Long Live Kitsch
 

Anyone who has ever read an essay from an art critic has heard the word "kitsch" before, this word was brought into the english language by art critic Clement Greenberg (the first to praise the work of the "great" Jackson Pollock) and it has been the war cry of every modern artist and art critic.

"Kitsch" is mostly used to describe something that is clearly manufactured, a cheap and tasteless imitation of art.

But among the snoodier art critics it has a much broader definition and can be used to simply describe anything that appeals to basic human emotions or desires, it can range beyond art to describe virtually anything with an appeal to emotion or nostalgia.

And this is why critics can suck my d*ck.

I'm pretty sure just about everything I like falls into the category of "Kitsch" by the modern art critic definition, but that probably goes for most people here as well.

Some of my favorite painters include Roger Dean, HR Giger, Frank Frazetta, Edward Hopper and Bouguereau who are all considered kitsch painters. The most hardcore modern art critics consider romanticism, symbolism, surrealism and fantastical art to be examples of bad taste. Greenberg in fact pretty much stated that there is only "abstract and kitsch, there is no in between", thus spawning the idea that ALL figurative art and ALL art with any hint of familiarity is kitsch. And that abstract art is the only art of any artistic merit in the context of modern times.

But the massive contradiction is that abstract art has become such a symbol for modern art pretense and "fine art" that it has become very fashionable among those belonging to the "low" culture and thus it is kitsch also.

The word itself reeks of elitism, as "kitsch" can be applied to anything that is considered of "low" culture. That includes comic books, video games, cartoons, anime, erotica, almost all rock and pop music and all mainstream cinema, and anything dealing with escapism. It doesn't matter if they have no intention of passing off as art, it's still bad taste and you have bad taste for liking it.

Seriously, by the logic of critics who deem all figurative art (everyone from Da Vinci to Monet) "kitsch", all rock music with any hint of appeal to emotions or nostalgia or escapism aka accessibility, is kitsch. The Beatles, Rolling Stones, David Bowie, Jimi Hendrix, Ray Charles. It's all garbage, actually so is Beethoven and Wagner, garbage, as is any music that pays homage to something or tries to make you feel anything. Lester Bangs had the right idea when he called Metal Machine Music the greatest piece of music ever made.

Because only the avant garde has merit.

And the same goes for cinema. Spielberg, Scorsese, Kubrick, Lynch, Tarantino, Coens. It's all kitsch. They are not at all more artistically credible than Uwe Boll. Not in the slightest.

For art to be art, or at least "fine art", it cannot uphold any traditional structure and should never be idealistic, it should show things they way they are, objectively, art is truth. It's about the artist expressing themselves, as long as they conform to the ridiculously strict and limited rules that critics provide otherwise they have no credibility.

Virtually everything about American culture is kitsch, everything YOU like is kitsch, everything you DO is kitsch, because you're all selfish idiots who only care about appealing to your emotions and not at all to your intellect, you don't care about your fellow man YOU FOOLS, you only care about things that amuse you or make you feel better about yourself or make you yearn for something better than your existance withing teaching you anything about life. Because that is your oblibigation as a human being goddammit, stop watching horror films and embrace the artistic love and beauty that is the great John Cassavetes, the ONLY good American filmmaker.

You are all sheep who only go with what is popular, instead of going with what the critics tell you to go with, for they know what's best for you.

...

Ok, obviously those last few paragraphs are very tongue in check, but yeah. I'm just giving examples of why I think the word "kitsch" has long outlived it's usefulness as a derogatory remark. It's a word that's only important to critics who like the taste of their own spooge, and what critics define as "fine art" today, dead sharks or whatever the f*ck it is, it just isn't that important, it doesn't speak to you or me, it's just something for the people belonging to the so called "high" culture to circle jerk to.

Critics want us to think like robots, who must use deductive reasoning revolving around a specific criteria before we can decide if something has artistic value or not. I'm tired of being told that human emotion is a terrible terrible thing, it's what makes life worth living, and it is mankind's most unique attribute. Kant once said that appeal to emotion is barbaric, well then, we are all barbarians.

So fine art can go f*ck itself, art is dead.

Long live kitsch.

Welcome to the 60s boo boo.

Modern Art is so pretentious it's almost a joke, now. Hell, it is a joke.

I only associate creatively with people who view art for what it really is - an expression of the inner self or view of the outside world through the eyes of another human being... not a contest to be a esoteric and pretentious as possible. I could care less if it's "cliche" or "kitsch" or "unenlightened" or "uneducated" of me to prefer Surrealism to a black dot leaning slightly to the left on a bare canvas. They call it "challenging", and I call bullshit.

Modern Art critics have pretty much been proven to be completely up there own asses and all about impressing other snobs. I've seen cases where the critics were shown "paintings" done by the researcher's children of the pre-school to kindergarten age, supposedly done by a world renound artist that all the European critics raved for. Not surprisingly, they took the bait and praised the art as genius.

It's kind of weird to me that you choose to pick surrealism as some kind of non-pretentious counterpoint to all the art in the world that you perceive as pretentious. It's not like the surrealists were any different from other movements in terms of pretentiousness. Not that it affects my enjoyment of the artwork personally. I like all kinds of different art including, potentially, "a black dot leaning slightly to the left on a bare canvas". Just sayin'.

I picked Surrealism just as an example because it doesn't go out of it's way to non-conform or defy categorization, like say "a black dot leaning slightly to the left on a bare canvas".

I say gentlemen, this female can speak quite eloquently.

Boobs is a male :laughing:

Uh oh...

But in the context of it's time it was going out of it's way to non-conform and defy categorization. That shouldn't affect your enjoyment of it one way or another though.

I just feel we've reached a point where it isn't about the art anymore, but the high society that eats it up.

It's pretty much always been like that, though. All artists (including composers) either commissioned their work for someone in the upper class or tried to sell it to them. It's how they made their living.

Who do you think was buying the artwork the surrealists made?

Kindergarten teachers, gives the kids a standard they can actually reach.

Exactly. Whether it's churches, governments, businesses or just wealthy patrons, it's pretty consistently the rich and powerful that finance art throughout history.

That's terrible, lizard.

I wouldn't call myself an eloquent speaker, I'm just a guy who rants about everything.

...And yeah, I'm a guy.

Someone did that with elephants too, same result. :laughing:

Critics praise "true art" as that which defies convention but so many of these guys are up there own ass about how abstract art is the only good kind of art, it has BECOME convention.

And by making figurative art or "kitsch" art, you are defying the conventions upheld by the art community. And that is just naughty.

People who make "kitsch" art are people who are considered to make art as a product, art for consumers. It's obvious that for this reason Thomas Kinkade is considered a kitsch artist.

But during the renaissance, all the top artists made their work for an elite group of people, that's how they made their living, and it doesn't matter how much love and care they put into their work, by making art for consumption or to please other's tastes, it should be considered "kitsch" by the definition art critics use.

But how is abstract art true self expression? You know not everyone likes that kind of art, but critics will demonize anyone who doesnt conform to modern art ideals. And because it's become so fashionable it's not at all uncommon for rich people who know f*ck all about art to buy a Rothko or two to make their place more "modern", the word "kitsch" was invented to define stuff like this was it not?

Critics are consumers too you know.

And the mere idea that there's more artistic credibility in making art for critics than everyday, not so privilaged people is f*cking absurd. People actually like the work of Boris Vallejo, nobody likes the work of Damient Hirst, they just pretend to like it because it's fashionable.

Art critics consider "kitsch" a disease, as in anything that becomes popular and desired and imitated WILL become kitsch, but they ignore the fact that by going fap happy over stuff like Pollock and Damien Hirst, these things have become "kitsch" themselves.

Simply liking something turns it into "kitsch", so, should we just not like anything to keep the disease from spreading?

Oh yeah, and Damien Hirst, what a c*ntbag that guy is. He specializes in "emperor has no clothes" art, the guy puts dead sharks in some kind of jelly or whatever and not only is it successfully passed off as art, it has become a mass produced product.

He's the Kinkade of the modern art community, but you know what? At least Thomas motherf*cking Kinkade makes his art for un-pretentious, simple everyday people. So what if he makes his stuff for ready consumption, so did Da Vinci and Michaelangelo, but they made it for very high class people, so what's the difference? It's more artistically credible to make art for rich people than to make art that anyone can afford?

I'm not saying Kinkade is in the same field as those from the Renaissance, f*ck no, but you know what I mean.

I don't like his work, too much bloom and sh*t. But I actually think he has more artistic credibility than the stuff art critics praise today and that just comes to show the terrible state modern art is in.

Almost any new modern art movement I have an interest in, like neo-surrealism or lowbrow art, it's immediately written off as "kitsch", as modern art continues to be a hysterical parody of itself.

Critics have become so obsessed with this word that it now describes virtually everything in existance. Everything traditional is kitsch, that means all music and movies that have some coherent structure or genre traits to them is kitsch, but that truly means everything.

EVERYTHING is kitsch. Everything.

Also, the thing I hate most about kitsch as a derogatory term is that it implies that art can NEVER appeal to human emotion, or even be provocative, that means that even if art isn't sentimental or idealistic, even if it just wants to provoke any kind of reaction, it is "kitsch".

To be true art, it can only stimulate you intellectually, I guess while you rub your chin and smoke a pipe.

Thus "art" is a denial of basic human emotion, basic human nature. We are emotional beings, why is that shunned upon? Emotion drives us in everything we do weither we admit it or not. That is just the way we are.

Until we evolve into giant floating brains with no need for emotion (easy to assume this is what art critics want) we can never appreciate "art" over "kitsch".

No one truly likes "art", they just like the idea of liking art. It just gives us an excuse to feel superior to others for having "refined" taste.

But everyone likes "kitsch", because kitsch is anything and everything that stimulates us emotionally, even sex is kitsch. :laughing:

Critics love to use the excuse "false emotion", well, what validates art is the way it is percieved by the viewer. All this stuff about "aura" critics go on about is ridiculous, like I don't even know if they're joking.

Bedises, all human emotion has a simple biological cause and purpose so you could argue that all emotion is false. But who cares? I feel emotion, so it feels real to me.

So it doesn't matter if the artist treats it as merely a product, if it has an aesthetic or emotional impact on me, that validates the art for me, that's how it goes for all art mediums.

Critics are not art lovers, because art cannot be loved. Art is something you make for critics to circle jerk over as they flaunt their alledged superiority over everyone else.

Kitsch is something that can be genuinely enjoyed. So if kitsch is the death of art as all critics proclaim, all I can say to that is.... good.

i believe jackhammer is indeed a john cassavetes fan

D'oh.

EDIT: I removed his name.

I think it's great that boo boo is taking the time to rant about something that hasn't been relevant since at the mid-20th century at the latest.

gotta take a break from contentious issues such as videogames and having hair sometime

Oh you guys. :o: