Kitsch vs. Cool

Confession of the day – I love Kitsch art. There’s something so wrong about it… yet so incredibly appealing at the same time. But am I even allowed to say “Kitsch Art”? Is kitsch Art or is it merely… Kitsch? Artlex, an online art dictionary, defines Kitsch as “Art characterized by vapidly sentimental, often pretentious poor taste. It is typically clumsy, repetitive, cheesy, and slickly commercial.” Another definition says, “In contrast to genuine artwork, kitsch leaves no room for interpretation. It represents no innovation or originality… it is clichéd and stereotypical, while also being easily reproducible.” Yet how does one decide what constitutes “poor taste”? And what is “genuine artwork”? No one knows just how to define Kitsch, yet, according to Stephen Lacey of The Age, Australia, “Even if we struggle to define it, most of us know what it is when we see it. Kitsch is your grandmother's garden gnome with the little bamboo fishing rod, it's the doe-eyed-children prints from the 1950s, and it's the knitted toilet-roll dolly at the Country Women's Association stall.”

So is kitsch Art? I think there’s been a trend in the design world toward kitschy objects… encouraged by the modern vintage craze, witnessed in tacky wallpaper and retro furniture, the resurgence of avocado green and harvest gold... So when is art “bad” kitsch that should only be seen in flea markets or garage sales, and when is art “good” kitsch that deserves to be analyzed and enjoyed as a serious art form? Was Rococo art the Kitsch of the 18th century? The Rococo style of art was sentimental, over-the-top, and often superficial – characteristics that coincide with the definitions of Kitsch stated previously. In a gilded frame hanging on the wall of an art museum, The Swing by Fragonard says one thing. Viewers analyze it as Art. However, the same scene painted on a white ceramic tile in your grandmother’s bathroom communicates something entirely different…that setting causes the “kitschy-ness” of the painting to shine through.


I wonder if even Dada and Pop Art have elements of Kitsch. Maybe the art of Duchamp and Warhol is Kitsch with consciousness – an intentional parody on popular objects. I believe that one distinguishing trait between good and bad Kitsch is purpose… based upon whether the artist consciously creates Art or merely imitates blindly, without much thought. Perhaps Kitsch can be informed by good design and thus elevate itself to “fine art” status. Or maybe even if the art is designed poorly and is cheaply sentimental, it can still be “fine art” if the poor design is purposeful. Kitsch art in the modern context should compel viewers to reevaluate their perceptions of “Art” and their views of cliché objects. Perhaps the Kitsch that I enjoy is modern Kitsch – not of the Thomas Kinkade variety, but of the bright-pink-cuckoo-clock variety. Thomas Kinkade paints his kitschy subjects seriously… bereft of humor or irony. I enjoy kitsch that is tongue-in-cheek art, jabbing fun at “high art” idolatry…having self-conscious bad taste…making me see an everyday object in a way that I never have before… art that is cynical and tacky. To me a bright pink cuckoo clock or wallpaper emblazoned with images of the queen is just plain hilarious. Those are examples of Kitsch that makes me think, and that is Art to me.

Check out this gallery of images
also, see the work of the "king of kitsch", Jeff Koons

Kitsch = Cool ...or definitely not. What do you think?