THE APOTHEOSIS OF KITSCH INTO ART, AND THE IMPLICATIONS ON CONTEMPORARY CAPITALIST ART CULTURE: THE BIRTH OF SACRED KITSCH

FORWARD:

Why did I decide to write on kitsch? To be honest, I thought it would be easy to write on. I figured, "Hey, people seem to think I am a hipster, and you know, I like ironic things, and a lot of the things I own could be seen as kitsch or kitschy." So I naively jumped in, thinking this would be a breeze. What I didn't know is that within the art world, kitsch is a veritable Pandora's box. Critics seem to love to eviscerate both artists and one another or whether works are kitsch, and also do battle about their validity if the work is deemed kitsch or kitschy. And, here I thought kitsch was just unicorns, wolf tee shirts, and hummel figurines. You know, cheap knickknacks that were funny and not particularly classy. Despite my confusion as to what kitsch is, it seems that both my contemporary definition is correct, as are all the other definitions. With all my research I have concluded that kitsch is an elastic word, with an ever changing definition that varies from generation, culture, age, individual, and pretty much every other variable you can think of.

I'm not saying that my definition of kitsch is the definitive definition of kitsch. I am trying to create a survey of kitsch and its effect on people and artists, our non artistic relationships with it, and how we treat it. So, glitter, hipsters, Jeff Koons, and calico ducks aside, what is kitsch, and why is it doing in fine art?

" KITSCH

Pronunciation: \’kich\ Function: noun Etymology: German Date: 1925

1 : something that appeals to popular or lowbrow taste and is often of poor quality

2 : a tacky or lowbrow quality or condition "

- Merriam-Webster.com

Merriam-Webster offers us a simple definition of what the word kitsch means. For the layman's purposes, this definition would be more than adequate. However, as with seemingly everything in the world, a simple definition is never enough to encapsulate an entire word. Especially one so laden with art taboo and classist connotations. Kitsch is a very new idea. It seems to have appeared around the same time that art started to become more than simple image making (due to the rise of photography). Kitsch also seems to have been coined around when societies became decidedly consuming capitalist states encouraging the good of hoarding of stuff. These two things are decidedly related in kitsch's history. In here is also where the ugly, classist history of kitsch comes to rear it's head. Kitsch was the poor and uneducated man's way to fill the niche that art filled for the upper middle class and wealthy. This separation of kitsch and art is what makes kitsch such a contested issue in the art world. To call ones work kitsch is to make cheap, meaningless and overly sentimental art. Or to create work that is only enjoyable because it is designed to do that.

As kitsch has been debated through the ages, the value and even the definition of kitsch has changed. At the birth of kitsch, it was just considered cheap and tacky crap. As times have changed, so has the definition, and therefore so have objects there were once (or will be) classified as such. One generations avant garde may be another's kitsch, and vice versa. A perfect example of this is Andy Warhol's work, which was bold and new and exciting at its invention, but it can be argued that it has steadily deteriorated into bad kitsch (this is an idea which will be discussed in depth later in this text.)

So why has kitsch found its way into fine art? Simply put, it's because people like kitsch. Also, it is no secret that the art world is influenced by money. and when artists make things that people like, they can sell their work and make more. Of course there is a less capitalist standpoint that can be taken, that is still rooted in "because people like it" and that is the artist likes kitsch, and is influenced by their own likes, or wants to make a statement that maybe being kitschy is okay. This exhibition is an overview of the infiltration of kitsch into fine art.

Even though many artists work in a kitschy nature, the art world is pretty divided on art kitsch as fine art. Robert C. Solomon wrote the most insightful article about it in 1991. In his article he discusses the merits and shortcomings of kitsch. He also discusses the criticisms of kitsch that the art world clings to. Solomon talks about the sentimentality of kitsch, and how by using sentimentality , the emotional experience of art is diminished, because it takes hold onto simple emotions. He criticizes kitsch for being what museums use to draw in "naive" viewers, so that they too may have the emotional catharsis of experiencing art. He makes emotion of the platonic idea that kitschy art is bad because it causes the viewers to experience over-powerful false emotions. Another criticism of kitschy art he raises, which is also something Marx originally raised is that it is classist. It is designed to be enjoyed by the lower class, and distract them from trying to enjoy "high" art. Solomon also discusses high kitsch and how it panders to nouveau riche aesthetics, by making them feel cultured by owning art, but not realizing that their emotional response to it is cheap and simple. He argues that Kitsch art makes you feel sentimental instead of gloomy, pensive and depressed, thus negating the importance of the art. At the same time though, he concedes that one generation's kitsch may be another generation's avant garde. The idea that kitsch is a lie to make us feel better also gets repeated a lot in his article. He argues that real art shows the down and dirty of real life. So where does this article fall in with the rest of the artists who are intentionally kitsch? Soloman really only discusses high art that is unintentionally kitsch.

Why do people need kitsch? Solomon says museums need kitsch to draw in crowds, and also that uneducated people need it to fill the art void. But there i also the argument that people need kitsch because people need and like stuff. Kitsch is ultimately a capitalist mechanism. Theodor Adorno discusses this rather aptly, discussing how high art is dumbed down for the masses for the sole purpose of consumption. Although in this particular paper (The Culture Industry: Enlightenment of Mass Deception) Adorno uses example more based in film and music, the general concept still carries over. In the paper Adorno does say “But what completely fettered the artist was the pressure (and the accompanying drastic threats), always to fit into business life as an aesthetic expert. Formerly, like Kant and Hume, they signed their letters “Your most humble and obedient servant,” and undermined the foundations of throne and altar. Today they address heads of government by their first names, yet in every artistic activity they are subject to their illiterate masters.” Which pretty much nails why kitsch is made. The “illiterate masters” must be served in order for the artist to survive. Kitsch is useless trinkets that people buy, thinking they need it to remember something, or mark an occasion , or because it simply tickles their fancy. This idea that we need ot own objects is capitalism at it’s finest. People seem to have forgotten that you do not need to to be happy, let alone survive.

Another reason kitsch is something that everybody, whether they realize it or not, incorporates into their life is the fact that people enjoy easy things. If art was easy to appreciate, make and understand, there would be no such thing as art school, and everybody would have art instead of kitsch. Art is elitist by nature. There is a completely different vocabulary for talking about art, which immediately exiles anyone who does not know the language. With kitsch, you do not need a degree to enjoy the object to its fullest. Kitsch is something you can touch. Kitsch is more open for interaction. There are no guildlines as to how you are supposed to appreciate kitsch. Although societal elite might disagree with the idea that everyone likes kitsch, they are wrong, because they do not realize that there is really well made and expensive things that still fit the description of kitsch.

There has always been kitsch that’s highly regarded. The thing about this kitsch is that people seldom ever realize it is just that. There is the domain of expensive kitsch. Perhaps the most blatant, expensive kitsch, and some of the earliest fine kitsch are Faberge eggs. The first Faberge eggs were made by Carl Gustavovich Fabergé, for the Russian Czar Alexander III for the Czarina Marie Fedorovna as an Easter present. There were thousands of these eggs made by the House of Fabergé from 1885 through 1917. The most valuable and famous eggs are of course the 50 some eggs made for the Russian royal family. They are stunning works of sprezzatura, but that is where they end. In reality these eggs are just that. They are obscenely fancy eggs. They are super fancy kitsch. These eggs hold no other place than delighting their owners with their aesthetic appeal. This is for all intensive purposes, kitschy. It is at this moment, with the faberge egg, that kitsch experienced it’s first ascension into the realm of “art.” The egg fills every requirement of high art; it is expensive, one of a kind, well crafted and beautiful. The only thing separating the faberge egg from fine art is its lack of artistic expression. Of course this would as qualify the faberge egg as craft, which one would think would disqualify it from being kitsch. However, craft and kitsch do not have to be mutually exclusive. Just think about all of the black velvet paintings from the seventies. They are both craft and kitsch.

There are some seminal artists in the field of kitschy art. They are kitschy either in their goals with their arts, or in their subject matter. The artists that one generally thinks of at the mention of kitsch are Claes Oldenburg, Andy Warhol, and Jeff Koons. Warhol and Oldenburg worked in the realm of pop art kitsch, and it is debatable whether their works are reactionary to kitsch or they themselves are aware of the pieces kitschy qualities. Koons is the kitsch pariah du jour.

Claes Oldenburg is known for his scaled up works. For this paper’s sake we will discuss his piece Two Cheeseburgers, with Everything (Dual Hamburgers) , made in 1962. Formally, it is 7 x 14 3/4 x 8 5/8 in and located in the Museum of Modern Art. It is two large, greasy looking cheeseburgers, sitting side by side. This work is pop art by nature. However one of the larger critcisms of pop art is that it is shallow in nature. This shallowness of the genre by default often causes it’s artists to be considered kitschy artists. Claes Oldenburg is not immune to this sentiment. He himself has said that he has really no objective in the things that he makes, and also seems to be his harshest critic. This artwork isn’t definitively kitsch, because no one knows Oldenburg’s motives. However it is certainly kitschy. There is something universally appealing about Oldenburg’s technique of simply scailing up mundane objects. It takes no formal training to enjoy his works, and you can veiw many of them for free, since he so often works in municipal, large scale sculpture. This lack of elitism is what would drive some to refer to Oldenburg’s work as kitsch.

Andy Warhol is another canonical kitsch artist. He focused in the representation of celebrity and notoriety. Warhol was obsessed with becoming a celibrity himself, and he did achieve that goal. HIs art was a jumping off point for fame. While his motives are not exactly the best, we do have to thank him for a lot (especailly The Velvet Underground). Warhol’s work was obviously kitsch, designed for mass marketing and widespread appeal. Everyone is familiar with Andy Warhol. Warhol’s Elvis I and II is one of the most iconic images of elvis. Made in 1964, it is acrylic, aluminum paint, and silkscreen ink on canvas, two panels, each 82 x82 inches. By using well known imagery, Andy warhol successfully created art for the common folk, thus degrading his art to the level of kitsch. To this day you can still see the effects of any warhol’s kitschy and highly marketable art. For instance, you go to target and buya pair of boxers that have his soupcans printed on them. Andy Warhol boxers are another level of kistch, practically reaching meta-kitsch.

Jeff Koons it the artist that everyone thinks of when people think of kitsch and art. New Yorker reviewer Peter Schjeldahl most efficeintly describes the art world opinion of koons with “Koons is hugely significant—grandly engaging themes of childhood, wealth, sex, and...death—while finally signifying precious little. That’s my nightmare: an intimation that intelligence is obsolete in a world where things are either blazingly obvious or pitch dark.” Art reviewers cannot decide what to think of Koons’ work. It is amazingly executed, wonderful to look at, draws the veiwer to interact with the piece, but as Koons himself has said, the work doesn’t really mean anything. It’s only serving as eye candy. One reason so many critics discredit Koons is that he, like Andy Warhol, uses his art as a platform for his own celebrity. Their kitschiest Jeff Koons piece is inarugably Michael Jackson and Bubbles. Made in 1988 and out of ceramic, its dimensions are 42 x 70.5 x 32.5 inches. Is a completely gold and white statue of a completely accurate Michael Jackson cuddling his chimp Bubbles. Bubbles and Jackson are wearing matching 80s new romantic suits. This peice probably smells kitschy. Koons obviously intended this to be kitschy. There is no way that this could be justified otherwise. And this work, like the faberge egg is high kitsch. It is exquisitely made, beautiful to look at, enoyable in content, and means absolutely nothing.

The rise of Kitsch into high art is not unique to the pop art movement and post pop. There are contemporary artists working in kitsch, or working kitschily. From Alfred alone, there is Richard Mackenzie Childs, David Webber, Zhang Moliu and Sarah Britten Jones. All of them integrate kitsch very gracefully into their work.

Richard Mackenzie Childs is a well established ceramacist, generally know for his work with his ex-wife Victoria (who is also an Alfred MFA). Their work is generally functional, decorative and rather ugly, with very playful colors and patterns in the glazes. The playful element without a doubt comes from Mackenzie Child's MFA work, which is filled with joie de vivre and silliness. The kitsch in this piece stems from its sheer ridiculousness. The piece selected, Hardy Rolling Down a Vegetable Lined Highway, is a roller skate with Oliver Hardy's head coming out of it and a mallard launching off of Hardy's head. The roller skate is being pulled by two unicorns, on a highway that is on top of vegetables. It is funnier than is sounds, because the level of his skill is evident. This piece falls into the same type of kitsch as the faberge eggs. That is to say, it is simply a trinket to display his considerable talent as a ceramacist. The combination of unicorns and anything automatically makes it funny and kitschy. It's apparent that this piece is supposed to be funny. He has embraced all sort of kitsch staples, like fruit and unicorns and has gone completely ridiculous with it. It's kitschy because it's absolutely a horrid, but hilarious thing. Mackenzie Childs’ works, both contemporary, and his masters work show considerable amount of kitsch influence. in his master’s thesis, Mackenzie Childs talks about wrestling with creating works with “depth”, and how he found a lot of his work to be “too decorative and shallow.” Although he did finally add depth to his pieces the decorative nature of his work is still present. Another implication that childs is susceptible to the consumerist nature of kitschy art is his mention of wanting people to interact with his art, participate and enjoy it. If you read between the lines, Mackenzie Childs could be seeking to create work that people enjoy, which is a very kitschy element for art, and an endeavor which if not carefully perused can send one’s art straight into the land of kitsch and bad art.

David Webber made a theramin like instrument. Out of two alberta spruce trees. The player waves their hands around the trees, and they emit different frequencies on a dual oscillator depending on the proximity of the player to the piece. The spruces are about two feet high and one foot apart, mounted on a white platform that the tree-theremin's speakers are housed in. Webber says that the piece is an observation of plants and their role in the electronic age. The astroturf on the piece argues that he approached this rather interesting idea (consciously or subconsciously) with a feel for kitsch. The incorporation of musical trees harkens back to the kitschy anamatronic singing fish. The astroturf screams Brady Bunch 70's nuclear family. Webber most certainly must have been aware of this kitschy aspect to this humorous-serious good-bad art. This piece also hearkens to the idea of kitsch being art that is easy to visually digest, and the sort of art that draws viewers to museums. This work, unfortunately could very easily be sucked into that category. Not because Webber’s intentions were flawed or kitsch oriented, but because people are shallow, and would perceive the work only as “some noise making trees.” In some ways this piece would be more apt for a play based science museum.

In the art world, there is no such thing as tasteful glitter. There is no such thing as serious glitter. There is no forgiveness for glitter. However, kitsch and glitter are best friends forever. Zhang Moliu does not care. Zhang Moliu's A Sweet Dining Room is an installation of a dining room table set with dishes and plates on the table and a television looming near by. Everything in the installation is covered in pink confetti and sparkles. It looks sort of like an obsessive compulsive six year old discovered a lode of pink glitter and meticulously went to town on her family's dining room. It is sweet. And sort of unsettling. It is certainly kitschy. The work is a delightful eyesore. The attention to detail makes up for the absurd abundance of bad taste. The hot pink, the rotating, the strobing- perhaps Moliu was hunting for the deeper meaning of ecstasy abuse while interior decorating. Maybe it has to do with the glorification of normal life. Maybe it is an interpretation of how a child would like to see the world. Maybe it's just a dining room set covered in glitter. And this debate is what causes the work to possibly be considered kitsch. IN the art world, it seems that as easy as it is to justify something as fine art, it is just as easy to disregard it as kitsch. Whatever Moliu's intent for the piece, the product is very kitschy. Again though, like the Faberge egg, it is super well made kitsch so the retinal assault that is there works and holds up through the Barbie-tastic aesthetic.

Sarah Britten-Jones' Binns Merrill Hall Display is a tower of mugs with Alfred University slogans on them. The slogans are not what you would usually expect on a coffee mug. Instead of the usual "Alfred University Mom" one is notably emblazoned with "I'm an Alfred Student With a History of Failed Suicide Attempts. Wanna be my Boyfriend?" There is a very slap-stick-esque element to Britten-Jones' work, especially in this piece. An interesting element about her work is it's funny because it is true. Most female art students identify completely with this mug. Britten-Jones' keen observation lends to the strength of this work. Visually speaking, it is not that well made. This element of course lends itself to kitsch. Also Britten-Jones' choice of comic sans as a font stands as a testament to the kitschy elements of her work. On a conceptual level, this work is knockout. It's as dark and serious as it is campy and playful. Britten-Jones actually is fully aware of the kitsch element of her work, which separates her from the rest of these Alfred alumnae. One look at her web page, and you will see lawn gnomes, easy chairs, and ceramic pieces that are re makes of cheap crap she’s found at dollar stores. In a lecture she presented in 2007, Britten-Jones discussed how she was fascinated by real kitsch and she had a want to recontextaulize it into fine art. Her work is smart and humorous.

Another contemporary artist who is not an Alfred MFA, but integrates kitsch into her work is LA based artist 14. Like Warhol she specializes in doing celebrity portraiture, but unlike warhol, she presents her work as blatant criticisms and caricatures of celebrities. One reason that 14’s art may seem kitschy is that she is an illustrator, an art form generally pushed to the wayside, because it is capitalistic in nature, and (like graphic design) not usually used for self expressive purposes. In general, most art that works as simple documentation or acts a basic form of literal visual communication is disregarded as kitschy and worthless. Her portraits of heiress Paris Hilton are her defining work. They always hit the mark perfectly, with easy communication and flawless humor. Often 14 does not even create her jokes about Paris Hilton. She simply quotes Hilton, who has dug her own hole. In 14’s images of Hilton, one particularly stands out. It is an illustration of a crowned Hilton sitting on a throne. Or more aptly, seductively lounging on a throne, with a gratuitous amount of cleavage, and about to eat a cheeseburger (although it looks more like she is about to fellate the cheeseburger). Her vagina is emphasized by too tight shorts, and a semen-esque blob of mustard on her leg. This image perfectly captures american’s reception of Paris Hilton. 14 makes sure to drive the point home however, but putting an all caps caption at the top of the print, that is a quote of Hilton’s saying “I’m like an American princess.” 14 quotes writes Michael Brian, who discusses the brand of Paris Hilton. Hilton is a purely capitalistic vehicle, reminding the serfs what the rich life is like, and that if they buy enough crap, they might be able to sleep with her. 14’s use of hilton is very kitschy in that it will delight the viewers of her work, who are not privy to the undertones of her celebrity portraits. Also the cartoonish nature of her work, and the presence of girl floral patterns and a distinct japanese anime-esque influence make this work simply ooze of kitschy influence.

So what is the influence of kitsch on artists who are just learning to be artists? The unshowered under grad who nowadays turns to the internet for inspiration? The person who was practically breast-fed on lolcat memes and raised on myspace and facebook? Well, the internet has caused our generation to see things internationally, creating the potential for international kitsch. It will be intersting to see where the future artist goes with kitsch. Websites like Flickr, Etsy , and Tumblr point to the direction of a rise in hand crafts and glitter, adn already in some kitsch work you are seeing a trend in ironic unicorns, wolves, and for some odd reason, Abraham Lincoln. It seems that the most likely demographic to embrace this generation’s kitsch art ill be the earnest Brooklyn hipster, ever trendy, indesicive and non thinking.

The idea of show art together that is all related to kitsch is a commentary on what standards people hold contemporary art to. Why should art be invalidated because it is goofy or makes you feel good? Why is it bad get naive viewers to appreciate art, even if it isn't particularly deep to them (or anyone else for that matter)? Why would someone want to come out of an art museum feeling irritable and depressed? Art is a form of entertainment and people seem to forget that. By introducing kitsch into fine art, it validates art's original purpose as something that is for human enjoyment. A show of intentional kitsch is a commentary on the pretentiousness of contemporary art. It is art for normal people to enjoy, art for the trained artist to enjoy.

EXHIBITION LAYOUT:

The exhibition will be in a neutral toned gallery space. it will be displaed chronilogially and also catagorically. The objects will be displayed salon style, as that seems most reflective of the way kitsch works. A sort of barragement nature. The forward above also serves as the intro to the exhibition.

Select Resources:

Tartarovsky, Joseph. 2008. Oval Objects of Desire. Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122325809048506707.html (accessed December 3, 2009)

Schjeldahl, Peter. 2008. Funhouse. The New Yorker. http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/artworld/2008/06/09/080609craw_artworld_schjeldahl (accessed december 2, 2009)

Britten Jones, Sarah. http://www.sarahbj.com/default.asp?id=526, (accessed november 22, 2009)

Robert C. Solomon, 1991, On Kitsch and Sentimentality The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 49, No. 1 (Winter, 1991), pp. 1-14 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The American Society for Aesthetics

Webber, David. Organic Interface 5. http://www.davidwebber.net/oi5.html. (accessed november 24, 2009)

Moliu, Zhang. A sweet Dining Room. http://www.zhangmoliu.com/new%20page/large%20images/awd001.asp (accessed november 21, 2009)

Cooke,Lynne . 1989. Jeff Koons. New York, Sonnabend Gallery. The Burlington Magazine, Vol. 131, No. 1032 (Mar., 1989), pp. 246-247. Published by: The Burlington Magazine Publications, Ltd.

Nordland, Gerald. http://popartmachine.com/masters/.Com_MARCEL_DUCHAMP_AND_COMMON_OBJECT_ART.htm. (accessed december 4, 2009)

14. Paris Hilton Collection. 2007-2009. http://www.galleryoftheabsurd.com/paris_hilton/ (Accessed december 3, 2009)

Edie Pistolesi.May, 2002.The Elvis Icon. Art Education, Vol. 55, No. 3, Back to the Future: [Re][De]Fining Art Education (, pp. 40). Published by: National Art Education Association