Kitsch Khichdi ~ A research colloquium paper by Anupriya Arvind

Kitsch Khichdi What is Kitsch & why do I care? Research Colloquium | Author: Anupriya Arvind PGDPD - Graphic Design | Batch 2011

Kitsch; Pronunciation (U.S, U.K) : kich Origin : kitschen (German) | to collect rubbish from the street verb verkitschen (German) | to make cheap Khichdi; Pronunciation (Hindustani) : k(h)i-ch-ri Origin : khichcha (sanskrit) | a dish of rice and legumes Inferred meaning | a balanced amalgmation of various elements

Abstract Call it low-end, ugly, a parody or an anti-thesis to art, Kitsch has held firm ground for centuries. From the day of its conception, its sophisticated mimicry has been a receptor of ironical appreciation. However, people who love it claim that somewhere it invokes acceptance, irony, a connectedness with reality

and most importantly, the ability to laugh at ourselves. As a designer, I feel we often miss the point when we think that beauty in art, literature or music finishes its job when it provides pleasure. Kitsch helps me see beyond that. Celebrating as it does, and in many ways establishing a fresh character after centuries

of stereotypes, Kitsch has become quite a happy baby step for the world which is still trying to come of age. Whether loved or reviled, indulged or condemned, Kitsch is that big itch, always tempting to scratch!

20th, January, 2013

Kitsch | The original duplicate Kitsch, Kitschy, Kitschiness, Kitsch style ... if you are a true believer of populist culture and indulge in living or buying as the ‘plebian’ of today, then you may have heard these words more than often than not. And this paper is definitely right up your alley! If you are a true art aficionado, then this paper might help to you to read from the other sides’ playbook. Even if you are a complete rookie (like me), this paper might help you to gain insight into an art, style, trend and maybe, a way of life. So what is Kitsch, really? Simply put, it is anything excessively garish or sentimental; usually considered to be in bad taste. Another way to describe Kitsch is to term it an art or decorative object in other forms of representation of questionable artistic or aesthetic value. It has been, and still is, appreciated in an ironic way. Many dictionaries define Kitsch as – A German word, Kitsch is a style of mass produced art or design using cultural icons, generally used for unsubstantial or gaudy work, that are calculated to have popular appeal. The conventional concept of Kitsch is applied to artwork that was a response to the nineteenth century art with aesthetics that convey exaggerated sentimentality and melodrama hence it is often called sentimental art. Penning down important keywords, Kitsch is something low-brow, mass produced, copied, imitated, overtly garish, sentimental, melodramatic, over-thetop, tacky, gawdy, folksy and so on.

Anupriya Arvind | Research Colloquium S110112 | Graphic Design

However, my definition of Kitsch is a little different. I see it as pleasingly distasteful. It’s so bad, that it’s cool! Your cat might attack it, but you would love it! It is sentimental, unconventional and fun, all rolled up in one. You can never be sure whether it is meant to be serious or not and it is this uncertainty that makes it amusing! It could be tacky, ugly and the most ridiculous thing you may have ever seen but it would make you smile or laugh and give you that one moment of happiness. It is yours to keep, appreciate, cherish and love without any bias or judgement.

It is everywhere and I mean, literally everywhere, so citing examples may seem easy but it is quite a task. Things that come to my mind instantly are - the painting of Mona Lisa replicated on towels and tissue papers or miniature garish sculptures and paintings in gift shops that have been ‘inspired’ from the renaissance or any of the art movements. Even tiny models of the Eiffel Tower garishly coated in gold colored paint, wooden beer steins with a forest scene carved into the outside, disgusting parts of local wildlife stuffed and mounted to display for your viewing pleasure, inflatable furniture to lava lamps to foam covered mobiles and keychains are all fitting examples of Kitsch. That is to say, if you take a look around, you will be able to see more of Kitsch than any of the pricey originals! At first glance Kitsch may seem like a pile of junk, but on a closer look it could actually stand for a cost effective and a large collection of collectibles (paraphernalia, memorabilia, souvenirs etc.) which people will probably pay a lot of money for, on Ebay. Interestingly, Kitsch began as an art form and later manifested itself in an art movement but it never stopped at that. It also made inroads into architecture, literature, music, movies, television, media and entertainment and slowly into people’s lifestyles! But, more on this later. Coming back to the more important question – when, how and why did it all begin? Kitsch | Once upon a time ... It is not very clear as to how Kitsch really started. According to a myth, Marie Antoinette began the Kitsch art movement with her inspiring words of ‘Let them eat cake’ as a way to promote popular art for everyone. Before this time, art only existed as paintings on high ceilings and portraits of royalty in fancy hunting poses. Hungry for an art style of their own, the average Joe created knockoffs that they could relate to. As a descriptive term, Kitsch originated in the art markets of Munich in the 1860s and the 1870s,

Let them eat cake!

for cheap, popular, and marketable pictures and sketches. In Das Buch vom Kitsch (The Book of Kitsch), Hans Reimann defines it as a professional expression ‘born in a painter’s studio’. Roda Roda claimed in a 1906 newspaper article to be the only person who knew the true origin of Kitsch. According to him it was derived from ‘ver’ and ‘kitt’ that is putting, pasting, etc. something together in a wrong way. I believe Kitsch began in the Baroque Period, which was known for the ability of painters, artists and sculptors to imitate their masters. This led to the art of imitation which transgressed to other occupations as well. People began to interpret already existing art and its extensions in their own way and kept adding their styles to it. Miniatures of famous roman and greek figurines in gawdy frames appeared. Less appreciated artists copied famous artworks and sold them as replicas at cheaper rates. It became popular because it shifted something so unattainable and expensive as art from adorned high ceilings to thatched roofs and faded walls. It gave people hope that even they could claim to have a Da vinci or a Michelangelo in their homes, albeit from an unknown artist. Hence, Kitsch was born. Kitsch | From a pawn to the scapegoat Kitsch created controversies, as connoisseurs and critics began condemning it because art was a hobby of the rich and refined. To collect and appreciate it was their prerogative. The birth of Kitsch made art available to the public. They were worried that what they had kept enclosed to high societal circles was now in the hands of lowly and the unworthy. It was all about assertion and power play.

From then on, Kitsch became a topic of constant debate. Popularized in the 1930s by the art theorists Theodor Adorno, Hermann Broch, and Clement Greenberg, who each sought to define avant-garde and kitsch as opposites, the popularity of Kitsch was perceived by the art world as a great threat to culture. Adorno perceived this in terms of what he called the ‘culture industry’, where the art is controlled and

formulated by the needs of the market and given to a passive population which accepts it; what is marketed is art that is non-challenging and formally incoherent, but which serves its purpose of giving the audience leisure and something to watch or observe. It helps serve the oppression of the population of capitalism by distracting them from their social alienation. He claimed that Kitsch is a parody of catharsis and a parody of aesthetic experience. Hermann Broch argued that while art was creative, kitsch depended solely on plundering creative art by adopting formulas that seek to imitate it, limiting itself to conventions and demanding a totalitarianism of those recognizable conventions. He accused kitsch of not participating in the development of art, having its focus directed at the past. Greenberg held similar views to Broch concerning the beauty and truth disunion, believing that the avantgarde style arose in order to defend aesthetic standards from the decline of taste involved in consumer society and that kitsch and art were opposites. He outlined this in his essay ‘AvantGarde and Kitsch’. One of Greenberg’s more controversial claims was that kitsch was equivalent to academic art. He wrote and I quote *‘All kitsch is academic, and conversely, all that is academic is kitsch.’ He argued this based on the fact that academic art, such as that in the nineteenth century, was heavily centered in rules and formulations that were taught and tried to make art into something that could be taught and easily expressible. He later withdrew from his position of equating the two, as it became heavily criticized. As the literacy in art became widespread, so did the practice of art making hence there was a blurring of the division between high and low culture. This often led to poorly made or conceived artwork being accepted as high art. Many-a-times art which was found to be kitsch showed technical talent, such as in creating accurate representations, but lacked good taste like finishing and packaging; For example a brilliant imitation of Raphael in a cheap frame. Furthermore artwork from frames

descended and disseminated to the public in the form of prints and postcards, which often actively was encouraged by the ‘Kitsch artists’. These images were copied endlessly in kitschified form until they became well-known clichés. Thus, Kitsch became cliché. Samuel Goldwyn once said *‘Let’s have some new clichés’ and while art critics crucify them, I celebrate them. I simply look at clichés as a way to understand something better. I think art is supposed to be subjective, challenging, and oriented against the oppressiveness of the power structure. If that makes it a cliché, then so be it. The fact that the rise of Kitsch led to the Kitsch movement, others may have thought so as well! Kitsch | The world beyond ... In 1998, an international sect of classical painters began the Kitsch movement which saw it as a positive influence; not in opposition to art but as its own superstructure. The movement embraced Kitsch not as an art but as a philosophy. Thus, these painters assert that Kitsch is an embodiment of values and philosophy which are separate from art. This has strengthened over the years and today the Kitsch movement hosts Kitsch Biennale which provides a platform for a large number of artistes and painters.For all the critics of Kitsch, I pose a question. Why taint the art? I always wonder why people criticise or appreciate art. What about the person behind the art? In the light of all the pros and cons that have resurfaced all these years with respect to Kitsch, I have often thought about the people behind it. Behold, the Kitsch-man!

sch

Kit

Kitsch | The man behind the curtain

ch ts Ki Man

ch ts n i K a M

* Andrew Scott Berg | Biography: Goldwyn - A biography | 1989 Anupriya Arvind | Research Colloquium S110112 | Graphic Design

The concept of Kitsch art or movement or whatever you want to call it has not been out of the blue. For the emergence of Kitsch, there had to be a human need. For the lack of a better word, let’s call this human a ‘Kitsch-man’. So for centuries, Kitsch has not only developed and prospered but has taken the form as we see it today, because of the Kitsch-man. This Kitsch-man (or the lover of kitsch, as I would call him) is not just one person

or even a group, but a huge mass of people, maybe even a generation and they have been propagators of Kitsch – as producers, consumers, promoters and at times, living it as a way of their lives! Kitsch flourished and has been alive because of them. If your next questions are, ‘Who are these Kitsch –men?’ ; ‘Where are they today?’ ; ‘How do we find them?’ ; ‘Are they a sect?’ ; ‘Do they wear any symbol or attire that differentiates them as so?’ ; ‘Do they look different?’ , then my answer would be no. They are amongst us and at times, they are us! Now that I have quite effusively spoken about Kitsch and its various manifestations, then would it be very wrong to say that we too are Kitschmen? Can we honestly look at or recollect all the tangible and intangible products or ideas that we have been surrounded with throughout our lives and say that we have been oblivious of; never been touched by or participated in anything Kitsch? I highly doubt that. So yes, we are ‘Kitsch-men’. We too have been contributors in carrying forward this movement. So why is it that only a certain number of people are labelled as being Kitschy? This classification and isolation of certain groups as ‘Kitsch-people’ is what I often contemplate. Listening to pop-songs doesn’t make you a ‘poplover’ or trying out Chinese cuisine doesn’t label you as a Chinese food enthusiast, then what is it with Kitsch that invokes stereotypes and labelling people? I could be into Kitsch art still not want to be called kitschy. I know many would ask the big deal in being called that. How does it matter? But it’s more the act of stereotyping with names than the name itself, which perplexes me and I have noticed it more in this case. For the sake of argument let’s say that it is the degree of ‘Kitschiness’ that would matter here, then. A person who has greater inclination towards Kitsch-stuff is more of a Kitsch-man than someone who doesn’t, I guess. Not a very convincing argument, though. Something to think about. The above contemplation also begs the question – Is it so bad, really, to be called a ‘Kitsch-man’? Why do I feel that people (including me) are uncomfortable with this tag? Does this stem from the fact that Kitsch

is not acceptable or high-brow? Why do we feel the need to have tastes or preferences that have to be socially appreciated? I want to like something that is generally considered distasteful, unconventional or tawdry ... infact I don’t think it is bad at all. I think it’s beautiful but I am hesitant to say so? Why is that? But that’s maybe just me ... or is it? Kitsch | Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder? Having raised the questions of beauty and taste in the previous paragraph, I will now come to some of the most famous philosophers who spoke about them many centuries back – David Hume and Immanuel Kant. Not that I would want to refute anything they said because they are great philosophers and have been acclaimed to be ahead of their times, but I would like to highlight a few questions and analogies of my own, however erroneous they may seem. Together clubbed as the ‘Enlightenment thinkers’ between the years of 1700 – 1800, their complex proposals of bringing various arts under a comprehensive doctrine are an important source of issues and arguments that underlie debates in our century, even today. Hence my sole purpose in citing them.

David Hume

Theodor Adorno

Immanuel Kant Clement Greenberg Hermann Broch

* From the left

Both were motivated by the question of whether our highly subjective and even irrational responses to artworks and other beautiful objects can have any sort of objectivity. While Kant claimed that judgments of taste are both subjective and universal, Hume too professed that *‘Beauty is not a quality inherent in things; it only exists in the mind of the beholder.’ By this logic it is not crazy for us to say that Kitsch art (because of its popularity) is beautiful! So far, so good. However what I fail to understand is why would Kant then call the direct appeal to sense as ‘barbaric’? Also, how ‘sentimentality’ or ‘pathos’, which are the defining traits of kitsch, do not find room within Kant’s ‘aesthetical indifference’. There is direct conflict in both the theories because though both emphasize on fine art displaying genius but neither believes that the value

of an artwork can be inferred from general principles or from intellectual knowledge of what beauty is. Kant also identified genius with originality. One could say he was implicitly rejecting kitsch because of the presence of sentimentality and the lack of originality. I am in the horns of a dilemma and sort of confused between these philosophers who say that there are no stereotypes/limitations or conditions to beauty and taste; it is subjective yet they lay such great emphasis on fine art and originality. Hume and Kant emphasize that beauty is characterized by a ‘sentiment’ or feeling of pleasure and refinement of taste is an important aspect of it, which negates their oh-so-openness for beauty. They try to escape this difficulty by denying that taste is a single, distinct faculty; they treat it as a complex response that involves sense perception, imagination, and judgment. A tad too complicated & confusing? My point, exactly! Let’s look at Kitsch instead. Kitsch says that if you really like/cherish/ appreciate something, despite all positive/negative associations with it, it is beautiful! Now that is so much more simple, understandable and adaptable. When I look at the works of Jeff Koons, Allee Willis, David La Chappelee or Pierre et Gilles, I see pure art. They are my Kitsch-men; truly gifted artists. For them (and me) Kitsch is a form of expression, an artistic language one can choose, similar to abstract expressionism or concrete art. But why am I rambling on just about art? Kitsch is so much more! Kitsch | One face, many facets In literature Kitsch is seen as function of irony. You can see it in cheesy, saccharine or corny novels. While some may sneer, I find my enlightenment in Kitsch at times. In music, all remixes, mashups and videos are forms of Kitsch. Leaving out stalwarts like Beethoven and Bach who are considered to be pioneers of great music, all music that developed from there on is Kitsch. Politics, buildings, homes, television shows,

reality TV, home furnishings, appliances, antiques, fashion, apparel, accessories ... the list is endless. Forms of Kitsch also led to types namely urban, progressive, hyper, elitist and so on. I’ll talk about my favourite (predictably so) - Indian Kitsch. Kitsch | Videshi meets Desi (foreign meets local) It has been quite some time since independent India has learnt to be less apologetic about themselves and design is one such area. Adaptability, once considered to be our weakness became our strength in design. When Kitsch reached India, everyone from the creative to the mundane adopted it with a vengeance. To prove a point? Maybe. I see it more as an urge for novelty.Kitsch moved up and down our societal framework with equal zest and fortitude, finding home in the top brass and the rusted iron (pun intended!). Kitsch became Indian Kitsch and we created a new, self sustaining form of expression. The Kitsch – itch (as I like to call it) became a trend spreading like wild fire. Some call it a marketing gimmick; others see it as a means to bring people together. Love it, hate it, you certainly can’t ignore it! From urban brands in mega malls to sunday markets and village haat knock offs, Indian Kitsch is what binds us together, at least visually. At one point or the other, all of us have identified ourselves with this phenomenon. Happily Unmarried, People’s tree, Reebok Fish Fry, Play Clan, Chumbak, Kitsch Mandi are some of the brands that people boast as their prized posessions.

To me Indian Kitsch is something like a unique animated image of an old chai waala in the form of a coaster, pouring a glass of tea into another vessel with his kettle merrily whistling away depicting the traditional urban kitlis of India in a unique, classy, ridiculously eye catching, and flamboyant style or a tin box scattered with tiny images of various Indian originated, animated themes like a society or a scene of an old city street. I have seen graphic artists and designers romancing the auto rickshaw, three-wheelers, trucks and

cycles. Today, there is a wider range of street imagery being translated onto various fashion and lifestyle arena. It is all about creating something that makes you want to own a part of India. The beauty of Indian Kitsch is that it has evolved into other art forms like pop art, street art and truck art to create some really seminal work. It effortlessly blends the rustic and the urban, hence is reflective and relatable to a large part of our population. It has put India on the world visual map. Negating the stereotypical associations that people have made with Indian Kitsch, it has managed to win hearts far and wide; local and global. Kitsch | What does it all mean and why do I care? So all this has led me question myself (as I was by others many times) as to what is Kitsch to me and why do I care? For lack of a structured answer I will share my incoherence with hope that things would seem clearer to the reader and to me by the end of it all. What’s my view of kitsch? It’s garish, tasteless and sentimental as art connoisseurs profess. Garden gnomes and conventions of Elvis impersonators may be its most outlandish examples, but I can find kitsch, in every corner that I see each day. It is, I feel, a sort of manifestation of human feeling wrapped in a thick layer of cuteness. “Kitsch is the daily art of our time, as the vase or the hymn was for earlier generations,” said Harold Rosenberg, the great art critic. Milan Kundera argued, *“No matter how much we scorn it, kitsch is an integral part of the human condition” and I agree wholeheartedly. I find it endearing because full-bore kitsch can be enjoyed in two ways at the same moment, for itself and as a parody of itself; a one-size-fits-all style, it is designed to satisfy audiences at all levels of sophistication. Kitsch encourages us to dwell on our own satisfactions and anxieties; it tells us to be pleased with what we have always felt and known. It reaches us to the level where we are easiest to please, a level requiring minimum mental effort. In all fairness, problem is not with

kitsch. I think it faces flak for standing opposite beauty and beauty’s concept has been so distorted lately that it just makes kitsch look bad. Recent decades have not treated beauty kindly; particularly so in the visual arts. ‘Beautiful’ ceased to be an adjective of praise in the art world, decades ago. It has become the virtue that dare not speak its name. No wonder now there are more number of people writing about art than ever before; what they are not writing about, is beauty. It is not our conception of Kitsch but our misconception of art and beauty that is the root of all debate. Why cannot beauty be something communally valued? Then no one would need to argue on it and then maybe, with eventual acceptance of beauty as a virtue for everyone (to be praised and understood), the noose on Kitsch might begin to loosen. People would (if not appreciate) at least look at it with an open mind and then be free to make their own conclusions about it. At least, their viewpoints would be free from pre conceived notions. Perhaps like forgery, Kitsch is a feature of an art world in which money and desire are accepted inevitably more than knowledge and taste. Accepting rather than condemning it, might be a better way to look at it.

Anupriya Arvind | Research Colloquium S110112 | Graphic Design

What’s important is it’s recognition as a comforting buffer between the real and unreal. That is what makes me content and happy as a true believer.

Bibliography Kitsch : The world of bad taste | Gillo Dorfles | London, Studio Vista, 1970 Fantastic Plastic : The kitsch collector’s guide | Pete Ward | New Jersey, Chartwell book, 2000 Webliography: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitsch’ http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ kitsch http://www.urbandictionary.com/ define.php?term=kitsch

I’m sure all this leaves no room for doubt to say that I am a Kitsch admirer, if not a lover. I recognise it for all its perfections and flaws.

http://articles.timesofindia. indiatimes.com/2013-01-14/homegarden/36216092_1_pop-art-kitschinteresting-art

I care because as a designer kitsch makes me question conventional art, beauty, taste. I now understand that we cannot always dictate terms on peoples’ likes and dislikes. Sometimes one creates things which may not be termed classically pretty or beautiful but is more out of practicality, experience and sentiment.

http://www.sharecom.ca/greenberg/ kitsch.html

With all its loopholes and weaknesses, Kitsch beautifies the problematic, makes the disturbing reassuring, and establishes an easy unison of the individual and the world. It is not so much a metaphor, as a multifaceted response to modernity of great complexity, in its very simplicity. Its identification as an aesthetic style is insignificant.

http://lucian.uchicago.edu/blogs/ mediatheory/keywords/kitsch/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_ Kitsch_Movement’ http://www.thehindu.com/lifeand-style/kitsch-kitsch-hota-hai/ article3753645.ece

www.bartleby.com/27/ http://www.sharecom.ca/greenberg/ kitsch.html http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/ quotes/m/milankunde399576.html

* For a look at more research colloquium papers, visit

http://colloquiumgd.wordpress.com/