An Explanation of Kitsch
or
An essay on the wooden stake in the heart of all things good and pure about art and culture.
or
Why I hate that stupid bullshit you love so much.
(really, it gets better after the jump)
A few months ago at work, my friend Dave and I were talking about the decline of western culture and how everything is getting dumber and dumber and he turned me on to this idea of “the second tear.” As quoted from the article:
> Milan Kundera also links kitsch to propaganda, characterizing it as untaxing art that “excludes everything from its purview” that is unacceptable in life. It is idealized and aims at universal acceptance in a way that is self-conscious and normative. He writes: “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… Kitsch is the aesthetic ideal of all political parties and movements.” This definition would seem to rely on a specific emotional response and again emphasizes “effortless catharsis”.
It stuck with me, that idea. I couldn’t remember who the hell said it or why, but that metaphor of the second tear kept popping up everywhere; trying to explain to Kev V. why Grizzly Bear put on a good live show, watching Gos, Lauran, and Reggie sing to TV Theme songs, arguing with office fraus about Sex and the City, VH1. And now I can’t get it out of my head. And while I’m afraid it’s making me a more bitter and sullen person who can’t enjoy anything, it’s ever-increasing my appreciation for those things that are truly moving.
Anyway, read the essay if you’ve got ten minutes. Obviously there’s more to it than this single concept I’m hung up on and it might make you look at art and culture differently, if only for a little while.
Comments
Wait, how does me being bored by Grizzly Bear count as kitsch?
The problem is that at this point in our culture EVERYTHING is a second tear, even all the critically acclaimed stuff that we both like. Everything is kitsch, because everything is recycled for a new audience. Even all these wonderful, critically lauded things of today are for the most part 80% recycled. Doesn’t make it bad in my eyes, but then again I have no issues with kitsch.
I mean where does kitsch end and simply liking something you simply weren’t around for the first pass at begin? It’s all a matter of subjective taste. I guess why is someone liking Journey considered kitschy but someone liking the Beatles not? Yeah, you can argue till the cows come home why one band is better or all of that, but it still all comes down to 2 things: 1) subjective taste, and 2) liking something that you weren’t there for the implicit original cultural relevence of.
And also, I don’t see what’s wrong with a mutual appreciation of anything. It’s pretty much the basis for all art. Yeah, it’s great that I like this band. It’s even better that all these people like this band with me. How is that any better or worse than “We remember this tv show fondly, and are laughing at singing the theme song?” Again, subjective taste.
That was a bit of self-deprecation there, Kev.
Anyhow, I don’t think simply being recycled falls into that category. And contrary to popular belief, there are new things under the sun (e.g., Animal Collective).
Oh, o.k. the self deprecation didn’t come through at 6AM.
It’s funny you mentioned AC though because immediately after I posted that I thought about them as the prime example of something that wasn’t recycled. But that’s why I put 80%. But if it’s not recycling than what is it that makes something kitschy and something not? Is it the communal appreciation of a shared nostalgic experience? I don’t get what the article is trying to say. Is it liking something ironically?
I thought the article was pretty clear. The second tear part aside, it’s defined several times, originally as “artwork that was cheap or inferior” and “aesthetically deficient art,” but I really liked the qualifications given later:
Thomas Kulka argues that kitsch is simply parasitic on the emotions that it refers to. He gives three criteria for kitsch:
# Kitsch depicts objects or themes that are highly charged with stock emotions,
# The themes are instantly and easily identifiable.
# Kitsch does not substantially enrich our associations relating to the themes.
What struck me about this article, in particular, in addition to the second tear remark because, as previously mentioned, I just keep seeing it everywhere— that almost forced reaction to the reaction —was it’s very precise explanation of why kitsch is terrible and why I’m not an stuck up asshole for hating on it. It seems every time I start ragging on Girl Talk or whatever for lowering the cultural bar, there’s someone calling me out for just being snobby for snobbiness’ sake. There appears to be no concern for finding things of value anymore; everyone just wants to be entertained.
So essentially, this post was one big “you see, guys?!? it’s not me! you see!??” post.
Wow, that’s some terrible, pompous dime-store art theory. I kinda figured it would end up that way when I saw the words “Grad Student” at the top of the link. It’s embracing a term coined by money handlers, anathema to the purity of Dewey’s idea of art as immutable experience.
All aesthetic climax is a fulfillment of the art object as experience. The only way a form can fail as art is to be poorly executed with its component materials. Sentimentality is simply not a worthy reason for critiquing the ontological function of ANY form. Aristotle deemed that playfulness and cheaper emotions can be yanked upon while still providing a complete aesthetic experience (the soul of eutrapelia). Art is not simple math or privy to methodological skepticism… You don’t confront a work and receive a stock set of emotions as a result, like a kid plunking a quarter into a gumball machine. The original idea behind the concept of “aesthetics” is that you cannot exclude sensations and perceptions from knowledge
Do you have to like those dumb Thomas Kincaide paintings or enjoy everybody else’s music? No. But you definitely don’t, in art theory, have a moral ground for rejecting them… and any attempt at pulling them apart fails to dilute the inherent purity of their aesthetic form. Like Rilke says: works of art are of an infinite solitude, and no means of approach is so useless as criticism. Only love can touch and hold them and be fair to them.
I hate that link. I bet it was written by somebody who crosses their arms and scowls as his rollercoaster car clanks to the top of its drop, refusing to enjoy himself because there are too many noisy kids screaming in the cars behind him.
You should argue with Dave like that more often. I think his response would be bordering on insane.
Yeah, it just seems then that what he’s describing is subjective taste and subjective standards to what art is and what constitutes “cheap and inferior”. In the case of Girl Talk he’s not actually creating something so there’s a solid case to it’s lack of artistic merit. Ditto sample heavy hip-hop. I’m not saying either is 100% devoid of artistic merit but both definitely as you say “lower the bar”. Visually I love Warhol and Lichtenstein, but a similar case could be made against them as artists so…where do you draw the line? And how much of a role does ones own personal history come into play. Again, the Beatles/Journey thing. Presumably you’re touched by the slick studio pop and songcraft of the Beatles because you have an emotional connection to them because your parents liked them, you grew up with their music, etc. But someone may have a similar experience with the slick studio pop and songcraft of Journey. So why is the latter kitschy and the former artistically appreciative?
Calling art inferior or of lesser value is impossible because there are so many ridiculous standards to it. I mean you can’t praise jazz and classical music because technically speaking it’s musically precise and exhibits mastery of individual instruments but then also say that something like Nirvana or the White Stripes also has artistic merit when there is little to no technical musical proficiency involved in what either of those bands do and both are largely reliant on appropriating what came before (admittedly by the bands themselves). But in the case of the latter it obviously speaks to you artistically and emotionally despite a lack of technical artistic proficiency.
I think if I made these hardcore, reasoned arguments Dave would punch me and declare that his fist was functioning as an aesthetic experience to my face. So my usual tactic is to roll my eyes and explain why I think things like “The Warriors” and “Dead Alive” are still high-art. They are the minorities tromping around and spoiling the nice grass at his country club.
I’m all for being opinionated. Girl Talk sucks. He sucks a lot. But I always draw the line at surpassing subjective reasoning and making a criticism on an epic art theory level because it simply does not hold water. As an artist, I view criticism as one of the most useless and baseless things in the universe. The ultimate proof against art criticism are the existence of comic books.
It’s a funny paradox, now that I think about it, that kitsch is partially defined as art that is created for mass appeal, and yet, if art didn’t appeal to critics en masse, it could be labeled as kitsch.
I think one thing I dug about the second tear concept so much and why it has stuck with me is that it’s more a criticism of the viewer than it is the artwork; it makes one question what it is causing the emotional response: the work or the crowd.
Yeah, but it’s near impossible to partake of any art (particularly music) in a vacuum. Every emotional response generated by art is the result of a “crowd” so to speak. Whether the crowd is one other person, 50,000 other people, a million other people or whatever, how you react to a work of art will most definitely be affected by the context. It’s the whole basis of deconstruction, no?
Ugh, I’m not going to read any more of this conversation until someone calls someone else a “fag” or tells some dick or fart jokes.
I think talking about kitsch is kitschy, so I’m not going to take part any further than this.