Kitsch in Modern Society - Term Paper Example

Is Kitsch always ironic 1. Introduction Several attempts have been made in order to describe ‘Kitsch’ as it can be observed in modern society. It should be noticed that ‘Kitsch’ is not a recent term. In fact, the above word has been used by researchers in order to represent various aspects of social and political life; however Kitsch should be considered as mostly related with art. In accordance with a description given by Kostelanetz (1989, 30) ‘Kitsch is mechanical and operates by formulas; Kitsch is vicarious experience and faked sensations; Kitsch changes according to style, but remains always the same; Kitsch is the epitome of all that is spurious in the life of our time’. All the above descriptions of Kitsch should be regarded as just part of a greater framework. More specifically, Kitsch can be related with various aspects of modern life with a special reference to art (as already explained above). Current paper examines a particular aspect of Kitsch: Irony. This sense is mostly related with Kitsch as part of the art trends within a particular society. In other words, the relationship between Kitsch and Irony could be developed mainly in the greater field of art. Towards this direction, it is suggested by Hjort et al. (1997, 229) that ‘the very notion of "taste" in art necessitates the existence of "bad taste" and, consequently, bad art; but bad art comes in many varieties and is subject to different kinds of objections; there is sheer technical incompetence, just to begin with (although artistic inability as such is much less fatal than it used to be)’. The above descriptions of Kitsch could be considered as valid only if referring to art; in other parts of social and political life Kitsch would be considered to take different format in accordance with the conditions applied on each particular area. 2. Kitsch – aspects and characteristics As already mentioned above, Kitsch can have many different aspects. In accordance with a definition given by the Dictionary of Art (London, 1998) ‘“Kitsch” has sometimes been used (for example, by Harold Rosenberg) to refer to virtually any form of popular art or entertainment, especially when sentimental; but though much popular art is cheap and crude, it is at least direct and unpretentious’. In accordance with the above, it is stated by Calinescu (1987, 260) that ‘seen as a lie, a kitsch work implies a close relationship and even a collaboration of sorts between the kitsch-artist and the kitsch-man; the latter wants to be "beautifully" lied to and the former is willing to play the game in exchange for financial gain; quite often, the kitsch-artist may have no conscious intention of producing kitsch and seeks only to reach a big consumer market’. In other words, Kitsch can describe a work of art that addresses the majority of public (by being in accordance with the tastes of the majority of customers). However, such a target is not always easy while there is also the issue of reducing the ‘commercial value’ of a particular artist. More specifically, if all terms are met (referring to the characteristics of a piece of art work that could be considered to be ‘Kitsch’) there is still the risk of failure regarding the relevant effort. From another point of view ‘Kitsch’ has been also considered to be part of the ‘strategic allies’ in the political field. In this case, Kitsch could be used by the artists involved in order to influence the view of legislators regarding specific public policies. From this point of view, it is mentioned that (Lugg, 1999, 4) ‘political Kitsch is a type of propaganda that incorporates familiar and easily understood art forms (Kitsch) to shape the direction of public policy; Kitsch is something readily accessible in everyday life—a condensation symbol or referent that draws on a given history and culture and carries both information and emotional significance’. In politics Kitsch would have a similar role with art. To extensively examine all issues related with the aesthetic of a particular policy. However, in order for Kitsch to have any influence on the development of the particular policy it would be necessary that any relevant comment would be made to the relevant authority ensuring the applicability of the rules and principles that govern the design and the application of public strategies. Regarding the above issue, it is made that ‘the German word implies an artistic creation that ‘makes use of refuse taken bodily from the rubbish dump’’ (Lugg, 1999, 4). In accordance with the above, Kitsch should be considered to be part of the efforts made towards the improvement of the conditions related with the provision of art. However, these efforts are usually discussed and explained adequately with the participation of the person on whom the whole problem appears. There is also another aspect of the above behaviour. Indeed, the study of Hutseon (1998, 31) showed that ‘this is not to deny that there is also kitsch, kitsch that is being labelled as postmodernism: the tacking of classical arches onto the front of modernist skyscrapers, for instance; this trendy attempt to capitalize on the popularity of postmodern historicism is not the same as postmodernism itself, but is a sign of its (perhaps inevitable) commodification; just as modernist techniques and forms became debased by dilution and commercialization, so the same has happened to the postmodern’ (Hutcheon, 1998, 31). An issue that should be mentioned here is the fact that the development of Kitsch has not been stable. In fact, many turbulences occurred in the above area have been caused by the denial of the existence of contradictory characteristics in Kitsch; as already explained the current paper focuses on the different aspects of Kitsch within all sectors of modern political, social and financial life. It should be noticed that the expansion of Kitsch as a necessary part of modern art, began in 1940. During this period, the influence of Kitsch in all aspects of political and social life has been extensive. Moreover, it is noticed that it was during the date, that the rate of development of Kitsch across all human related activities has been extremely high. Indeed a relevant research conducted during the 1940’s decade showed that ‘in the decade of 1940s, Kitsch, an academicized form of avantgarde or “genuine” culture, arose to meet the demands of a universally literate and industrialized society; one of the first major analyses of sub-art came from the critic Clement Greenberg (himself an able advocate of modernism in all culture), whose 1939 essay, " Avant-Garde and Kitsch," made decisive distinctions that influenced future esthetic discussion’ (Kostelanetz, 1989, 29). However, despite the interaction developed between Kitsch and modern art, often unexpected outcomes can involve in the development of Kitsch within a particular area. In this context, it should be expected that Kitsch can include a precise description of the social and political trends of the area involved. However, in the long term the effects of Kitsch on the development of specific events in various industrial sectors should be considered as more intensive; however through the years because of changes in existed social and political trends, the standards on which the description of Kitsch is based can be differentiated. No particular relation with the social and political conditions of a society can be then assumed to exist. However, such an assumption cannot be viable. In fact Kitsch cannot be related with short term social and political phenomena. The whole effort (of evaluating the value of Kitsch developed within a particular society) should be based on the development of appropriate practices and methods of ‘cultural interpretation’, i.e. an interpretation based on the cultural and ethical values of a particular society with no standards guidelines. Regarding the above, it is mentioned by Kostelanetz (1989, 29) that ‘different in intention and intrinsic nature, kitsch and art also vary in effect; innovative art at first strikes its spectator as puzzling, if not inscrutable, inevitably creating its own audience of admirers, while kitsch exploits stereotyped understanding for a pre-conditioned public, dealing finally in "the lowest common denominators of experience’. In accordance with the above, the relationship between Kitsch and art should be considered to be extensive. However, no particular dependence of Kitsch on artistic symbols or trends can be identified. It is a rather ‘general’ relationship in terms that Kitsch can be used in order to characterize specific works of art; but this evaluation will be based on personal criteria and attitudes: there are no rules indicating clearly that specific pieces of work or artistic symbols or trends are Kitsch. A well known representative of the trend described above is Andy Warhol, the work of whom has been often characterized as Kitsch. Regarding this issue, it is noticed by Eriavic (2003, 104) that ‘Warhol elevated the kitsch of everyday consumerism to high art, making it sublime, valuable, and exclusive showing how high modernist art is capable of transforming trivial kitschy everyday objects, situations, and events into exclusive ones by employing avant-garde devices derived from Duchamp's “ready-mades’. Other artists included elements of Kitsch within their work. In fact the development of Kitsch since the decade of 1940 has been found to be continuous and radical. It seems that Kitsch is related mostly with the so-called modern art while it is rather not applicable in earlier forms/ types of art, like the Medieval or the Renaissance art. 3. Kitsch and irony Kitsch has been proved to be closely related with irony. As already stated above Kitsch represents mainly the trends of art referring to a specific period – the so – called post modern art could be considered to be the most characteristic example in the particular case. Moreover, through the years, Kitsch was used in order to represent specific symbols and ideas that could be characterized as ‘ironic’. In fact, Kitsch has been considered to be ironic because of the comments made (through the themes represented in Kitsch works of art) on the existing political and social order. Towards this direction, it is suggested by Calinescu (1987, 230) that ‘an extremely important "strategic" advantage has been the tendency of kitsch to lend itself to irony; from Rimbaud's praise of "poetic crap" and "stupid paintings" through Dada and surrealism, the rebellious avant-garde has made use of a variety of techniques and elements directly borrowed from kitsch for their ironically disruptive purposes’. It should be noticed that the relationship between Kitsch and irony is strong and continuous; Kitsch is always considered to comment existing social and political practices through the subjects or the symbols represented for a particular work of art. 4. Conclusion In accordance with the issues developed above, ‘Kitsch is indeed hard, or even impossible to define, and discussions about it tend to get trammeled in finding the givens of social expression that enter into "popular" works, and "high" ones too, nearly inextricable; as Adorno says, "Kitsch ist ein idiosynkratischer Begriff, so verbindlich, wie er nicht sich definieren lässt" ("Kitsch is an idiosyncratic concept, as obligatory as it is indefinable")’ (Ästhetische Theorie, 60 in Cook, 1993, 170). Other aspects of Kitsch have been also developed through the years. All these aspects have a common element: the expression of comments on existing political and social problems using irony. For this reason, the relationship between Kitsch and irony has been characterized (above) as strong and continuous. Trying to identify the particular characteristics of ‘Kitsch’ Hjort (1997, 232) tried to reply to the following questions: ‘What makes Bouguereau kitsch? What makes it bad art?’ An issue that should be mentioned here is the fact that Kitsch has been often characterized as ‘bad art’ mostly because of the absence of aesthetic (at least this is the view of critics involved) in particular works of art. Regarding this issue it is noticed that ‘from an aesthetic point of view, it is the "perverse perfection" that is so offensive and cloying, the absence of any interpretive ambiguity or dissonance on the part of the viewer, but most important (for our purposes), it is the manipulation of emotion, the evocation of "cheap," "false" emotions that makes this otherwise "perfect" painting perverse’ (Hjort, 1997, 232). In other words, Kitsch could be considered to be a work of art of high quality if different techniques or themes had been used. Often it is not the theme included or the technique applied that lead to the formulation of the assumption that a particular work of art is ‘Kitsch’. Other elements should also co-exist in order to reach such an assumption. The general presentation of the particular work of art can be such that the specific piece can be characterized as ‘Kitsch’. References Calinescu, M. (1987) Five Faces of Modernity: Modernism, Avant-Garde, Decadence, Kitsch, Postmodernism. Durham: Duke University Press Cook, A. (1993) Canons and Wisdoms. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press Erjavec, A. (2003) Postmodernism and the Postsocialist Condition: Politicized Art under Late Socialism. Berkeley, CA.: University of California Press Harrison, S. (2001) Pop Art and the Origins of Post-Modernism. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press Hjort, M., Laver, S. (1997) Emotion and the Arts. New York: Oxford University Press Hutcheon, L. (1988) A Poetics of Postmodernism: History, Theory, Fiction. London: Routledge Kostelanetz, R. (1989) Esthetics Contemporary. Buffalo, NY.: Prometheus Books Lugg, C. (1999) Kitsch: From Education to Public Policy. New York: Falmer Press The Dictionary of Art, McMillan, London, 1998, [online], available at http://www.denisdutton.com/kitsch_macmillan.htm Read More