Kitsch ( , 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 while making cheap
mass-produced objects that are unoriginal.
Kitsch also
refers to the types of art that likewise, 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. 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.
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.
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 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.
History
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.
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, andb) 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, and
composers, such as
Pyotr Ilyich
Tchaikovsky, whom
Hermann Broch
refers to as "genialischer kitsch", or "kitsch of genius".
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.
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".
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."
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.
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.
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.
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". 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".
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.
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.
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. 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."
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,
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 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 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.
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. 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."
The director is quoted that she
anticipates the statue becoming an Eiffel Tower
in the city, 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.
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. Discussion of the controversy has resumed, becoming
a hot topic in the press and on media outlets. 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.
See also
References
-
http://www.artsconnected.org/artsnetmn/identity/idvocab.html
-
http://netdwellers.com/1001/hosting/users/AT/IslandArts/paTerms%20and%20materials.html
-
http://www.cgsmusic.net/Classical%20Guitar%20Sheet%20Music%20Dictionary/Classical%20Guitar%20Dictionary%20K.htm
- Calinescu, Matei. Five Faces of Modernity. Kitsch, pg 234.
- Clement Greenberg, "Avantgarde and Kitsch"
- Theodor Adorno, "Musikalische Warenanalysen"
- Carl Dahlhaus, "Über musikalischen Kitsch"
- Cf. Fabio Cleto, ed. Queer Aesthetics and the Performing
Subject: A Reader. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press,
2002.
-
http://www.sarasotaseasonofsculpture.org/GallerySpecs.cfm?id=407
-
http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20087432,00.html
-
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20060509/NEWS/605090464?Title=Sculptor-at-center-of-copyright-infringement-case
- http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-21840.html
- Blake Gopnik, Washington Post. "A Bad Impression. At the
Corcoran Gallery, Seward Johnson's Travesty in Three Dimensions"
[1]
- Lynette Clemonson, "Corcoran, After Dispute, Casts About for
New Path" [2]
-
http://ww.uniontrib.com/uniontrib/20070311/news_lz1a11kitsch.html
- http://www.theledger.com/article/20090620/news/906205044
- http://unconditionalsurrender.wordpress.com/
-
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20060509/NEWS/605090464?Title=Sculptor-at-center-of-copyright-infringement-case
-
http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090713/VIDEO/907132002&template=video
-
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20090822/LETTERS/908219932/2163/OPINION?Title=Reject-copycat-sailor-statue
-
http://localmatters.podomatic.com/entry/2009-07-10T09_56_04-07_00
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.).
External links
Wikis
Quiz
Map
Search