Talk:Kitsch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former featured article Kitsch is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Peer review This Arts article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

Contents

[edit] = Kitsch vs. Tacky

In popular parlance, I can see how Kitsch can come to mean tacky or crass. And I can see how pastoral scenes, such as those painted by the French academic painters, could be seen as low-brow. But I think there is a fundamental difference between crass art, which is often irreverent and offensive, and pastoral art, which is sanguinely positive. Is Kitsch "things modernists don't like"?


I think the definition of the word has simply changed from its original, something reelected in the article's disjointed transition from theoretical writing, referring to pastoral and maudline art, and moving to the crass and low-brow definition. I think that an more appropriate example of kitsch would be some sort of Christian angel lamp, or some other maudline, non-ironic, conventional piece of art.

[edit] Racist ashtray?

How is the ashtray racist? Does it depict slave garb, or a stereotyped "silly" black person? I'm guessing the latter, but I'm honestly curious how this ashtray ended up getting labelled as racist. - Connelly 09:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


See this site [1], in particular this page [2] Pathlessdesert 12:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


The reference provided is an excellent one. Within American history this style of caricature has been considered racist, (with social outcry to match), for over 50 years. For a well-documented incident involving Jim-Crow style caricatures of blacks, see the 1950's-era response to the Amos 'n Andy television show Amos_and_Andy#Television. It is difficult to argue that society has not staked out a position on these caricatures, in use from the days of slavery through Jim Crow, thus justifying the description in the article.

It is critical to understand the caricature's significance in the context of both the time period within which such caricatures were created and their purposes in the society at large at the time. They were not simply "stereotyped" or "in slave garb" (which, incidentally, wouldn't be racist simply to reproduce in a figurine-- so-called slave garb is historically relevant if it was actually worn). Rather, they depicted the subject using exaggerated and animal-like features and behaviors, to in turn depict his/her race as subhuman and inferior. Through wide distribution these caricatures were used to still further reinforce the race inferiority idea in society at large. The tie of this kind of figurine to race and promotion of ideas of racial superiority/inferiority is, again, well-documented. It is not a subjective "label." 67.191.158.98 05:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


I would also submit that the word 'slightly' attatched to the description is of questionable accuracy and merit, and should be removed. The ashtray is either visually and temporally Jim Crow memorabilia, or it is not. The business of "slightly" is a POV/subjective spin on severity which, while observed often in discussions of race between disagreeing parties these days, has no cited reference in the article. 67.191.158.98 05:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


Interesting. It actually reminded me of the tar baby in the Brer Rabbit stories that I grew up reading. But it looks like those Jim Crow items, so I asked the photographer User:KF whether it is temporally a Jim Crow item as well as visually so we can have a more informative tag than "slightly rascist." P.S.: I get your point that it is visually Jim Crow memorabilia didn't mean to offend. - Connelly 04:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Changed to "A kitschy ashtray, of a style common [3] in the Jim Crow and segregation era, and thus showing the historical face of racism." Awkward but oh well. - Connelly 12:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other comments

Spinoza1111 07:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Edward G. Nilges: changed picture caption of cute bunny from "art in questionable taste..." to "example of kitsch": it is frivolous to write about aesthetics while assuming that the reader's aesthetics are so formed that she already knows what is and is not "questionable". The caption essentially said "Kitsch is kitsch". This drives art readers crazy because they read about art to learn. I have changed the caption for this reason.

In actuality, the cute bunny, if intended and presented as a satire on bourgeois love of cute bunnies and as a morally serious comment on the contradiction between the domestic sphere, with its false consciousness that "small and defenseless things will in fact be protected and not, as actually happens, as we know happens, forced to the wall by capitalist relations", and the base of economic relations, would NOT be kitsch. That is, the quote operator is the negation of kitsch.

However, a picture caption is no place to discuss such possibilities. To do so would in fact be either insincere or neo-kitsch.

This seems like more of a dictionary entry than an encyclopedia article, and I can't see how it can develop into a good one. --Robert Merkel 13:12 Oct 2, 2002 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, Robert. I'm pretty sure Kitsch becomes a lengthy article, since #no decent dictionary definition can give anyone a clue what it is #without plenty of examples, it's meaningless, #it's a cultural/artistic phenomenon, not just a word.

When this becomes a full-size article, it should include:

  • Types of Kitsch

...

  • Examples

...

  • Kitsch Cultural Phenomena (by country)

...

  • Links to Kitsch Art, Commentary, and Fan Clubs

...

Also, For those trying to do a better job on defining Kitsch, (or myself when I have some time) I've found some good thoughts here at http://clover.slavic.pitt.edu/~djb/aatseel/1999/abstract-28.html

My excerpt:

(kitsch is) art or literature of a cheap, garish, or sentimental

nature, while allowing that kitsch may be utilized in a work of art without having to relegate that work to the status of "bad art" or "anti-art."

Second, I will treat kitsch in its aesthetic context only, and

largely ignore the socio-historical question (with its attendant and important questions of cultural relativism, elitism, imperialism, etc). Finally, I will propose a definition of kitsch specifically for the written work of art. I suggest that kitsch as a literary device is a function of irony. Often it is sentimentalism or mawkishness put to use by the narrator, whose ironic tone is a signal to the reader to "read this as kitsch." In the absence of an ironic narrator or subtext, the sentimentalism; or mawkishness (the kitsch as such) stands. This may be called "unmitigated kitsch." In an effort to further elaborate this kitsch-irony interaction, I will draw on the categories of irony that Wayne Booth sets out in his Rhetoric of Irony, namely his threefold criteria of stable/unstable, local/universal, and overt/covert. If kitsch and irony are as closely related as I postulate, then it will be possible and productive to apply these categories of irony to kitsch.

I promise, if nobody else does, to use this stuff and more to make a worthy article out of Kitsch. Steve Rapaport

I just want to make the following comment that has something to do with cultural relativism. Kitsch is originally a german word and concept evidently not easily translatable to english. Well, curiously enough in spanish there is a word that translates very well the kitsch concept that may be older than kitsch. This word is "cursi" and would be interesting to look into its origin. But this word has been used in spanish for a long time, and is also a debated term, being very hard to agree in what is cursi or not. Gerardo Llamas

OK, I'm glad you intend to turn this into a decent article. A couple of points:

  • Wikipedia isn't the place for original research (so if you are

presenting your own new theories of kitsch, this isn't the place to introduce the world to them).

I've no doubt you can, but I think these are important things to keep in mind as you write the article. --Robert Merkel

Excellent points, I shall use them for guidance and I hope others do too. I believe we agree on the basic idea. Thanks again. --Steverapaport

I just completed a major update and expansion of this article. Brianshapiro Dec 3, 2003


I'm very glad to say that I have been proven completely wrong and the article is now very informative! I will try to tweak a little of the writing soon. --Robert Merkel 04:35, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The article seems to be entirely about art, from the perspective of the serious art world. I think there's another (if closely related) meaning. I rememeber once seeing a 1930s Nazi propaganda poster that railed against Nazi-themed "kitsch" like cheap toys bearing swastikas. From what I can remember, the things it objected to weren't art or even pseudo-art, but just cheap commercialization of the Party image. So in that context, kitsch meant "cheap commercialization" without quite the same artistic overtones. Is there a way to work that kind of meaning into the article (preferably not with the Nazis as an example... does anyone have a similar one?) Isomorphic 21:29, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

This text was originally on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates:

[edit] Kitsch

A fine example of an article that was once little more than a dictionary stub, and has been turned into an interesting and in-depth article. Smerdis of Tlön 01:05, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • Support: Very lovely page with lots of interesting information. I was going to object... but instead I'll tentatively support but would hope the people most involved in the page would give it two or three pictures to illustrate. --LordSuryaofShropshire 03:22, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Kingturtle 06:57, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Support.--TheEvilLibrarian 11:48, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Captions

I'd like to write good captions for kitsch, but I don't understand the relevance of September Morn to the article. Is it kitsch art? What makes it so?

It's a very widely reproduced, somewhat academic and somewhat allegorized representational nude that appeared during the turn of the century period. (Most of the pictures at academic art were a bit too good, or at least compositionally striking, to be examples of kitsch. Smerdis of Tlön 19:08, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Okay, I took a shot at the caption. Please feel free to edit as necessary. -- ke4roh 03:03, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong spelling

It's kitsch, not kitch (found several times in the article)

Thanks, --217.93.140.121 18:32, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] german source

> German term etwas verkitschen (which has a similar meaning to "knock off" in English)

are you sure about this? i have never heard the word "verkitschen". and in the german wikipedia it says, the origin of the word kitsch is unknown. Elvis 17:18, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ahem! If one cares to 'Google' verkitshen, one will find that on the basis of the results, there is certainly such a word:

Results 1 - 10 of about 647 for verkitschen. (0.16 seconds)

Example:

"Menschenfresser und barbusige Mädchen: Ein ZDF-Film und ein Buch verkitschen und verharmlosen den deutschen Kolonialismus in skandalöser Weise."

Hope that clears that issue up nicely.

verkitschen does exist, but it is derived from Kitsch and just means to "make kitsch out of something" (where something is the topic or theme, not the physical material). verkitschen definitely does not have the meaning of to "knock off" or to "make cheap". --Arn7 13:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes

I am expanded the article to what it is, I wasnt happy with some of the recent changes I am changing a few things back and editing some things.

One of the changes was the reduction of "wordiness", this would include the sentence saying that kitsch is associated with sentimentality because the term was a response to 19th c taste. This was important to point out so I put it back, because it has a lot to do with why people use the term how it is used. I didn't put back the section on the origins fo the term yet though i think it may be important to establish.

Some of the rewrites were sort of wrong also. The first paragraph said it appealed to 'lowbrow' taste.. The critique of kitsch is that it appeals to 'middlebrow' taste. Lowbrow is lower class bar room ,etc. Middlebrow is from middle class which is the bourgeois, which admired and collected kitsch. (broadway musicals are often called middlebrow, and many people who criticize kitsch also criticize musicals). Also someone made the link where it says 'adorno popularized' link popularize to the article on 'pop culture' this is wrong because Adorno popularized it first mainly among intellegensia

I also put the paragraphs on Kundera back into the avant-garde section because he was speaking an avant-gardist philosophy. He was also not that important a theorist on kistch himself to merit a section, Adorno and Greenberg and Broch were more important. I dont believe the article should have too many sections.

The picture of Vegas was replaced with the garden gnome, and this is ok but the article didnt really talk about cheap produced items like this being kitsch (one of its faults).

The Chabas picture was moved up but put in a clumsy place so I removed it. But I always had thoughts about removing it. When the Chabas picture was first put in the article I also talked with the person who put it there, and we discussed the idea that a better example could be put in its place. Chabas' painting isnt really bad even though its not so good, it has good compositional qualities. The thing about Chabas is he becomes ludicrous once you see all his paintings are of bathing girls. There is still contention over whether his paintings are kitsch. Regardless of any of this, a better, clearer example of what is called kitsch should be used. The person who put the Chabas picture agreed and said if I could find a better example to put up I should.

I am going to look for something to replace it. I might go for a Thomas Kinkade, but that might be harder than I think because of the copyrights he puts on this.

If anyone has any disagreement with me or problems with me re-editing the article, talk here or give me a message on my user page, so we can work it out before any edit wars happen.

I will also work on modifying the article to include cheap commercial productions though this is tied to its use in art

User:Brianshapiro

[edit] Add Bev Doolittle

Please please please add Bev Doolittle to the examples. I don't know if it's possible to get a public domain image but here's a link to a picture on her website. http://www.bnr-art.com/doolitt/originals/callingbuffalo.jpg - if that's not the perfect example of kitsch then nothing is. I would add it myself but the editor nazi's always mark my submissions as trolls...

edit - ahh ahh omg i can't stop laughing when I see her work. All I can think of is a native american shedding a single tear

user:Windkin

[edit] Gypsies

If someone became famous for his numerous variations of the Gipsy Girl, it's definietly J.H. Lynch http://www.jhlynch.org whose work "Tina" is probably one of the most prominent works of mass market art - at least one of the best selling ones. Excuse my ignorance, but I have neither heard about Charles Roka before nor have I ever seen one of his gypsy girls.

You havent heard of Charles Roka because he painted in the early 20th century, which is around the time intellectuals started talking about kitsch. What this article states is accurate; that he was one of the first important examples of a kitsch painter. He was rather famous then and his paintings reproduced and was the first one to capitalize on the theme of gipsy girls. J.H. Lynch isn't really well known either, but I think less important to include in the article.

[edit] Elvis Presley

Can Elvis Presley himself be considered and example of Camp and Kitsch? I'm waiting for further approval before posting it, but as far as i'm concerned, he fits in all pre-requisites for being considered kitsch and camp.

[edit] Romanticism, and Victorian Art

Much of the Romanticism and Victorian art can also be considered Kitsch. Should we open a section in the arcticle discussing seriously the issue? As I can see, ultra-romanticism features an exaggeration and a phony copy and idealization of older concepts. Victorian art seems to be not only a darker variant but an interesting phoenomenon.

[edit] Original research/analysis in latest addition?

Re: the addition of a long paragraph by 203.124.2.8 on 16 September 2005 (which I won't quote here due to length).

I feel that this *may* be skirting the border of personal analysis (i.e. original research) and (possibly) POV. It doesn't appear to be backed up by anyone else's work; that is, there is nothing to indicate that the analysis belongs to anyone other than the author of the paragraph.

I'd propose this for removal on that basis, but would also like to hear others opinion (including the original author, who unfortunately doesn't have their own account and connected via a shared IP, so is (a) anonymous, and (b) harder to communicate with).

Any thoughts?

Fourohfour 16:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


Delete, the remark about kisch having haved to be popular is untrue, please delete whole contribution--Jahsonic 17:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] time and a reference

Călinescu, Matei.Five faces of modernity Duke University Press, 1987. has some good stuff. he identifies at least 3 possible etymological sources for the word. One thing that strikes me is how ideas of what is kitsch seem to change over time.

p g-b

[edit] Hey...

Hey, the bunny rabbit is cute. Couldn't you find a Hello Kitty vibrator, or a bear wearing a ballet outfit, or something else truly god awful to illustrate this page with? Dragons flight 05:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually I came to comment just to remark how PERFECT and appropriate the image was. Failing that, I vote for a [Precious Moments] figurine to accompany the article. http://www.roadsideamerica.com/attract/MOCARprecious.html explains so well the creepiness of dead baby angels. Noirdame 10:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] explanation for consecutive reversions @ 2:13 and 2:14 (14 March 2006)

I just wanted to leave a comment here explaining my edits/reversions to this page. I noticed a vandalism and hastily edited the page instead of reverting it (see version dated 01:47, 14 March 2006, edited as IP 24.16.110.135). Having done this, I had to revert this page twice in order to recover the desired version; this is the reason for my two consecutive edits (at 02:13, 14 March 2006 and 02:12, 14 March 2006).

I had to revert the page twice because, it seems, wikipedia was not allowing me to revert directly from the 01:47, 14 March 2006 version (my initial edit) to the original version (04:43, 13 March 2006). I believe this is because the edit I made resulted in the "new" page being identical to the original, and wikipedia probably doesn't allow reversions that produce no change in the text of the article. Anyway, I'm not sure if the current situation (an edit plus two reversions) is any better than the previous situation (an edit that should have been a reversion), but that's how it all happened.

Ewoo251 02:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC) (new wikipedian)

[edit] pronunciation

Perhaps give readers an idea of its pronunciation, sounds like 'mitch'?

[edit] Concept of the "kitsch-man"

The article as it stands has a section entitled "The concept of the "kitsch-man." This section seems to me to be unsuitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. I started to be bold and just go ahead and delete it, but I decided to see if, perhaps, I might be missing something. The section reads, to me, like it was written by someone who had an axe to grind. Perhaps the author had in mind a specific individual of his own acquaintance. The writing is a bit opaque and the whole thing is difficult for me to apply to any cultural phenomenon I know of. I expected it to refer to the cultural phenomenon I percieve around me here in Seattle, wherein some individuals collect kitsch out of a sense of irony, but that doesn't seem to be what the section is talking about. I'm going to wait a couple of days and see if anyone can convince me that I'm missing something. If not, I'm going to delete it from the article and put it here on the discussion page. —CKA3KA (Skazka) 16:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It was I! It is a well-established concept in writings on kitsch. For example, there is a chapter devoted to the concept in Dorfles, Gillo (1969, translated from the 1968 Italian version, Il Kitsch). Kitsch: The world of Bad Taste, Universe Books, and The Unbearable Lightness of Being includes an account of a senator who transforms the experience of watching children playing in the grass into a kitsch experience. I have no axe to grind, but with all due respect, the article should deal with published writings on the phenomenon (as opposed to your personal experiences of kitsch in Seattle). The section could be misplaced, or overlong, and if anybody can figure out how to better integrate this into the article I would have no objections. Pathlessdesert 09:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] inferior copy yea, "questionable quality" extremely subjective

most of the time an "inferior"(calling sth "inferior" is usually subjective too) or simply a copy of something else, can be identified.

but, "questionable taste" in art is such a wide field it can only be attributed to individual taste. I don't think therefore that an artist can seriously be identified as "kitsch" by all groups or all cultures, unless it's in the meaning of the easily identified copy of a previous work of art.

besides, special and original art forms are usually seen by the masses(which includes the masses of "critics") as "questionable" before they gain any serious recognition. should they be identified as kitsch? in that case it brings the meaning to the exact opposite end of the word where it doesn't sound good at all.

[edit] etymology

Isn't this word of Yiddish origin? I thought I recalled reading that somewhere ... I will see what I can find out, but if someone out there knows if that is correct or not, please edit appropriately. Also, shouldn't this article have the link for 'kitsch' in the Wiki Dictionary? - IstvanWolf 18:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Milan Kundera says its German. Evrenosogullari 14:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

According to the Columbia Guide to Standard English, quoted at http://www.bartleby.com/68/24/3524.html the English word probably comes from the Yiddish usage. Night1stalker 17:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

That meaningless trivia section has got to go. Except for its untranslatability, none of it is relevant to discussion of Kitsch at all.

[edit] Personal essay

This isn't an encyclopedia article, it's a highly opinionated personal essay. I was especially tickled by the following statement:

The musicians whose work may be considered kitsch are Stockholm Syndrome, Nickelback, Modern Error, and Telekinesis for Cats.

What, only those four? :-) 217.155.20.163 20:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, especially citing prominent comic book illustrators like Alex Ross or even Frank Frazetta as "kitsch". These artists are *illustrators*, they don't claim to be fine artists, and they and their illustrations are definitely not well-known by the average person. It seems the author confuses "kitsch" with "fantasy" (fantasy as a genre) in this instance.

[edit] Kirby & Ross

This has been bugging me for a long time, but now that I'm more comfortable with wikipedia, I'm going to bring it up.

I love the works of Fazetta, and don't think of them as kitsch, but I've seen them referred to as kitsch in places. But Jack Kirby and Alex Ross? I've never heard them called that anywhere but this article. There are plenty of comic book artists who's work could conceivably be called kitsch, but to single out and list the father of modern comic art and the man who's arguably the best painter working in comics today is both illogical and insulting to the medium as a whole. If no one can provide sources for that classification, I'm going to delete them. Night1stalker 21:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Bravo!Dailycyclist 04:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Seeing how it's been a month, and the only response I've gotten is encouragement, I'm going to go ahead and remove the inappropriate mentions. Night1stalker 01:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation?

How does one pronounce kitsch? Does it rhyme with "witch" or "dish"? I know, I know, I really need to learn how to read IPA...  :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.81.132.252 (talk) 07:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures... pictures? pictures!?

Just in case it didn't come across: this article needs pictures, lots and lots of pictures. Please add some pictures before adding any more text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.28.234 (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A subject that deserves further refinement

The author has made a good start for this article, but it reads like a first-year college essay.

This article (http://humanities.uchicago.edu/faculty/mitchell/glossary2004/kitsch.htm) does a better job of handling the subject.

[edit] Awful lot of POV going on

There is a lot of opinion being offered here as to who is kitschy and who isn't. Can we get rid of all this? Mangoe (talk) 02:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Milan Kundera and Kitsch

In his book The Unbearable Lightness of Being Milan Kundera dwells on a notion of kitsch that has to do with the body of the overly sentimental and maudlin that ultimately comes across as fake. His notion was not restricted to art but also encompassed behavior and the entire feel-good mentality. If I recall correctly Kundera acknowledged later that his definition seemed to differ from the more conventional definition of kitsch as cheap and gaudy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.223.69 (talk) 09:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)