AccScience Publishing / AC / Online First / DOI: 10.36922/ac.2990
Submit to AC
Cite this article
17
Download
219
Views
Journal Browser
Volume | Year
Issue
Search
Forthcoming Issue
Current Issue
View All
News and Announcements
View All
REVIEW

A case for kitsch

Maja Tabea Jerrentrup1*
Show Less
1 Department of Media and Culture, Faculty of Interdisciplinary Studies, University Landshut, Landshut, Bavaria, Germany
AC 2024, 2(3), 2990 https://doi.org/10.36922/ac.2990
Submitted: 21 February 2024 | Accepted: 8 April 2024 | Published: 19 August 2024
© 2024 by the Author(s). This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution -Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC-by the license) ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ )
Download PDF
Cite
XML
Abstract

Kitsch and art are often seen as opposites. However, by showing culturally different perspectives on the phenomenon of kitsch, the term itself can be revealed as undefinable and ethnocentric. After looking at the common definition of kitsch and its vague distinction from art, kitsch is considered through the lens of the centuries-old South Asian rasa theory, which places emotion at the center. The postmodern perspective, in turn, brings in self-reflexivity and irony. Both perspectives show that demarcation between art and kitsch is not useful and fails to acknowledge the agency of the recipient. Several psychological functions of kitsch are identified: on an indivdual level, the devotion to feelings play a role, as they can promot psychological well-being. Further, kitsch enables self-reflection, as the choice of perspective lies with the active recipient. In addition, kitsch facilitates a sense of community in a special way and also enables less privileged people to access the art.

Keywords
Kitsch
Art
Rasa theory
Postmodernism
Funding
None.
Conflict of interest
The author declares no conflicts of interest.
References
  1. Jerrentrup MJ. Staging the other: Orientalism in contemporary media. Arte Individuo Soc. 2021;33(4):1329-1346. doi: 10.5209/aris.72035

 

  1. Reck HU. Kritik der Kreativität. Köln: Herbert von Halem; 2019. p. 16.

 

  1. Dissanayake E. What is Art for? Seattle, London: University of Washington Press; 1988. p. 35.

 

  1. Muelder Eaton M. Arts and the aesthetic. In: Kivy P, editor. The Blackwell Guide to Aesthetics. Malden, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing; 2004. p. 63-77, 74.

 

  1. Weitz M. Philosophy of the Arts. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1950. p. 51.

 

  1. Bresnahan AW. Morris Weitz. University of Dayton, Philosophy Faculty Publications; 2014. Available from: https://ecommons.udayton.edu/cgi/viewcontent. cgi?article=1005&context=phl_fac_pub [Last accessed on 2024 Aug 09].

 

  1. Danto AC. The transfiguration of the commonplace. J Aesthetics Art Crit. 1974;33:139-148.

 

  1. Scruton R. Beauty: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press; 2011.

 

  1. Küpper T. Bewusst im Paradies: Kitsch und Reflexivität. Bielefeld: Transcript; 2022. p. 283.

 

  1. Hauser A. Sozialgeschichte der Kunst und Literatur. München: C.H. Beck; 1978. p. 772.

 

  1. Heftrich E. Was heißt l’art pour l’art? In: Bauer R, Heftrich E, Koopmann H, Rasch W, Sauerländer W. Schmoll JA, editors. Fin de Siècle, Zu Literatur und Kunst der Jahrhundertwende. Frankfurt: Vittorio Klostermann; 1977. p. 22.

 

  1. Bolton G. Einführung: Sterben, Verlust und die heilende Kraft der Kunst. In: Bolton G, editor. Kunst und Kreativität in der Palliative Care. Bern: Verlag Hans Huber; 2013. p. 19-34, 24.

 

  1. Messmer J. What Makes Something Art? Messmer’s Musings; 2017. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=vv2cc_fFgmA [Last accessed on 2024 Aug 09].

 

  1. Reck HU. Kritik der Kreativität. Köln: Herbert von Halem; 2019. p. 537.

 

  1. Gaut B. Creativity and imagination. In: Gaut B, Livingston P, editors. The Creation of Art: New Essays in Philosophical Aesthetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003. p. 148-173, 159f.

 

  1. Benjamin W. Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter Seiner Technischen Reproduzierbarkeit. Walter Benjamin - Gesammelte Schriften. Vol. 1, Part 2. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp; 1980. p. 475.

 

  1. Dillon N. What is Art? The Brooklyn Rail. Critical Perspectives on Arts, Politics, and Culture; 2013. Available from: https:// brooklyn/rail.org/2013/09/criticspage/what-is-art-dillon [Last accessed on 2024 Aug 09].

 

  1. Onians J. Atlas of World Art. London: Laurence King Publishing; 2004. p. 279.

 

  1. Sharma G. Economy Growth Best of India. Jankipuram: Free Publishing; 2023. p. 330.

 

  1. Retief G. Kitsch and the art of wildlife painting. Mass Rev. 2003;44(4):677-687, 680.

 

  1. Greenberg C. Avant-garde and kitsch. In: Rosenberg B, White DM, editors. Mass Culture: The Popular Arts in America. London: The Free Press of Glencoe; 1959. p. 102.

 

  1. Jerrentrup MT. Staging the Other. Orientalism in contemporary Media. Arte Individuo Soc. 2021;33(4):1329- 1346, 1340. doi: 10.4000/anthrovision.8839

 

  1. Mihailescu CA. Ritual at the birth of kitsch. Comparatist. 1997;21:49-67, 49. doi: 10.1353/com.1997.0010

 

  1. Kulka T. Kitsch and Art. University Park: Penn State Press; 1996. p. 1.

 

  1. Broch H. Notes on the problem of kitsch. In: Dorfles G, editor. The World of Bad Taste. New York: Universe; 1969. p. 49-76, 62.

 

  1. Cilliers J. The unveiling of life: Liturgy and the lure of kitsch. HTS Teol Stud/Theol Stud. 2010;66:2. doi: 10.4102/hts.v66i2.815

 

  1. Bennett M. The Problem of Kitsch. Confluence; 2017. Available from: https://confluence.gallatin.nyu.edu/context/ first-year-writing-seminar/the-problem-of-kitsch [Last accessed on 2024 Aug 09].

 

  1. Mecacci A. Kitsch. Theo Stud Lit Art. 2021;41(2):65-75.

 

  1. Moles A. Psychologie du Kitsch: L’art du Bonheur. Paris: Denoel; 1977. p. 20.

 

  1. Saxena B. Emily Dickinson: A Pictorial Artist: Soul of a Painter in a Poet. Bloomington IN: Partridge Publishing; 2017.

 

  1. Barlingay SS. A Modern Introduction to Indian Aesthetic Theory: The Development from Bharata to Jagannātha. New Delhi: DK Printworld; 2007.

 

  1. Chakrabarti A. Introduction: Contemporary Indian aesthetics and philosophy of art. In: Chakrabarti A, editor. The Bloomsbury Research Handbook of Indian Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art. London: Bloomsbury; 2016. p. 1-24, 8.

 

  1. Pollock S. A Rasa Reader. Classical Indian Aesthetics. New York: Columbia University Press; 2016.

 

  1. Schwartz SL. Rasa: Performing the Divine in India. New York: Columbia University Press; 2004.

 

  1. Chaudhury PJ. The theory of rasa. J Aesthetics Art Crit. 1965;24(1):145-149, 145.

 

  1. Sharma S. Bharata Muni’s rasa theory: Enlightenment of liquid learning through blend of emotions and imagination. Acad Canvas Int J Engl Stud. 2020;1(1):45-49, 47.

 

  1. Patankar RB. Does the “rasa” theory have any modern relevance? Philos East West. 1980;30:293-303, 293. doi: 10.2307/1399189

 

  1. Pani J. Back to the Roots. Essays on Performing Arts in India. New Delhi: Manohar; 2004. p. 42.

 

  1. Mukherjee R. “Rasas” as Springs of art in Indian aesthetics. J Aesthetics Art Crit. 1965;24(1):91-96, 91. doi: 10.2307/428241

 

  1. Kundera M. The Art of the Novel. New York: Grove Press; 1988. p. 251.

 

  1. Tolstoy L. What is Art? Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1930. p. 123.

 

  1. Tolstoy L. What is Art? Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1930. p. 227.

 

  1. Foster H. Postmodernism: A preface. In: Foster, H, editor. The Anti-Aesthetic. Essays on Postmodern Culture. Port Townsend: Bay Press; 1983. p. ix-xvi, ix.

 

  1. Boyne R, Rattansi A, editors. The theory and politics of postmodernism: By way of an introduction. In: Postmodernism and Society. New York: Bloomsbury; 1990. p. 1-45, 3.

 

  1. Boyne R, Rattansi A, editors. The theory and politics of postmodernism: By way of an introduction. In: Postmodernism and Society. New York: Bloomsbury; 1990. p. 1-45, 9.

 

  1. Lyotard JF. Ob man ohne Körper denken kann. In: Engelmann P, editor. Das Inhumane: Plaudereien Über die Zeit. Wien: Passagen; 1989. p. xxiii.

 

  1. Woods T. Beginning Postmodernism. Vancouver: UBC Press; 1999. p. 8.

 

  1. Bauman Z. Intimations of Postmodernity. New York: Routledge; 1991. p. x.

 

  1. Weber M. Science as a vocation. In: Dreijmanis J, editor. Max Weber’s Complete Writings on Academic and Political Vocations. New York: Algora; 1917. p. 35.

 

  1. Maltby P. Kinkade, Koons, Kitsch. J Cult Relig Theory. 2012;12(1):53-81, 71.

 

  1. Bender S. Heute Glätten Wir die Haut Nicht Mehr so Wie Früher. Welt; 2020. Available from: https://www.welt.de/ iconist/design/article216589726/pierre-gilles-ernst-statt-kitsch-die-neue-seite-der-fotokuenstler.html [Last accessed on 2024 Aug 09].

 

  1. McBride PC. The value of Kitsch. Hermann Broch and Robert Musil on art and morality. Stud 20th 21st Century Lit. 2005;29(2):5, 10. doi: 10.4148/2334-4415.1604

 

  1. Adorno TW, Horkheimer M. Dialektik der Aufklärung. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer; 1947.

 

  1. Harries K. The Meaning of Modern art. A Philosophical Interpretation. Eavanston: Northwestern University Press; 1968. p. 82.

 

  1. Solomon RC. On kitsch and sentimentality. J Aesthetics Art Crit. 1991;49:1-14. doi: 10.2307/431644

 

  1. Gyr U. Kitschbilder? bilderkitsch? gedanken zur bildsteuerung im kitsch. In: Gerndt H, Haibl M, editors. Der Bilderalltag: Perspektiven Einer Volkskundlichen Bildwissenschaft. Münster: Waxmann; 2005. p. 357-65, 362.

 

  1. Kundera M. The Art of the Novel. New York: Grove Press; 1988. p. 248.

 

  1. Brown S. On kitsch, nostalgia, and nineties femininity. Stud Pop Cult. 2000;22(3):39-54, 39.

 

  1. Gupta N. A Student’s Handbook of Indian Aesthetics. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing; 2017. p. 100.

 

  1. Olivier B. Kitsch and contemporary culture. S Afr J Art Hist. 2003;18:104, 112.

 

  1. McIntyre E. Rescuing god from bad taste: Religious Kitsch in theory and practice. Lit Aesthetics. 2014;24(2):83-108, 107.

 

  1. Ubertowska A. The comforting power of kitsch. The (esthetic) meanders of Holocaust literature. Holocaust Stud Mater. 2010:156-172, 158. doi: 10.32927/ZZSiM.123
Share
Back to top
Arts & Communication, Electronic ISSN: 2972-4090 Published by AccScience Publishing
We use cookies on our website to ensure you get the best experience.
Read more about our cookies here
Accept