quoted that she anticipates the statue becoming an Eiffel Tower in the city,^[17] and is said to be negotiating with Johnson about a delayed payment after having been advised that he is eager to see his statues placed.

The public art committee rejected permanent placement on the beautiful bay front of the city, reluctantly offering an alternative location on a barrier island in a park near a boating facility for a temporary location with the statue on loan to the city. Pressure was put on city commissioners to make a commitment to the rejected proposal. Pulling of political stings, accusations of objections being "unpatriotic" being leveled, and attempts at circumvention of the normal review process ensued. The copyright issue strikes at its lack of originality, however, which remains a most important objection to placement of this kitschy statue in Sarasota. ^[18]

Public debate probably will be invited if a serious possibility of permanent placement in the community becomes feasible. The commissioners sent the new initiative supporter to the review board for public art.^[19][20] Discussion of the controversy has resumed, becoming a hot topic in the press and on media outlets.^[21] If it survives the initial process and moves back to a decision by the elected officials, a highly visible and audible debate of the value of kitsch should occur that might further define current views in the art-or-kitsch dichotomy.

[edit] See also

• Bob Ross
• Camp (style)
• Chintz
• Fine art
• Folk art
• Popular culture/popular culture studies
• Retro
• Schlock
• Vladimir Tretchikoff
• Hipster (contemporary subculture)

[edit] References

[edit] Notes

[edit] Further reading

• Adorno, Theodor (2001). The Culture Industry. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-25380-2
• Braungart, Wolfgang (2002). ”Kitsch. Faszination und Herausforderung des Banalen und Trivialen”. Max Niemeyer Verlag. ISBN 3-484-32112-1/0083-4564.
• Broch, Hermann (2003). Geist and Zeitgeist: The Spirit in an Unspiritual Age. Counterpoint Press. ISBN 1-58243-168-X
• Cheetham, Mark A (2001). ”Kant, Art and Art History: moments of discipline”. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-80018-8.
• Dorfles, Gillo (1969, translated from the 1968 Italian version, Il Kitsch). Kitsch: The World of Bad Taste, Universe Books. LCCN 78-93950
• Elias, Norbert. (1998[1935]) “The Kitsch Style and the Age of Kitsch,” in J. Goudsblom and S. Mennell (eds) The Norbert Elias Reader. Oxford: Blackwell .
• Gelfert, Hans-Dieter (2000). ”Was ist Kitsch?”. Vendenhoeck & Ruprecht in Göttingen. ISBN 3-525-34024-9.
• Giesz, Ludwig (1971). Phänomenologie des Kitsches. 2. vermehrte und verbesserte Auflage München: Fink Verlag. [Partially translated into English in Dorfles (1969)]. Reprint (1994): Ungekürzte Ausgabe. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag. ISBN 3596120349 / ISBN 9783596120345.
• Greenberg, Clement (1978). Art and Culture. Beacon Press. ISBN 0-8070-6681-8
• Karpfen, Fritz (1925). ”Kitsch. Eine Studie über die Entartung der Kunst”. Weltbund Verlag.
• Kristeller, Paul Oskar (1990). ”The Modern System of the Arts” (In ”Renaissance Thought and the Arts”). Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-02010-1. (pbk.) / 0-691-07253-1.
• Kulka, Tomas (1996). Kitsch and Art. Pennsylvania State Univ Pr. ISBN 0-271-01594-2
• Kundera, Milan (1999). The Unbearable Lightness of Being: A Novel. (Perennial. ISBN 0-06-093213-9
• Moles, Abraham (nouvelle édition 1977). Psychologie du Kitsch: L’art du Bonheur, Denoël-Gonthier
• Nerdrum, Odd (Editor) (2001). On Kitsch. Distributed Art Publishers. ISBN 82-489-0123-8
• Olalquiaga, Celeste (2002). The Artificial Kingdom: On the Kitsch Experience. Univ. of Minnesota ISBN 0-8166-4117-X
• Reimann, Hans (1936). ”Das Buch vom Kitsch”. R.Piper&Co / Verlag, München.
• Richter, Gerd, (1972). Kitsch-Lexicon, Bertelsmann Lexicon-Verlag. ISBN 3-570-03148-9
• Shiner, Larry (2001). ”The Invention of Art”. The University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-75342-5.
• Thuller, Gabrielle (2006 and 2007). "Kunst und Kitsch. Wie erkenne ich?", ISBN 3-7630-2463-8. "Kitsch. Balsam für Herz und Seele", ISBN 978-3-7630-2493-3. (Both on Belser Verlag.)
• Ward, Peter (1994). Kitsch in Sync: A Consumer’s Guide to Bad Taste, Plexus Publishing. ISBN 0-85965-152-5
• "Kitsch. Texte und Theorien", (2007). Reclam Publishing Company. ISBN 978-3-15-018476-9. (Includes classic texts of kitsch criticism from authors like Theodor Adorno, Ferdinand Avenarius, Edward Koelwel, Walter Benjamin, Ernst Bloch, Hermann Broch, Richard Egenter, etc.).

[edit] External links

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Kitsch

• Avant-Garde and Kitsch—essay by Clement Greenberg
• On Kitsch—selections from Odd Nerdrum’s manifesto
• Kitsch and the Modern Predicament—essay by Roger Scruton
• Museum of Bad Art
• World Of Kitsch
• Kitsch or Not?—like Hot or Not, but for kitsch.
• world wide kitsch—kitsch painters and writers
• Why Dictators Love Kitsch by Eric Gibson, The Wall Street Journal, August 10 2009
• Fulford, Robert (2009-04-28). "Finding kitsch's inner beauty". ISSN 1486-8008. http://www.nationalpost.com/story-printer.html?id=34b2e4cc-6760-49b1-8cb0-a6642d73a6d1. Retrieved 2009-05-04.