3 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitsch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitsch Kitsch is an imitation of art with exaggerated sentimentality. Kitsch offers shallow

by slibhb 6y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitsch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitsch Kitsch is an imitation of art with exaggerated sentimentality. Kitsch offers shallow emotional gratification with no investment. This may seem subjective or culturally relative but I don't think it is. I think the weight of many opinions across time gives these things a certain solidity.

detaro 6y ago
Kitsch is not an imitation of art, plenty of art is Kitsch.
phnofive 6y ago
The appropriate level of sentimentality or depth of emotional gratification are of course subjective. I don’t think Maya Angelou’s fans appreciate her work ironically.
jancsika 6y ago
> I think the weight of many opinions across time gives these things a certain solidity. You think that and actively look for consistency in the reception history of everything you categorize at true art, or you hope that such a hypothesis would pan out if you happen to do that work at some point in the future? I ask because at least in the domain of music, my (admittedly limited) knowledge of the reception history of various pieces doesn't leave much room for the consistency you'd need to determine whether anything is kitsch or not. More importantly, the historical reception of many well-known cases hinges on what (I believe) you'd consider completely irrelevant factors. For example, Taruskin has a chapter from his book "On Russian Music" about Tchaikovsky's Sixth Symphony, showing that the reception history of the work teeter-totters based mainly on what the general acceptance was in a given period/area regarding homosexuality. (Note: the commentators didn't say this explicitly, and probably didn't realize they were doing it-- other scholars had to go back and piece together the pattern based on the data available.) In this case, one ascribing to your hypothesis/theory would be forced to reserve judgment on the "kitschiness" of that symphony based essentially on the results of arbitrary biases from a long gone era. The messiness of reception histories and meaning in art makes me suspicious of a statement like, "Kitsch offers shallow emotional gratification with no investment." I've studied art and music closely enough to realize I almost never have the information necessary to make that judgment. Then in film there's Quentin Tarantino's eye for composition and story-telling in Blacksploitation and Kung Fu movies. Cases like that are all over the place. Hell, there are two young goofballs who are purposefully misreading the very reason John Coltrane wrote Giant Steps-- instead of improvising atop the chord progressions to show their musical prowess they turn it into through-composed video-game speed run music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWqH4h5CQyQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWqH4h5CQyQ Is that kitsch? Are you sure?
- slibhb 6y ago
  The argument I made is that the process of deciding what is art is intersubjective across time. That doesn't require "consistency in the reception history". It's common for something to be considered art and then forgotten or for something else to be considered not-art and then promoted. It just means everyone gets a vote about whether something is art, the election never ends, and the things that survive and are considered to be art are art. If I say "Eat Pray Love is not art," I'm doing two things: casting my vote and predicting that, in the future world, by popular vote, no one will consider Eat Pray Love to be art.

by slibhb 6y ago

detaro 6y ago

Kitsch is not an imitation of art, plenty of art is Kitsch.

phnofive 6y ago

The appropriate level of sentimentality or depth of emotional gratification are of course subjective. I don’t think Maya Angelou’s fans appreciate her work ironically.

jancsika 6y ago

> I think the weight of many opinions across time gives these things a certain solidity. You think that and actively look for consistency in the reception history of everything you categorize at true art, or you hope that such a hypothesis would pan out if you happen to do that work at some point in the future? I ask because at least in the domain of music, my (admittedly limited) knowledge of the reception history of various pieces doesn't leave much room for the consistency you'd need to determine whether anything is kitsch or not. More importantly, the historical reception of many well-known cases hinges on what (I believe) you'd consider completely irrelevant factors. For example, Taruskin has a chapter from his book "On Russian Music" about Tchaikovsky's Sixth Symphony, showing that the reception history of the work teeter-totters based mainly on what the general acceptance was in a given period/area regarding homosexuality. (Note: the commentators didn't say this explicitly, and probably didn't realize they were doing it-- other scholars had to go back and piece together the pattern based on the data available.) In this case, one ascribing to your hypothesis/theory would be forced to reserve judgment on the "kitschiness" of that symphony based essentially on the results of arbitrary biases from a long gone era. The messiness of reception histories and meaning in art makes me suspicious of a statement like, "Kitsch offers shallow emotional gratification with no investment." I've studied art and music closely enough to realize I almost never have the information necessary to make that judgment. Then in film there's Quentin Tarantino's eye for composition and story-telling in Blacksploitation and Kung Fu movies. Cases like that are all over the place. Hell, there are two young goofballs who are purposefully misreading the very reason John Coltrane wrote Giant Steps-- instead of improvising atop the chord progressions to show their musical prowess they turn it into through-composed video-game speed run music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWqH4h5CQyQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWqH4h5CQyQ Is that kitsch? Are you sure?

slibhb 6y ago
The argument I made is that the process of deciding what is art is intersubjective across time. That doesn't require "consistency in the reception history". It's common for something to be considered art and then forgotten or for something else to be considered not-art and then promoted. It just means everyone gets a vote about whether something is art, the election never ends, and the things that survive and are considered to be art are art. If I say "Eat Pray Love is not art," I'm doing two things: casting my vote and predicting that, in the future world, by popular vote, no one will consider Eat Pray Love to be art.