The good, the bad and the kitsch

When the 20th century came around the corner, the art world made a radical 360-degree turn. A bigger interest in painting itself rather than the subjects that artists decided to portray arose. This all started happening at a trivial time in history for artists as there was no single religion, tradition, or authority that dominated and thus could be questioned of its validity. Also, the lack of unity in the general art audience left many artists with the strenuous task of creating something that would be acceptable to the wider interest. With this, the concept of good art and what qualified as such was challenged. A new art wave surfaced, the avant-garde, and with it did kitsch, both completely contrasting concepts. In 1939, the American art critic Clement Greenberg wrote an essay titled Avant-Garde and Kitsch, in which he claimed that avant-garde and modernist art was a means to resist the “dumbing down” of culture caused by consumerism.

According to Greenberg, the avant-garde was the creme de la creme of the art world. It practised the imitating the imitation; imitating the process by which techniques are formed rather than the technique itself. Avant-garde art was not portraying a new reality instead, it acknowledged the 2-dimensional plane as it is. The focus of works suddenly shifted to the texture, the application and colours of the paint itself rather than a subject. It mostly became known in the form of abstract art. To the naked, unknowing eye, abstract art, such as Jason Pollock’s “Number 31,” seems much less formed than the masterpieces people had considered as art for so many centuries. Avant-garde does not consist of accidental beauty but beauty which is found in the controlling of the uncontrollable. Because this new art demanded a different interpretation, it was only a select few, who were to appreciate it to its worth. With this new wave came a division in the art audience, the mere leisure looking observers versus the high-class intelligent. This socio-political aspect that was now found in the art world, was what Greenberg argued about in his essay.

Perfectly contrasting this concept of avant-garde is the concept of kitsch. Greenberg associated kitsch with the lower class working people, a new layer of society that followed the trend of urbanisation. Kitsch’s audience consisted of people who weren’t necessarily intellectuals of art but rather thirsted for some sort of amusement that culture could provide. But it was no culture as we had known before, it had a more simple form, with the pure purpose of enjoyment. Whereas avant-garde can be described as the imitation of the imitating, kitsch is mechanical and operates by formulas. If avant-garde illustrates the unconscious, kitsch illustrates the conscious. It is effortless to understand kitsch because its subject matter is evident to all who seek it. Whilst the artistic quality of kitsch can be argued for, there is certainly a case to be made for the manner consumerism, especially in this day and age, took a role in the term kitsch. The exaggerated sentimentality and melodrama appealed to this new audience. It was an embodiment of popular culture, though what makes it different from the later well known and beloved Pop Art movement. Where lays the border between what we call art and kitsch. In what way is Andy Warhol’s painting of a can of Campbell soup more valid or good art than a Hollywood movie.

If we have to believe figures such as Greenberg or Scruton, it all comes down to the exact same level of mischief. It’s all kitsch and kitsch is fake art, expressing fake emotions, whose purpose is to deceive the consumer into thinking he feels something deep and serious (Scruton, 2004). Compared to the Golden Age of Hollywood, today’s films with over-the-top, loud, cacophonous, exaggerated acting, explosions, wall-to-wall action may appeal to today’s audiences but is definitely an affront to traditional sensibility, and is therefore considered kitschy. Art, according to critics, should make you a little bit uncomfortable at first, this way it challenges you more and thus broadens your taste. His argument comes down to the value that culture and art should have in our lives. Though the discussion on whether art can never just be beautiful for the sake of it, or entertaining for the sake of it is a whole other one.