Brandon:
Question for you Gabby. You consider kitsch to be an art form in itself, rather than it being a parody or imitation of art, correct?
Gabriela:
I consider kitsch to be a category of art. It is a type of art, not a parody or imitation. If it does any type of imitating, then it imitates art practice and genres that have been tried and tested. But the kitsch artist intends for art.
Brandon:
I see. So would you consider the defining feature of kitsch to be mainly a reference to very specific item within a culture. One that if viewed outside of it's own cultural context may not be seen as art.
Gabriela:
If we're going to say item then we have to be quite abstract with what an item can be. Though it might be a person, object or place, it is more likely to deal with the visual representations of a culture's values, morals, traditions, etc.
I'm not sure that I think that kitsch truly exists within other non-western visual cultures (something I should probably look into). The appropriation of kitsch has sprung up in asian contemporary art, but it always seems to me to read as the art acquiring a very western feel- the effect of globalization? Probably.
Back to your first question in the last message, whether I think that kitsch is an imitation or parody of art. Perhaps I should re-think this. First, I wouldn't grab for the word parody, because this seems to imply that there is somekind of intention to mock art practice. I don't believe that the kitsch artist is intending to do this, because i think this intention would bring the artist into something very different. Duchamp's ready-mades, for example, are intended to mock the notion of art. What were intended to actually count as throwing tomatoes in the face of the artworld, has almost completely lost its meaning as it gets put on a pedastal. Though I love what the man did, I think we tend to read into his work and praise it more than we ought to for what it was intended to do. (if that makes any sense to you)
However, this notion of imitation. Well I think that this is something I really ought to consider more. I was at a conference dinner last week and I was talking briefly about kitsch with my supervisor and in my slightly drunken haze I remember him explaining to someone else at the table that kitsch wasn't art. I stopped him and asked if he really didn't think kitsch was art and if he considered it a pseudo-art. He answered in the affirmative, and then asked me what think. I told him that I did consider it art, but that there is something wrong with it, something that fails. Over the past week, I've run this over my mind a couple times. And maybe I'm not as sure about this answer as I once thought I was. It is indeed that i think that kitsch works are intended to be art, but if we are to come to any resolution on this subject we must first determine what it is to be a work of art. This is where I am actually stuck right now. I am searching for an account of art that not only can account for kitsch in the way I see it as working, but also an account which I can buy into. Not only is an account of art needed, but an account of artistic value. Why don't we see kitsch as having value. One of my favorite websites at the moment is worldwidekitsch.com. Many works on this site are definite imitations of art, while others make me question the idea that all kitsch is imitating art. If all kitsch is imitating art, then I should have to consider that that would be a necessary condition of kitsch. Right?
I think at the moment my biggest issue is that I don't know what art is... or I don't know what I THINK art is. I need an account of art.
I'm not sure that I think that kitsch truly exists within other non-western visual cultures (something I should probably look into). The appropriation of kitsch has sprung up in asian contemporary art, but it always seems to me to read as the art acquiring a very western feel- the effect of globalization? Probably.
Back to your first question in the last message, whether I think that kitsch is an imitation or parody of art. Perhaps I should re-think this. First, I wouldn't grab for the word parody, because this seems to imply that there is somekind of intention to mock art practice. I don't believe that the kitsch artist is intending to do this, because i think this intention would bring the artist into something very different. Duchamp's ready-mades, for example, are intended to mock the notion of art. What were intended to actually count as throwing tomatoes in the face of the artworld, has almost completely lost its meaning as it gets put on a pedastal. Though I love what the man did, I think we tend to read into his work and praise it more than we ought to for what it was intended to do. (if that makes any sense to you)
However, this notion of imitation. Well I think that this is something I really ought to consider more. I was at a conference dinner last week and I was talking briefly about kitsch with my supervisor and in my slightly drunken haze I remember him explaining to someone else at the table that kitsch wasn't art. I stopped him and asked if he really didn't think kitsch was art and if he considered it a pseudo-art. He answered in the affirmative, and then asked me what think. I told him that I did consider it art, but that there is something wrong with it, something that fails. Over the past week, I've run this over my mind a couple times. And maybe I'm not as sure about this answer as I once thought I was. It is indeed that i think that kitsch works are intended to be art, but if we are to come to any resolution on this subject we must first determine what it is to be a work of art. This is where I am actually stuck right now. I am searching for an account of art that not only can account for kitsch in the way I see it as working, but also an account which I can buy into. Not only is an account of art needed, but an account of artistic value. Why don't we see kitsch as having value. One of my favorite websites at the moment is worldwidekitsch.com. Many works on this site are definite imitations of art, while others make me question the idea that all kitsch is imitating art. If all kitsch is imitating art, then I should have to consider that that would be a necessary condition of kitsch. Right?
I think at the moment my biggest issue is that I don't know what art is... or I don't know what I THINK art is. I need an account of art.
No comments:
Post a Comment