October 25, 2007
The New Kitsch: Two-Minute Art
Alan Behr in Culture Kiosque:

The appearance of two new books of contemporary art allows us to pause and consider the power of New Kitsch. We needn’t pause that long, however, because true to the aesthetic of New Kitsch, each of those books takes no longer than two minutes to absorb. Given the time pressures and multiple distractions of contemporary life, two minutes may be all that a book on any subject can hope to obtain from a modestly attentive reader. When, after all, was the last time that anyone other than academics or students carved out time for a serious novel? While sharing the speakers’ platform at the New York Public Library with Günter Grass recently, Norman Mailer remarked that the people who trouble themselves even to write those novels will soon be regarded as eccentric as the authors of verse plays.
Extrapolating from Mailer’s prognosis, it won’t be long before all books will completely reveal themselves in less than the time it takes to brew a cup of coffee, but in the meantime, we have the contemporary art world—that charmed coalition of aesthetic social climbers—to bring us our quickie reads. Two recent entries stand out: one from Marilyn Minter (b. 1948, Shreveport, Louisiana), an artist who seems unafraid to try her hand at any two-dimensional medium, and the other by Charlie White (b. 1972, Philadelphia), a photographer first and last.
We must distinguish the New Kitsch sensibility of these two artists from that of the masters of Old Kitsch (formerly known simply as kitsch). Old Kitsch emphasized technique over content—or form over substance, if you will. It was characterized by excessive sentimentality and typified by once-respected, later passé (and now somewhat resurgent) painters such as Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema and Paul-Joseph Jamin. It was academic, simplistic and so 1890.
The New Kitsch is not sentimental. It is self-knowingly cool; but coolness, like sentimentality, is about showing off at the expense of perception and engagement.
Posted by Robin Varghese at 11:51 AM | Permalink









Comments
Funny, when I first saw the Charlie White photo, I thought it was a sculpture by Ron Mueck. It should have been. I suppose, regardless of medium, Ron belongs in the Kitsch camp, but he's still amazing. And yes, now I see Alta-Tadema as belonging there as well, though I didn't before. I don't see why shit-kicker is though.
Thanks for a great article.
Posted by: Carlos | Oct 25, 2007 12:17:38 PM
The man who wrote this article is a lawyer, so he should understand Kitsch awfully well. It's a poor exegesis, however.
Kitsch, referred to in the article as Old Kitsch, does not belong to the 1890's. It is rather an eternally recurring impulse in art -- imitative, earnest, and backward-looking without aspiring to the primitive. The painter Sassoferato, for instance harked back in the 1700's to the much earlier style of Correggio, refining it. To refine the style of a genius of refinement is superbly kitschy.
A discussion of contemporary Kitsch that fails to cite the Norwegian painter Odd Nerdrum is a discussion to take unseriously, for the writer just cannot know whereof he writes. Here's a page from the archive of the Giornale Nuovo --
http://www.spamula.net/blog/archives/000269.html
Go there, and find out about Kitsch. And go to the World Wide Kitsch site --
http://www.worldwidekitsch.com/cgi-bin/nyheter/visnyhet.cgi?id=37&menu=nyheter
The supposed New Kitsch is about being ironic and cool, the writer says? Tell me what is less cool than openly fussing about presentation -- please. I'd rather watch Frank Sinatra in front of the mirror trying out every angle of his pork pie hat before sauntering into rat-pack filled room. Laboriously feigning detachment is amusing when a dog that has just peed indoors does it, but as a pose for an artiste to strike, I think not. And, hamfistedly saddling just any construction with an aura of irony is not the same as finding the short queue to cool. It's not even Kitsch, because it is both too slight and too desperate.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Oct 25, 2007 1:11:18 PM
I guess I don't know as much about Kitch as I even thought I did (which I thought was not much)
I thought of it as trivial, tasteless, commercialized, and (mostly) further object'd rather than actual hangable art, with the notable exceptions of dogs playing poker and black velvet elvis paintings.
So I don't get how Odd Nerdrum fits into this space. To my semi-schooled eye, he does seem a lot like Freud or even Bacon with normal mastery twitching over into the grotesque (or in Bacon's case, spasming).
Clearly, I have much to learn about this Kitch of which you speak :-)
Thanks for the links, though. And for the excellent delivery of your opinion. Is peropinion a word?
Posted by: Carlos | Oct 25, 2007 2:15:03 PM
I don't find most of Charlie White's photos to be "ironic and cool"--I saw someone comparing them to images from a horror movie, and I think that's a pretty good comparison in terms of the feel of a lot of his work (a horror movie that's both exploitative and also genuinely creepy, as opposed to a totally schlocky one). You can see a bunch of his photos in the "work" section of his website, judge for yourself.
Posted by: Jesse M. | Oct 26, 2007 3:45:02 AM
agreed, elatia, why no nerdrum in this piece? 'whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent'. having made that association, i wonder aloud: when will philosophy generate its own kitsch? categories of philosophical kitsch will have to be determined, the perfect task for an idle philosopher. wittgenstein has my vote as father of logical kitsch (i.e., kitsch in the field of logic).
Posted by: ed rackley | Oct 26, 2007 3:49:33 AM
Carlos, Nerdrum is painting in a historical style -- "classical" painting, if you will. Rembrandt and Velasquez would have understood at a glance his technique, even if they might not have dug out on his imagery. One of the prerequisites of Kitsch is to paint in a labor-intensive historical style. While it's not enough, it's part and parcel of the genuine article. Another marker is that the work of Kitsch art may seem fraught with meaning, in a furious, whipped-up sense. So Nerdrum fits in there. For a Kitsch Theory primer, see this very short essay by Denis Dutton -- it comes with a reading list.
http://www.denisdutton.com/kitsch_macmillan.htm
Jesse, thanks for the link to this majestically repulsive site. Trying too hard is a Kitsch marker, but usually the Kitsch-ster is trying too hard for beauty, succeeding thereby in being repellent. When an artist tries too hard to be repellent -- really puts his whole soul into it -- and covers it with a gloss of imperfect hipness, the result is the kind of mayonnaise substitute camp horror that falls well short of Kitsch while illustrating the difference between the powerful and the horribly creepy. Writing in _The Case Against Wagner_, Nietzsche takes apart the psychology that presumes "If it throws me, then it must be strong..."
Ed, philosophy is a subject made for the lens of Kitsch -- what a brilliant idea. Please, please write it up...
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Oct 26, 2007 11:05:45 AM
Hmm.
What about Fragonard? Whenever I visit the Frick I am drawn to this room just to re-experience the creepy feeling these paintings give me.
Kinda Gainsborough on laughing gas. And what about Renoir?
Frick
Posted by: Carlos | Oct 26, 2007 3:02:08 PM
Well, there's intentional Kitsch -- and Kitsch is generally a form with a high degree of intentionality -- but there's Kitsch without the Kitsch-monger meaning it, too. That's a baggier category, too often filled with stuff that looks overdone in a way that is just not to our taste. Many people misuse the term to denote whatever has an old-fashioned quality -- be it Liberace or a Titian Assumption. These may be the same people who use "modern" not only descriptively, but always approvingly. Kitsch is so huge that it's very important to use its adjective, kitschy, with precision. I would say Fragonard is too light-hearted yet edgy to be kitschy -- Kitsch is earnest. Renoir sometimes hits camp, other times schlock. But genius lies outside taste, always -- whereas Kitsch lives and breathes questions of taste.
Posted by: Elatia | Oct 26, 2007 3:50:26 PM
Food for thought (yes I did visit your site)
Thanks for the lesson!
Carlos
Posted by: Carlos | Oct 26, 2007 4:59:35 PM
Thanks for some links to some interesting work. I see Kitsch as a kind of cliche: i.e. thumping someone over the head with an image, a few bars of music or a phrase that you can be sure will produce an immeadiate and easy emotional response or identification. On a recent visit to Barcelona, I saw lots of monuments and work by Antonio Gaudi (is that the origin of the adjective 'Gaudy'?) including the amazing unfinished Sagrada Familia cathedral
www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Sagrada_Familia.html
Fomerly, I'd have thought of him as super kitsch, but seen in context he doesn't seem to be.
Posted by: aguy109 | Oct 28, 2007 5:05:15 AM
I do love the stuff, and while I don't want to sound like the Arbitrix of Kitsch, I'm pretty sure it can't encompass Gaudi. Here's a page with many shots of Sagrada Familia --
http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Sagrada_Familia.html
Gaudi was what you call a visionary-modern or modern expressionist architect in the Sagrada Familia Church in Barcelona -- far too original to be kitschy, when a major marker of Kitsch is imitativeness. If you want to see Kitsch Gaudi, you need to look at the Parroquia church in San Miguel de Allende in Mexico that was built in imitation of -- or, homage to -- Gaudi: it is, narrowly, Gaudiesque Kitsch. And very beautiful, but no cigar. Here are two good shots by Simon Watson --
http://www.travelandleisure.com/slideshows/mexico-magico/1
http://www.travelandleisure.com/slideshows/mexico-magico/2
I've read that one of the rationales for the Gaudi style is the superior load-bearing strength of building a structure with curves instead of angles. All these decades later, the look of Gaudi's buildings is still so astonishing that few people think to inquire into the deeper purpose for their design.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Oct 28, 2007 9:13:49 PM
Post a comment