the aporias of kitsch

ReviewpaperUDC111.852(045)doi:10.21464/sp33117

Received:May11,2018

Mirjana RadojičićUniversityofBelgrade,InstituteforPhilosophyandSocialTheory,KraljiceNatalije45,RS–11000Beograd

[email protected]

The Aporias of Kitsch

AbstractThe text is based on the standpoint that the indeterminateness of the term of kitsch understood as pseudoart feeds upon the indeterminateness of art as its correlate term. However, as the author perceives, that does not reduce the theoretical efforts aimed at establishing, on this slippery and unsafe “field”, some firmer demarcation lines, some more reliable discrimenrerum between those categories, which are, at least on the phenomenal plane, very close to each other. This paper attempts to do that by viewing kitsch from the angle of the aesthetics of reception, then from the angle of the sociology of art and, finally, from the axiological point of view.

Keywordskitsch,art,aestheticsofreception,sociologyofart,axiology

There is hardly any person today, even if they are not well versed on thesubjectofaestheticsorphilosophyofculture,whohasnot,atleastonceintheirlife,usedthetermkitsch toqualifycertainobjectsintheirculturalset-ting,beingmoreorlesssureofnothavingexceededthescopeofitsmeaning;there isalsohardlyany theoreticianof thisphenomenonwhobelieves thatthisscopecanbeestablishedatallasacompleteanddefinitiveone.Thatfact,however,doesnotobstructeitherofthemintheirefforts–itdoesnotpreventtheformerfromusingthattermwithoutlimitsorthelatterfrommakingaper-sonalanalyticcontributiontowardsincreasingthetextualproductionwhichaims,atleastnominally,totakeastepclosertowardstheterm’sintegralanddefinitecontent.Insuchattempts, theymaybesupportedby the fact that similaroralmostidenticalqualificationscouldbeappliedtoalmosteveryaestheticcategory.“Everyphilosophyamountstojugglingcloudsandthesituationinthephi-losophyofartisnodifferentatall”,claimedHermannBroch,1withwhomitisnotdifficulttoagreeinthisrespect.Moreover,thisopinionofhiswouldhavewithstoodanycriticismevenifithadbeenexpressedinamoreradicalform–thateveryphilosophyis jugglingcloudsandthat thephilosophyofartismostso.Itseemsthatthereisnophilosophicaldisciplinethesubjectofwhicheludessomuchtherationalinstrument,withwhichthatdisciplineistryingtomasterittheoreticallyandtopenetratethequidditasofallitsmani-festations.“Inspiteof themanyaesthetic theories,weseemnonearerour

1

Hermann Broch, Dichten und Erkennen, Rhein-Verlag,Zürich1955,p.238.

https://doi.org/10.21464/sp33117

SYNTHESISPHILOSOPHICA65(1/2018)pp.(263–277)

M.Radojičić,TheAporiasofKitsch264

goaltodaythanwewereinPlato’stime”,writesMorrisWeitz.2Itisprobably,therefore,asHartmannclaimed,thataestheticsisnotwrittenfortheartistortheobserverofaworkofart,butexclusivelyforthethinker,towhomtheac-tionandattitudeofthetworepresentamystery.3

Itisuponsuchavaguenessofartasitscorrelateinmeaningthatthevague-nessofthetermkitsch feeds.“Aslongasthetruthofartremainsamysterytous,theuntruthofkitschwillcontinuefillinguswithunrest”,writesLudwigGiesz.4However,aswehavesaid,thatdoesnotreducethetheoreticaleffortsaimedatestablishing,onthisslipperyandunsafe“field”,somefirmerdemar-cationlines,somemorereliablediscrimen rerum betweenthosecategories,whichare,atleastonthephenomenalplane,veryclosetoeachother.Toadduptotheparadox,thetermofkitsch, nomatterhowincompleteandopenitscontentmaybe,canbeestablished,totheextenttowhichitcanbeestablishedatall,onlyvisàvis thetermofart,thecontentofwhichisequallyunreliableanddifficulttodefine.For,asHumeclaimed:

“…aslap-dashpaintingmaycontainacertainglowofcoloursandaccuracyofimitation;thesearebeauties,asfarastheygo,andwouldaffectthemindofapeasantoranIndianwiththehigh-estadmiration.Averycrudepopularsongmayhaveacertainamountofharmony(initsmusic)orofnature(initswords),anditsmusicwouldbefoundharshoritslyricsuninterestingonlybysomeonewhoisfamiliarwithsuperiorbeauties.”5

Kitsch from the angle of the aesthetics of reception

Searching for thenarroweraesthetic contextwithinwhich theactof treat-ingandspeakingoftheproblemofkitschcouldbesituated,fortheclosestaesthetic a quoofthatcomplexphenomenon,othertheoreticiansaswellhavemostlyhaltedwhencomingacrossthetermoftaste. Suchaconstantpsycho-logicalandaestheticpoint,whichmarksapredispositionforthereceptionandassessmentofasubjectstrivingforanartisticstatusasasuccessorfailureiseverythingbutreliableandfoundedonobjectivestandards.Moreprecisely,the phenomena which that psychological term implies are so variable andsusceptibletowill,affinitiesandindividualmoodthatwecouldspeakoftasteasaninconstant,ratherthanaconstantaestheticpoint.HenceGilloDorflesclaimsthatthereisnouniquewayofenjoyingaworkofartwhichisequiva-lenttoanimmanentandtranshistoricalvalueofthatwork,butthatthereare

“…trulydifferentwaysofenjoymentandinterpretation,whichsuitdifferentpersonalitiesob-servingaworkofartandwhichchangeaccordingtoaperiod,thepsychologicalstateoftheobserverandthesensorialityoftheobjectitself.”6

Thatconstantfluctuationinaperceptionalschemeswithwhichoneapproachesworksofart,theschemesthatchangefrompersontopersonor,ifunderstoodthroughacollectivepsychologicalinstance,fromepochtoepoch–ultimately,thatculturalandhistoricaldimensionoftastehasbeenconfirmedmanytimesthroughouthistory.For instance,Brochclaimed thatWagner’sworkswerenothingbutanexampleofkitschofgenius(accordingtoBroch,thereisbadkitsch, good kitsch and kitsch of genius), whereas today the artistic statusofWagner’sworksisalmostindisputable.FritzKarpfenexpressedasimilarviewwhenspeakingofRodin’sbustofawomaninterracotta,inwhichhesawapseudo-artcreatedinthemomentsoftheartist’sirresponsibilityasitwasmadeforsale.7Today,thisworkisvaluedasaslightlylesssuccessfulproductofaconfirmedgenius.Thejudgementofagenerationisevidently“afragmentoftheconsensusofmanygenerations,onevoteintheparliamentofhistory”.8



Whenspeakingofmoderntimes,thedifficultiesofthistypeareemphasizedbythefactthatnewformsofexpression,newmediakeepappearing(radio,television,filmand,morerecently,theInternet),theroleofwhichinthecur-rentartisticsituationshouldbynomeansbeunderestimated.Lawsbelievesthattheconfusioninattitudestowardstheculturalsituationofmodernityisduetotheunderestimationofthefactthatthesocialcontextfromwhichtheworksofartemergeandinwhichtheyarevaluedhaschangedessentially.9Theaestheticreflexofmodern technologicalrationality is thedeprivingoftheveryfoundationofaestheticjudgementandtheobsolescenceofpre-tech-nologicalaestheticprinciples.Themoderncultureandmodernart,withalltheircontroversies,aresui generisphenomenaandonlyassuchcantheybeunderstoodandinterpreted.Suchacomplexartisticandcultural situationofmodern timesshouldalsoincorporatetheproblemofkitschasapseudo-artsinceaconsiderablenumberof authors associate its emergence with the period of the birth of modernsociety.Thefactthattheword’setymologyhasseveralmeaningsmakesthesituationevenmoredifficult.SomeassociateitwiththeEnglishwordsketch, whichsignifiedasketchofanexpensivepaintingorderedbyAnglo-Ameri-can clients instead of the original. Others believe that the word is derivedfromtheGermanverbkitschen,whichwasusedineverydaylifeandwhichmeantto make something hastily, to pick up mud from the street or to make new furniture look like antique one.Theverbetvas verkitschen,whichaswellisrelatedtothetermkitsch,meansto do something sloppily, to sell something off, to sell something under its value or to intentionally sell something else instead of what was meant to be sold.Sternberg,however,isquiterightwhenclaimingthattheoriginalmeaningofthewordkitschcannothelpusalotinourfurtherresearch.10Whethersituatedexclusivelyintheareaofaestheticsorwithinabroaderarea,thiswordhasnolongeraclearorprecisemeaning.Hundredsofessays,booksorlecturespublishedworldwide,mostlyinGer-many,ItalyortheUSA,keepconvincingusofthatfact.However,itseemsthatMolesisrightwhenemphasizingtheevidentethicalinsufficiencyofac-

2

MorrisWeitz, “The Role ofTheory inAes-thetics”, in: Melvin Rader (ed.), A Modern Book of Esthetics,Holt,ReinehartandWin-stonINC.,NewYork1973,p.510.

3

Nikolai Hartmann, Ästhetik, Walter de Gru-yter,Berlin1955,p.5.

4

LudwigGiesz,Phänomenologie des Kitsches: eine Beitrag zur anthropologischen Ästhetik, FisherTaschenbuch,Frankfurt amMain1994,p.5.

5

David Hume, “The Standard of Taste”, in:Four Essays,pp.13–14.Availableat:http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/hu-me1757essay2.pdf (accessed on January 10,2018).

6

Gillo Dorfles, Le oscillazioni del gusto e l’arte moderna,CollanaFormaevita,Lerici,Milano1958,p.24.

7

FritzKarpfen,Der Kitsch. Eine Studie uber die Entartung der Kunst, Weltburg-Verlag,Hamburg1925,p.89.

8

Bernard Rosenberg, “Mass Culture Revisi-ted”, in: Bernard Rosenberg, David Man-ning White (eds.), Mass Culture Revisited,VanNostrandReinholdCompany,NewYork1971,p.7.

9

FrederickLaws,“Introduction”,in:Made for Millions: A Critical Study of the New Media of lnformation and Entertainment, ContactPublishers,London1947,p.5.

10

JacquesSternberg,Kitsch,AcademyEditions,London1972,p.3.



tionsmarkedbytheverbverkitschen,which,aswesaw,isnarrowlylinkedto the modern term “kitsch”.11 In all its manifestations, kitsch is going topreservethepropertyonwhichBrochwillbuildhisentiretheoryofkitschasaprevalentlyethical non-value.ThelanguagesofLatinoriginhavenotermthescopeofmeaningofwhichwouldbeidenticaltotheoneoftheGermantermkitsch,ortoacompoundwordbasedthereon(kitschen, verkitschen).Therefore,itisimpossibletopre-ciselylocatetheoccurrenceofkitschinitssemanticfields–thatoccurrenceisconnotative ratherthandenotative,intuitiveratherthanexplicable.Theety-mologicalimprecision,however,neednotpreventtheuseoftheterminitsonemeaningonly,whichisexactlythecasewithkitschandwhichimpliesaconclusionthatthemultipleterminologicalsignificanceisjustareflexofthemultidimensionalcontentofthephenomenaitself.For,nomatterhowmanydefinitionsofkitschwemaymentionorhowmanyexampleswemayquote,wewillnotbeabletotameitsphenomenal“shorelessness”.Painting,thefieldofartinwhichkitschwasoriginallyestablished,verysoonceasedtobeitsexclusivedomain–moreover,authorshavedisagreedonthetimeinwhichkitschemerged,whichdependsonthetheoreticalanglefromwhichtheyapproachthisphenomenon.Thus,forexample,sociologistsofartdate itbacktothe19thcentury, to thetimeof theso-called“belleepoque”(between1889and1914).AccordingtoPoggioli,itisonlyfromthattimeon,fromtheperiodoftheemergenceofavant-gardeartasaculminationpointof the European artistic modernity, that one can speak of kitsch.12All thegreatworksofartinthepastbroughtsomethingnewwiththem,abolishingthealreadyexistentartcanons,butitwasonlyinthelate19thcenturythatnoveltyinartassumedthecharacterofarevolution,ofanabsolutediscon-tinuitywitheverythingseenbefore,oftheestablishmentofaquitedifferent“orderof things” inart. “Modernismrequiresmore than theproductionofvariationsinstyleandnewthemes,itseekstoseverthecontinuitylinkingustothepast,toestablishanabsolutelynewworkofart”,writesLipovetsky.13Thatistheparadoxical“traditionofthenew”,perhapsa“dogmaticsofthenew”(Sloterdijk)establishedbymodernism.14Itisonlyinthatperiod,intheperiodofemergenceofavant-gardeart,whichisthechildofthataestheticoftheoriginalandthenew,that,accordingtoPoggioli,onecanlocateintimethephenomenonofkitschorastereotype (whichisatranslationoftheFrenchsynonymforkitsch)asaconservative,mimetic, déjà vuart.Arthistorians,however,havefoundexamplesofkitsch in theancientartaswelland,ac-cordingtotheaestheticianswhoregardkitschasanepiphenomenonofart,kitschisasoldasartitself.Thus,forexample,Brochbelievesthatthereisnoartwithout adropofkitsch, thatkitschaccompaniesart inevitablyandthataworkofartbecomesartandtranscendsthebordersofmerekitschonlythroughtheactofovercoming,inamannerpeculiartoart,theomnipresentlayerofkitschinitself.Analmostidenticalviewcanbeperceivedinthefol-lowingwordsofTheodorAdorno:

“It[kitsch]islikeapoisonmixedinanyart;topouritoutofitselfrepresentstodayoneofthemostdesperateeffortsofart.”15

However,evenifthewordkitschhadneverbeenused,onecouldnotdeny,accordingtoSternberg,thattheideaofkitschwasclearlypresentthroughoutcenturies.Wecanfinditinartmanifestos,inthestatementsofmanyartistsandartcritics,who,eveniftheyignorethetermkitschitself,still,maybeun-knowingly,speakofkitschorofsomethingveryclosetoit.For:



“Romanticismhasrunoutoffashion,Symbolismhasbecomeobsolete,Surrealismhasalwaysaddressedthosefewmembersoftheelite–itisonlykitschthatisomnipresentandeternal.”16

ItseemsthatGieszwasrighttoclaimthattheword“kitsch”isquiterecent,butthatwhatitdenotesisnot.

Kitsch – the art of happiness or the “art” of “happiness”?

Eventheauthorswhoobservekitschasaphenomenonomnipresentintimeorasanaestheticphenomenonwhichisasoldasartitself,implicitly,orevenquiteexplicitly,supportthestandpointthatitsexpansionandpenetrationintoallthespheresofhumanexistencechronologicallycorrelatewiththebigin-dustrialrevolutionwhichurbanizedthehugemassesofthevillagepopulationof theWesternEuropeandAmerica, therebymarking thebeginningof thecreationofamodern,bourgeoissociety.Largeurbancentresassumedsocialandeconomicprevalenceoverthelifeoftheentirecountry,withanenormouspowerofinfluenceonalltheothersegmentsofsociety.Thetraditionallinksamongpeoplewerebroken,thesolidarityofgroupsdestroyedandatomisedindividuals“were left to their solitude, to fight for the satisfactionof theirownneedsinthejungleoftowns,thedesertoffactories,thegreynessofof-fices”.17Thecommunitywasreplacedbysociety,asTönnieswouldputit,andtheemergingepochgraduallybecamerecognisedas“theageofthecrowd”(Moscovici).Intheculturalfield,thoseprocessesrepercussedasasuppressionofthefolkculture,whichcouldnot longer serveasa form for theemergenceofnewculturalcontent.Thenewlifecircumstanceswhichthehithertovillagepopu-lationfoundthemselvesinrequiredanewtypeofculturethatwastomeettheoldculturalneedsinnewsocialconditions.Thus,asaby-productoftheindustrial revolution, a new, so-called mass culture or the culture of masssocietyemergedwiththreekeydeterminants–a)massproduction,b)stand-ardizationoftheculturalproductandc)itsdiffusionthroughmasscommuni-cationmeans,whichprovidedalargenumberofpotentialconsumerswiththespeedandsimultaneityofthereceptionofaculturalcontent.A work of art that strove for the artistic status took on the character of aproduct,i.e.anobjectofmass,industrialproduction,and,assuch,itneces-sarily lost the dimension of creativity, originality and uniqueness. Objects

11

AbrahamMoles,Psychologie du kitsch,De-noël,Paris1977,p.32.

12

Renato Poggioli, The Theory of the AvantGarde, Belknap Press, Cambridge 1981, p.123.

13

GillesLipovetsky,L’Ère du vide: essais sur l’individualisme contemporain, Gallimard,Paris1983,p.50.

14

“Itistrue,ofcourse,thattheideaofchangedominates the modern economy and mo-dem technologyaswell.Butchanges in theeconomyand technologyareconstrainedbyavailableresourcesandfinancialcost.Inpoli-tics,too,innovationisconstrainedbyexisting

institutionalstructures,bythevetopowerofcontendinggroups,andtosomeextentbytra-dition.Butthechangesinexpressivesymbolsandforms,difficultasitmaybeforthemassof people to absorb them readily, meet noresistancein therealmofculture itself.”Cf. DanielBell,Cultural Contradiction of Capitalism,Heinemann,London1976,p.20.

15

Theodor W. Adorno, Ästhetische Theorie, Suhrkamp,Berlin1995,p.383.

16

J.Sternberg,Kitsch,p.1.

17

SergeMoscovici,L’Age des foules : un traité historique de psychologie des masses,Fayard,Paris1981,p.37.



ofsuspiciousaestheticqualitybecomeprevalentinmasscultureproduction,andthehumanenvironmentbecamedefinitelyandirrevocablyartificial,fullofseriallyproducedstandardisedformswhichweretoconstituteaperson’severydayaestheticlife.Thiswassubstantiatedbythefactthat,owingtotheincreasingly automatized production process, the time spent on productiveworkbecameinsignificantlyshortascomparedwiththeinfinityof leisure,the time of consumption in which a depersonalized individual member ofcivil society recognized apossibility for the realization and satisfactionofa very important part of their personality – the emotional one, which hadbeensuppressedandleftunsatisfiedbythedehumanizedproductionprocess.Thus,productionismassandimpersonal,whereasconsumptionispersonalandsubjecttotheimperativeofemotionalpleasure.“Whatdeterminesabour-geoissocietyisnotneeds,butdesires.Anddesiresareapsychological,notabiologicalcategory,andareunlimitedintheirnature”,writesDanielBell.18

Thusthechallengefor theestablishmentofakitschrelationasaprevalenttype of the relation of a member of a highly developed bourgeois societytowards theirenvironmentbecomes insurmountable.Oneshouldnotdisre-gardtheroleofthesignificantlyincreasedeconomic,i.e.purchasingpowerofconsumerswhich,incombinationwithalowculturallevel,necessarilyledtowardschoosingkitschovertrueartisticandculturalvalues.

“Perhapsthechiefdifferencebetweensocietyandmasssocietyisthatsocietywantedculture,evaluatedanddevaluatedcultural things into social commodities,usedandabused them foritsownselfishpurposes,butdidn’t‘consumethem’(…).Masssociety,onthecontrary,wantsnotculture,butentertainment,andthewaresofferedbytheentertainmentindustryareindeedconsumedbysocietyjustasareanyotherconsumergoods.”19

Molespinpointstwobigepochsofkitsch.Oneislinkedtotheperiodoftheriseof thebourgeois society, to themomentwhen itbecomesawareof itspowerandbeginsimposingitscoffeespoonsandsugarpegsacrossMexicandesertsandCentralAsiansteppes,asocietythesymbolofwhichbecomesadepartmentstoreasaneconomicandculturaltoposconstitutingandshapingan“artofliving”.Theotherepochisaperiodofneo-kitsch,itssymbolbeingtheprix unique, i.e.adepartmentstorewithgoodssoldatauniformprice(unificationatall thepossible levels!)andthesupermarketas itshistoricalsuccessor.Both institutionsaresustainedonaconsumptionmechanismin-corporatingtheideaofself-renewal.Eachobject,despiteitsperfectform,hasapreciselyprogrammedandlimitedshelflife,i.e.hasbeenprojectedtocrossthepathfromthefactory to thewastebasketveryquickly,whichenablesacontinual renewalof theproductioncycle.ThereforeMolesconcludes thatkitsch is aphenomenonofa consumercivilisation,whichmanufactures tospendandspendstomanufacture,throughoutaculturalcyclethebasicele-mentofwhichisacceleration.Oneshouldnotignoretheroleoftheso-called“hiddenpersuaders”(VancePackard),whose task, in the individualpsychological field, is tomakeoneconcludethattheyneed“justthat”andthusprovidearationalisationoftheglobalconsumertendency(“Ineedeachofthosethings.”).Thatfactcompelstheconsumerofsuchgoods toallow, in theirhome, theobjectsofvariousages,whichbelongtodifferentgenerationsofforms,toco-exist.Forthemod-erninterior,bytheway,onecouldsaythatitrepresentsaprivilegedpositionof kitsch, i.e. so-called applied arts (souvenirs, decorations, furniture), theproductionofwhichprevalentlyconsistsofalmostideallytypicalexamplesofkitsch.“Theslogan‘tolivemorebeautifully’turnsthemostordinarycon-sumerproductsintotherequisitesofthatgeneralfestivalinwhichthefetishist



characterofgoodstotallyprevailsoveritsusevalue”,writesEnzensberger.20Itisalsoimportanttobearinmindtheimportanceoffashion,which,throughits fastchangesand thecontinuous launchingofnoveltycontributes to theobsolescenceofformsandencouragesconsumption.However,asLipovetskyrightlypointsout,thisconstantquestfornovelties,whichischaracteristicoftheouterappearanceofmassculture,hasnothingincommonwiththe“tradi-tionofthenew”,whichcharacterisesmodernart.

“Justlikeadreamorajoke,masscultureaswellessentiallydwellshereandnowanditsdomi-nantdeterminantintimeispreciselytheonethatrunsfashionaswell.”21

Thereasonsforthatshouldbesoughtinthefactthatanobjectforuseisnolongerdefinedwith the function itperforms ineveryday lifeandevennotprimarilytherewith,butisimposedwithitsnon-functional,decorativeaspectasanindicatorofthesocialstatusandasafactorofthesocialprestigeofitsowner.Thatelementofemphasiseddecorativenesswhichoccupiestheplaceofatleastintentional,i.e.nominalfunctionality,takessuchobjects,asitwere,throughashortcutintoakitschzone.Withthatnon-functionalaspectofits,kitschcouldbe said to, apparently, approachart to someextent.However,whereasartexhaustsitselfinthatnon-functionaldimensionand,ifitisrealart,neverstrivestoovercomeit,suchadimensioninkitschisincidental(butnolesstransparentforthatmatter!)and,assuch,itbecomesaninadequacyfactor(e.g.chinacoffeecupsasashelfdecoration)which,aswearegoingtosee,isoneofthekeyconstitutiveprinciplesofkitschandofwhatitrepre-sents.Insuchacontext,kitschhasasocialfunctionprevailingovertheuse-fulfunction,whichoughttobetheprimaryone.For,ifatacertainmomentitlosesitsusevalue(e.g.acupwithabrokenhandle),theobjectremainsadecoration ontheshelf,i.e.itpreservesitsdecorativefunction.Generallyspeaking,everyexhibitionistexaggeration,eitherintermsofdeco-rationanddecorativeness,orintermsofsoleandforcedfunctionality,whichwemayrecognizeinagadget(anobjectintendedtoperformseveralsmallfunctionsofeverydaylife,forinstance,asetconsistingofapenknife,acork-screwandacanopener,orawatchandathermometer),movesalongtheedgeofkitschifnotcrossingit.Anylifeorientationtowardsobjects,anyfetishisa-tionofobjects,whether theirpurpose isdecorativeor functional,open thedoortowardskitschwide.Kitschgenerallyfeedsonexaggerationandover-emphasis,theysuitit,“theyruninitsveins”(Sternberg).Accordingtothisauthor,thatcouldbethereliableandeagerlysoughtfordiscriminatinglinebetweenkitschandwhatdoesnotdeservetobenamedassuch.Evenifwecanargueaboutthelevelofbadtasteorbanalitywhichdeservestobenamedkitsch,wecanhardlydenythatexaggerationliesinitsverycore.Therefore,kitschveryoftenaccompaniesthebizarre,thefantastic,theabnormal.Negat-ing this element of exaggeration could leadus to awrong conclusion thateverythingaroundusiskitsch–ashopwindow,almosteverypainting,mostmoviesandplays.Sternbergclaimsthatitwouldbedulltocreateacatalogueofalltheproductsofbadtastewhichmakeaconsiderableprofit.Kitschal-

18

D.Bell,Cultural Contradiction of Capitalism,p.22.

19

HannahArendt,“SocietyandCulture”,in:B.Rosenberg,D.M.White(eds.),Mass Culture Revisited,p.96.

20

Hans Magnus Enzensberger, Deutschland, Deutschland unter anderm – Äußerungen zur Politik,Suhrkamp,Berlin1967,p.111.

21

G.Lipovetsky,L’Ère du vide,p.207.



wayshasanextradimension.Itmovesfurtherfromprofanity,fromasuperfi-cialclichéoreverydayugliness.

“The modern interior, the overdecorated façades, the postcards in many colours, the rococoglitterofmusichalls,thefindesièclepaintings,the‘Biblical’movieepics,thesouvenirs,thereligious‘ironware’–therearesomanyproductsmarkedwithexaggeration,andwithsentimen-talityandfalsesplendour–theothertwoconventionalcomponentsofkitsch.”22

AbrahamMolesperceivedandformulatedseveralkeyprinciplesonwhichkitschisconstituted.First,thereistheinadequacy principle(deviationfromthenominalgoal–thecoffeecupasashelfdecorationwhichwehavealreadymentioned illustrates this constitutiveprincipleof it verywell).Therefore,kitsch,asMolesunderlines,alwaysmissesitstargetalittleandevendeceives,asitsubstitutesthe“unclean”forthe“clean”(orvice versa,asinourexam-ple)evenwhenitsimulatescleanness.Likeothers,Molesquotestheprinciple of cumulation of sensory qualities(amusicclockonthewall,ascentedbook),whichimpliesthethirdprinciple–the principle of synesthetic perception (thesensory totalitarianismofkitschexpressed throughan imperative thatboththeeyesandtheears,andveryoftensomeothersenses,shouldbemobilizedintheprocessofitsperception).Suchanimperative,asanintentionalprop-ertyoftheso-called“totalart”(theoperaandtheoperettaaretypicalinthatrespect),bringsitdangerouslyclosetokitsch.Therefore,gigantism aswellasoneofthemostcommonpropertiesofkitsch,whichmakesitamarkofthoseculturesthatMolescallseruditeones,i.e.thosethatexpressanaffin-itytowardsamassing,multiplying cultures, ratherthansynthesisingthem.“It[kitsch]removeslessandcollectsmore”,claimsMoles.Therefore,ultrafigu-rativepainting,Romanticismandfantasticartaretheformsofarttowhichkitschattachesmosteasilyandonwhichitmostfrequentlyparasitises.Thefourthprincipleofkitschisthe principle of mediocrity –kitschalwaysremainshalfwayonitsjourneytowardsthenewand,inthatrespect,itisanantipodeto theavant-garde,whichsets theprincipleofnovelty,originalityandartisticrevolutionismastheprimaryone.Thatpropertyisalsoimpliedbythefifthprincipleofitsorder,the principle of comfort, whichmakeskitschtheaestheticeverydaylifeofmasssociety,theaestheticfoodofthemasses.23Kitschistheartofeverydaylife–itistherethatitacquiresits“authenticity”.Beingprimarily“democratic”,itisacceptableformostpeopleasitdoesnotoffendthespiritwithsublimity–aneffortthatsurpassesourpowersbyde-mandingofustosurpassourselves,ourhumanweaknessesonwhichkitschsurvives.Itisdifficulttoliveeverydayinthevicinityoftheworksoftrueart,whichawakeonefromone’sslumber,whichwarnsusandcallsustoaction.“Anaverageperson,whostrivestoearnalivingfromseveno’clockinthemorningtilleighto’clockin theeveningcannot listentoParsifalafter that– theyneeda spiritual recoveryobtained through light enjoyment”,writesFrizKarpfen.24ThisideaissharedbyLefebvreaswell,whoformulatesitasarequestforbreakingwitheverydaylife–arequestthatamodernpersonsetsbeforeart.

“Skillfulsupplierswillproducethepicturesofeverydaylifefromdaytoday–thepicturesinwhichwhat isuglybecomesbeautiful,what isemptybecomesfull,what isodiousbecomesgreat.Andwhatishorriblebecomesfascinating.”25

Thatpsychologicalneedofmodernmanforanartisticperversionofeverydaylife issoskillfullyusedthat it isveryhard toresist thosewhodothatandtheirproductsunlessonewantstostayrigidinpuritanismbyrejecting,withthe“sensational”,lifeitselfand“currentevents”.Thedifferencebetweena



workofartandaworkofkitschisthedifferencebetweenan“openwork”(UmbertoEco),whichcallsonitsrecipienttotakeanactive,criticalstand,andaclosedwork,whichstabilizestherecipientinitspassive,uncriticalandcomfortablepositionof amereconsumer.ForLeoLowenthal “differencesbetweenspuriousgratificationandagenuineexperienceasasteptogreaterindividualfulfilment(…)isthemeaningofAristotle’scatharsis”.26Kitsch,unlikeart,couldbesaidtoparodycatharsis.Atrueworkofartdemandsofitsrecipientstoconfrontthemselvesandthecircumstancesoftheirownlife–itsimperativeis“tobehereandtobehereatthismoment”.Amodernpersonfromadehumanisedsocialsetting,however,willratheroptfortheimperativethatthemassculturesetsbeforethem,whichis“tobeelsewhere”andwhichturnsthemintoabeingofdistancewhosespirit,accordingtoMorin,eternallywandersacross thehorizonsof its life.On that fictitious journey,kitsch isrepresentedasanidealandirreplaceablecompanion.Kitschistheartof“happiness”(henceitsuniversality),which,ifnotpresentinthelivesofthemajorityofindividuals,oughttobesimulated,wherebyapersonisparalyzedintheirattemptatchangingtheestablishedorderinthingsinwhichhappinessmightneveroccur.Theentertainmentofferedbykitschistrulyanescape–notonlyfromtheharshrealitybutalsofromanyideaofre-sistancetothatrealitysuchasitis.Theliberationpromisedbysuchentertain-mentisliberationfromthe“opinionasanegation”(Horkheimer&Adorno).Almostall the theoreticiansof thisphenomenonpoint to thisescapistand,ultimately,thepsychotherapeuticdimensionofkitsch.Thisisthedimensionwhichmakeskitschapreciousallyofall the totalitarianpolitical regimes,whichseeinitapowerfulmeansofmaintainingthestatus quo.

The phenomenon of kitsch from the axiological perspective

The expansion of kitsch in modern, industrial society is by no means ac-cidental.Kitsch, asHermannBrochclaims, is a sensory reflexionof time,an aesthetic reflex of its ethical constitution.And modern times, speakinginHeideggerianstyle,arethetimesofescapedgodsandofforgettingwhatis important, the times inwhich theoblivion itself hasbeen forgotten, i.e.inwhichtheawarenessofoblivionhasvanished.Thatisascanttimeofthenightoftheworldwhichonlyartcouldbringtowhatisimportantasitisartitselfthatcherishesthetruthoftheimportant.Thepseudo-aestheticattitudescharacteristicofmostpeopleofmoderntimes,accordingtoHartmann,27aredangerousbecausetheybringconfusionintotheveryplacewheretheessence

22

J.Sternberg,Kitsch,p.5.

23

AccordingtoLeslieFiedler,thelowermiddleclassreactswithequalfurytoartwhichover-comestheirpowersofunderstanding(Joyce,Kafka)andtoartwhichremainsbelowsuchalevel(Superman).Thusitchoosesthemiddleagainstbothendsas“thefearofthevulgaristheobverseofthefearofexcellence,andbothare aspects of the fear of difference: symp-tomsofadriveforconformityonthelevelofthetimid,sentimental,mindless-bodilessgen-teel”.Cf.LeslieFiedler,“TheMiddleAgainstBothEnds”, in:B.Rosenberg,D.M.White(eds.),Mass Culture Revisited,p.547.

24

FritzKarpfen,Der Kitsch,p.73.

25

HenriLefebvre,Le Matérialisme dialectique,PressesUniversitairesdeFrance,Paris1990,p.48.

26

Leo Lowenthal, “Historical Perspectives ofPopular Culture”, in: B. Rosenberg, D. M.White(eds.),Mass Culture Revisited,p.51.

27

N.Hartmann,Ästhetik, p.485.



oftheconceptionandestablishmentofwhatisimportant,asahumangiftandpower,canbefoundandrecognizedandmadetransparent.Everyepoch inwhichvalueswereunderminedandoverrated, at the sametime,wasaperiodoftheexpansionofkitsch.SuchweretheepochsofancientAlexandrismandRomanHellenismandsuchis themodernepochaswell,wherebytheprocessofthedeconstructionofthemedievalimageoftheworldended.Inthatperiod,kitschassumedthetasksofart,butperformedtheminaccordancewith thesupremeaestheticmaximofapositivist,anti-Platonistworld–“Whatisbeautifuliswhatonelikes”.“Thesystemofkitschrequiresof its supporters to ‘dobeautifully’,whereas the systemof art emphasizes‘doinggood’.Kitschistheevil(das Bose)inthevaluesystemofart”,writesBroch.28Theonewhocreateskitschisnotsomeonewhocreatesalessvalu-ableart,noraretheysomeonewho,inthecreativesense,candojustlessornothing.Noaestheticstandardscanbeappliedtothematall.AsBroch,alittletooemphatically,concludes,suchaperson isanethical renegade,acrimi-nalstrivingforradicalevil.Thus,asevilmanifestedinkitsch,accordingtoBroch,isaradicalevil,anevilinitself,which,assuch,isconnectedwithanyvaluesystem,butasitsnegativepole,kitschmustbeidentifiedasanevilnotonlyfromtheangleofartbutalsofromthepointofviewofanyothervaluesystem(Brochprimarilymeansethicsasoneofthose“valuesystems”)whichisnotanimitationsystem.For,theonewhocreatesonlytocreateabeautifuleffect,aradicalaesthetic,willbelievethattheendjustifiesallthemeansandwillresorttothemwithouthesitation.

“ThatisexactlythegigantickitschwhichNeroarrangedinhisgardenwhenplayingthelutetothefireworksofChristianbodiessetablaze.”29

Everysystem,eventhesystemofart,canbeunderminedordepravedifitsau-tonomyisaffectedfromwithout.KitschaffectsbothChristianity,thepriestsofwhicharecompelledtoblesscannonsandtanks,andpoetrytryingtoim-mortaliseaglorifiedleader.Theso-called“engagedart”,forinstance,isanexampleofthatexternalundermininganddepravingofart,theexternalattackonitsautonomy.However,anevengreaterdangeristheonethat,asaninher-entpossibility,isstructurallycontainedinanysystem,andthatisthedialecti-calnecessityofthedevelopmentofone’santi-system,ofone’snegation.Thedangerisevenbiggerasthemeasureofsimilaritybetweenthemishuge,soitisverydifficulttodistinguishonefromtheother.Speakingofartandkitschasasystemandananti-systemrespectively,Brochproposes thecriteriaofauthenticity.Authenticity is adifferentia specificaof art,while imitation isadifferentia specificaofkitsch.Kitschmaybetheveryimageofart,butevenwhencreatedbysuprememasters,itsimitativeaspectisdominant.Kitsch,assuch,isareactionaryphenomenonintheaestheticsense.Itissub-jecttothedogmaticinfluenceofwhathasalreadyhappened,takingtheal-readyformedsyntagmsfromrealitywhicharepetrifiedinitintotheformofacliché,whichprovesthatnolitioofits,“thatabsenceofgoodwill,itsaban-donmentofthedivinecreationoftheworldofvalues”.30Eventhoughkitsch,asanimitationalsystem,iscompelledtoharmoniseitseachmovewithtrueart,aworkofart,assuch,cannotbeimitatedmethodically.Itisonlythesim-plestformsthatcanbeimitated.Whatischaracteristic,accordingtoBroch,isthatkitsch,duetoitsverylackofimaginationandinventiveness,hastoresorttothemostprimitivemethodseverytime.

“Pornography,therealisticsyntagmsofwhich,asitisalreadyknown,consistofsexualacts,mostlyrepresentsamereseriesofsuchacts;detectivekitsch,again,representsaseriesofthe



verysamevictoriesoveracriminal,pulpfictionagainconsistsofamereseriesofidenticalactsofvirtuerewardedandvicepunished.”31

That is the “stereotype stone” (Horkheimer &Adorno) with which kitschfeedsitsconsumers.Intheworksofkitsch,theassociationsystemsareautomatic,reducedtothemostfrequentgroups.AsMolessuggests,kitschcouldbemeasuredwiththedegreeofthebanalityofitsassociation.Assuch,itisshameless,butnotonlyinthesuperficialsenseoftheshamelessnessofaneroticassociationawak-enedbyakitschpostcard,butinadeepersenseofshamelessnessthatroughlydenieswhatBrochcalledapoignantdialecticof the freedomofman’sbe-ing,offeringan“imperialpathtowardsart”(Kloskowska),apathleadingtoinauthenticity,falsehood,fakery.ItwasforthatveryreasonthattheCatholictheologistEgenterbroughtkitsch into a firmconnectionwithSatanas theforefatherofthelie.32

Itisnotonlytheaesthetic,butalsoalltheothervaluesimmanenttoatrueworkofartthatkitschistryingtoreachinaninadequatemanner.Thus,attemptingtoprevailoverdeath,thatabsolutenon-value,anon-valueper se,kitschre-sortstotheglorificationandhypostatizationoflife,butinitsmostdestroyableand,intermsofvalue,themostdisputabledimension–thehedonisticone.Anditisexactlythelifeintotheserviceofwhichkitschhasenteredthatisthemostsusceptibletothedevastatingworkofdeath–itisexactlysuchlifethatissoeasilyobliteratedandannulledbykitschasifithadneverexisted.Understandingtheessenceoflife,atrueartististryingtohaveitprevailoverdeath with its creative dimension, a dimension of authentic values which,through their trans-epochal duration, overcome man’s short and transientphysicalexistence.33Theessenceoflifeeludeskitschtothesameextentastheessenceofdeath.Therefore,kitsch isnotable to recognisedeath in itstruemeaningforman,butittreatsit“arbitrarilyandanecdotally,fromaquitewrongperspective,suchastheoneobservedincrimeanddetectivenovels,sadomasochisticthrillersandfilmsandinsimilarlow-rankproducts”.34

Itisalsotheintegrityandessenceofthehumanuniverseassuchthateludeskitsch.Kitsch,actually,doesnotcareaboutthembutissustainedandfedontheiridyllicprojections(thehappy endtechnique,inwhichjustice,truthandgoodnessalwayswin),orontheirhorrorhypostases(theworldasaperma-nentsourceofevil,violenceandbrutality).Acreatorofkitschdoesnotreachtheknowledgeofthatparadoxofhumanexistence,ofthattragicstateofbe-ingtornbetweenstrengthandweakness,greatnessandmisery.Fortheman,asGoldmannclaims:

28

H.Broch,Dichten und Erkennen, p.262.

29

Ibid., p.302.

30

Ibid.,p.298.

31

Ibid., p.300.

32

Richard Egenter, Kitsch und Christenleben,Buch-Kunstverlag Abtei Ettal, Etal 1950,p.82.

33

“Theonlynonsocialandauthenticcriterionforjudgingthesespecificallyculturalthingsistheirrelativepermanenceandeveneventualimmor-tality.Onlywhatwilllastthroughthecenturiescanultimatelyclaim tobeaculturalobject.”Cf. HannahArendt, “The Crisis in Culture”,in: Hannah Arendt (ed.), Between Past and Future: EightExercises in Political Thought,VikingPress,NewYork1961,p.202.

34

MilošIlić,“Kičkaoumetničkaiduhovnatau-tologija”[“Kitschasanartandspiritualtau-tology”],in:AbrahamMol[AbrahamMoles], Kič: O umetnosti sreće [Kitsch: The Art of Happiness], Gradina,Belgrade197 p.34.



“…livesinaworldwhich,likehimself,consistsofopposites,ofantagonisticforceswagingwaroneagainsttheotherwithnohopeofatruceorvictory,ofelementsthatcomplementeachother,butwhicharepermanentlyincapableofformingawhole.Thegreatnessofatragicpersonliesinthefactthattheyseeandrecognisethoseoppositesandoppositeelementsintheclearlightofabsolutetruth.”35

Kitsch,however,speakstoahappypersonanda“happyconsciousness”(Mar-cuse),oratleasttotheonethatiswillingtobringitselfintothestateoffalsehappiness,oflightandmerryself-oblivionalthough,asGieszemphasizes,therightplaceofmanshouldbethatofaguardian.

***

Kitsch always expresses an evidentdefect of meaning.Thus, for example,thekitschpastryproductsofChrist, theapostlesandtheholyfamilymadeof chocolate, when eaten, provoke a gastronomic pleasure, which is quitecontrary to their nominal goal – to provoke a religious fervour.The sameapplies to toys in theformofcrucifixiononwheelsor tohandkerchiefsornecktiesdecoratedwithanimageoftheBlessedVirgin.ItisMoles’sprinciple of inadequacy asoneoftheconstitutiveprinciplesofkitschthatisinactionhere.Bytheway,religiouskitschisoneofthemostfrequentmanifestationsofkitsch.“Religiousartisconstantlyunderthethreatofkitsch,itissituatedonthevergeofkitschand,foraconsiderablepart,issubjectthereto”,claimesMoles.36Thatismainlybecauseitispermeatedwiththeelementofinadequa-cy,ofthedisharmonyofmeansservingtheendtowhichitaspires(divinityinananthropomorphicform,angelsintheformofwingedboys…).37

Suchanelementisalsovisibleinthedecontextualizationofaworkofart,i.e. in its dislocation from its authentic setting into a totally inappropriateone,whichhappenswhenagreatworkofart,suchasLeonardo’sMonaLisa,isusedasacheesecommercial,asagreetingcardorasanillustrationforabeautycontest.Whatisalsoinadequateistheuseofaworkofartforpur-posesdifferenttotheoriginalones,whichisthecase,forexample,withthealabastercopiesof theLeaningTowerofPisa.AsDorflespointsout, theyarenotkitsch justbecause theyaremadeofanothermaterial,but theyarekitschmainlybecausetheyinsistonthedeviationofformasararityandanattraction,whereby the entireCathedralSquare complexhasbeen reducedtoacuriosum, toa simplifiedkitsch imitation. Ingeneral, every insistenceonandsearchforcuriosities,whichis,forinstance,characteristicoftouriststravellingabroad,isanexpressionofanaffinityforkitschandthekitschy.Whatalsoappearskitschyisthedisproportionofdimensionsascomparedtotherepresentedobject,whichisrecognisableintheexamplesmentionedbyMoles.

“TheTriumphalArchintheformofakeyholder,aminiaturechinaelephantorahugestylizedmousemadeofbronzeareobjectsofkitsch(…).ThesameappliestothemicroscopicbeerjugfromMunich,whichismadeofplasticandismeanttobewornonanecktie,orapendantintheformofAsterixwithahugestoneonthekeyholder.”38

***

Attempting tostay“inharmonywithreality”(Lukács),kitsch,at thesametime,renouncestheattemptatreachinganythingsituatedontheothersideofthevisible.



“Itissatisfiedwithone,basicallyrudimentarydescription,remainingatthelevelofperceptionandregistrationineverydayconsciousnesstheclosestandthebest-known,butatthesametimethemosttrivialphenomena.”39

Kitsch,therefore,doesnotaspiretobringphenomenatoasynthetictotality,tostructureandtranscendtheminthedirectionofthediscoveryoftheirim-manentvaluesandmeanings.Theabsenceofambitionsofthattypeisfoundedonitscreator’saspirationstowardstheordinary,themediocre,anaveragemeasureofthingswhichin-evitablyleadstotheseductivepathsofkitsch.Suchanaspirationgivesbirthto“thewistfulglanceofthecreatortowardstheworldofbanality,theirmel-ancholicsighforanaturalanddirectexperience,theoutburstsofhysteriaandatendencytowardsexcessesofanykind”.40Itisexactlythatexaggeratedorartificialsensitivitythatisthefundamentalconventionofkitsch,duetowhichandbywhichaworkofkitschacquiresthepropertiesofaneuroticworkthatfalsifiesrealitybyimposingonitanentirelyunrealandsentimentalistdimen-sionandbyhypostatizingitassuch.AccordingtoAgnesHeller,theaxiologicalinsufficiencyofkitschliesinthefactthatnotonlyisitanartoflowerrank,butitisalsoanartofthesystemofnormsandhierarchiesofvalueswhichdonotexpressanythingsubstantial,anythingindigenous toapersonofthattime.Kitsch,therefore,isapseudo-artwhichsatisfiesinawrongwaytherequirementsofparticularityforrisingtothelevelofthegenus.“Kitschisnotelevatedtothetruegoalsofthegenus,butonlytothosethatrepresentaparticu-larity’sextendeddream,sotheextendedparticularityissurroundedwiththehaloofthegenus.Thereforethedisturbancecausedbykitschisalwaysapseudo-catharsis.”41

Takingintoaccountthatsubstantialdifferencebetweenkitschandart,acon-siderablenumberofauthorsclaimedthattherelationbetweenthemwasnotarelationbetweenthepointsofacontinuumwhicharemoreorlessdistantfromeachother,i.e.thatkitschisnotabadart,butthatitbuildswithinitselfaclosedsystemofitsown,which,likeanalienbody,standsintheentiresystemofartor,moreprecisely,paralleltoit.Kitschandauthenticartare,therefore,accordingtotheauthorsofsimilaropinions,immeasurableandincompatiblephenomena.Forthemostofitsmeaning,theterm“kitsch”doesnotdenoteworksofnovalueandwithaestheticaspirations,butaspecialtypeofactivityatthespecificlevelofthetotalvalue.Itisclaimedthatthereisanessentialdifferencebetweenanaestheticallyunsuccessful,butanaestheticallyambi-tiousworkofartandaworkofkitsch.Intheformercase,banalityissaidto

35

LucienGoldmann,Le dieu caché ; étude sur la vision tragique dans les Pensées de Pascal et dans le théâtre de Racine,Gallimard,Paris1955,p.203.

36

A.Mol[A.Moles],Kič [Kitsch], p.73.

37

Cf.KarlPawek,“Christiankitsch”,in:GilloDorfles,Kitsch, An antology of bad taste,Stu-dioVista,London1963,pp.143–150.

38

A.Mol[A.Moles],Kič [Kitsch], p.78.

39

Sreten Gagić, Kič i avangarda – kulturna korelacija i antiteza[Kitsch and Avantgarde – Culltural corellation and anthitesis],Mas-ter’sThesisdefendedattheFacultyofPoliti-calSciences,Belgrade1979,p.IV.

40

ZoranGluščević,Mit, književnost i otudenje [Myths, Literature and Alienation],VukKa-radžić,Beograd1974,p.102.

41

Ágnes Heller, Everyday Life, translated byRichard Wolin, Routledge & Kegan Paul,London, Boston, Melbourne, Henley 1987,p.172.



result fromanunsuccessfulcreativeattemptatovercoming itaesthetically,whereas,inthelatter,itresultsfromanattemptatorganisingitinamorecon-junctionalmanner.Foranartist,artisamodeoflivingandself-expression,whereas,forakitschmaker,theirproductionisjustaprofessionalmeansofself-supportandcommercialisation.Thereforeoneshouldnotapproachtheirproductsaesthetically,norexpectofthemtomeetaestheticcriteriaandneeds.Suchanopinionwouldbequiterightifkitschdidnotmanifestbothconcealedand open aspirations towards counterfeiting authentic aesthetic values andtowardsfalsifyingtheresultsofthetruecreativeeffortsofconfirmedartists.Mostauthorsagreeononepoint–therecanbenokitschatallwithoutsuchpretensions,withoutsuchagapbetweendesiresandpotentials.However,ac-cordingtosociologistsofculture,theperiodofneo-kitschofthepastseveraldecadeshasbeencharacterisedbyquiteadifferenttendency.Theproductionofkitschhasbeenopenlyandclearlyself-determinedasanindustry,business–therefore,anon-art.Itdoesnothavetoactasartanymore,asithaselevatedacommonbusinesstotherankofanideologythepurposeofwhich,accord-ingtoHorkheimerandAdorno,42istolegitimisekitsch,whichisnowbeingintentionallyproducedforaparticularpurpose.ThatviewisconfirmedbyanopinionofGieszofanearlierdate–thatkitschisnotdealtwithbydilettantes,butbyrefinedpsychologistsofmasses,whohaveaclearawarenessofkitsch.Theyevensystematicallystudythetechniquesoftheproductionofkitschyexperiencealthoughtheydonotformpartofthemassforwhichtheycreatenordotheylikekitschitself.Theyoccasionallyevensponsorwhattheybe-lievetobetrueart,butevenso,theycontinueproducingkitsch.It is only such, deliberately produced and planned kitsch, that Dorfles re-gardsastruekitsch.Thusconceived,inDorfles’sopticskitschshouldprovetobeaphenomenonofthemodernera.“Beforethat,therewereexamplesofmediocreart,worksofepigones,ofthefollowersofarts,workswhichwerenotsupremeworksofart,butwhich,nevertheless,belongtoauthenticart”,emphasizesDorfles.43

EvenifonecouldcontestthisopinionofDorflesatsomepoints,onethingiscertain–thecreativityofthepastknewnothingoftheculturallysystematic,i.e.plannedanddeliberateproductionofaestheticpseudo-values. It is,un-doubtedly,onlyinmoderntimesthattheproductionofquasi-artandartisticsurrogatesacquiredthepropertiesofabusiness.

Mirjana Radojičić

Aporije kiča

SažetakU tekstu se polazi od stajališta da se neodredivošću umjetnosti kao svog pojmovnog korelata hrani i neodredivost pojma kiča shvaćenog kao pseudoumjetnost. No time, uočava autorica, nisu reducirani teorijski napori estetičara i filozofa kulture da na ovom skliskom i nesigurnom »terenu« uspostave neke čvršće demarkacijske linije, neki pouzdaniji discrimenrerum između, makar na fenomenalnoj razini, vrlo bliskih kategorija. U ovom se radu to pokušava učiniti sagledavanjem kiča iz perspektive estetike recepcije, potom iz ugla sociologije umjetnosti i kulture i, najzad, iz aksiološkog rakursa.

Ključne riječikič,umjetnost,estetikarecepcije,sociologijaumjetnosti,aksiologija



Mirjana Radojičić

Aporien des Kitsches

ZusammenfassungIm Text wird von dem Standpunkt ausgegangen, dass sich die Unbestimmbarkeit des als Pseudokunst ausgelegten Begriffes Kitschmit der Unbestimmbarkeit der Kunst als seinem begrifflichen Korrelat nährt. Doch dies hat, wie die Autorin bemerkt, keinen hemmenden Einfluss auf die theoretischen Bemühungen von Ästhetikern und Kulturphilosophen, auf diesem rutschigen und unsicheren „Grund” einige solidere Demarkationslinien, als zuverlässigeres discrimenrerum zwischen diesen, zumindest auf der phänomenalen Ebene, äußerst nahestehenden Kategorien aufzustellen. In dieser Arbeit wird ein entsprechender Versuch unternommen, dies durch die Erörterung von Kitsch aus einer Perspektive der Rezeptionsästhetik zu erreichen, darauf folgt die Blickrichtung aus der Warte der Kunstsoziologie und Kultursoziologie und schließlich, aus einer axiologischen Sichtweise.

SchlüsselwörterKitsch,Kunst,Rezeptionsästhetik,Kunstsoziologie,Axiologie

Mirjana Radojičić

Les apories du kitsch

RésuméCe texte part du principe que le caractère indéfinissable de l’art, en tant que corrélat théorique de l’art, nourrit le caractère indéfinissable de la notion du kitsch, perçu en tant que pseudoart. Néanmoins, observel’auteure, cela ne réduit pas les efforts théoriques des esthéticiens et des philosophes de la culture d’établir sur ce » terrain « ambigu et vacillant des lignes de démarcation plus précises, un discrimenrerum plus fiable entre des catégories très proches, au moinssur le champ phénoménal. Dans cette article on essaie de le faire en examinant la notion du kitsch du point de vue de l’esthétique de la réception, puis de l’aspect de la sociologie de l’art et de la culture et, enfin, du plan axiologique.

Mots-cléskitsch,art,esthétiquedelaréception,sociologiedel’art,axiologie

42

MaxHorkheimer,TheodorW.Adorno,Dialektik der Aufklärung:Philosophische Fragmente,S.FischerVerlag,FrankfurtamMain1988,p.124.

43

G.Dorfles,Le oscillazioni del gusto e l’arte moderna,p.12.

the aporias of kitsch

Documents