Talk:Kitsch/Archive 2

Needs clarification
This caption is very poorly written and should be revised: ""The Widow", kitsch example of late 19th century popular lithograph of a humorous painting by Frederick Dielman." mcoverdale (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

NPOV and citations
Putmoneyinthypurse just added an NPOV template, and, after re-reading the article, I'm inclined to agree. I started looking through the "History" section, which is where the majority of the problems are, and felt that we may want to consider removing the entire thing. First of all, none of it is cited. Yes, whoever wrote it refers to authors listed in the Further Reading section, but there are no page numbers, no details...no way of knowing exactly what should be attributed to what. Equally as bad, it uses a non-encylopedic tone--much more like a college paper than an encyclopedic article. We definitely should not be saying things like "One, thus, has to keep in mind two things" or "When originality alone is used to determine artistic genius, using it as a single focus may become problematic". These statements speak directly to the reader, and the latter isn't neutral (it's making a very broad claim about art history that would need to be directly sourced...and probably wouldn't belong here anyway, since it's not directly linked to kitsch in the sources).

My suggestion is that we remove the entire History section. Then, someone who has access to the sources (I don't) can start to rebuild it step by step, being careful not to engage in [{WP:SYN|synthesis]] or other original research, providing proper citations (including responding here to concerns about context), and getting the tone right. In other words, what I'm suggesting is that it will be much easier to fix what's there by removing all of it and starting anew then trying to repair the current text. But I know that this is a dramatic step, so I'm interested in seeing what others think first. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree it is a drastic step, but agree it appears to be necessary. Suggest you leave a perm link here on the talk page from before your trimming, so editors coming later will be able to see what was removed. KillerChihuahua ?!? 04:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * See also the FAR where there are specific criticisms to address and fix. KillerChihuahua ?!? 04:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Eh, why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.93.12.190 (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, I forgot all about this. I've now removed the entire history section due to the serious problems mentioned above. Anyone who wants to work with what was there can see the intact section at . Qwyrxian (talk) 03:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Undated, unsigned threads

Kitsch is also a value judgement
To call something "kitch" is also a value judgement. Snobbish people can refer to some art as "kitch". Some "kitch" art can in fact be valued very highly retrospectively. Vladimir Tretchikoff is a good example, considered kitch but now his works are selling for millions. This judgemental part of the meaning of "kitch" and its associated class issues need to be included.

Kitsch vs. Tacky
In popular parlance, I can see how Kitsch can come to mean tacky or crass. And I can see how pastoral scenes, such as those painted by the French academic painters, could be seen as low-brow. But I think there is a fundamental difference between crass art, which is often irreverent and offensive, and pastoral art, which is sanguinely positive. Is Kitsch "things modernists don't like"?

I think the definition of the word has simply changed from its original, something reelected in the article's disjointed transition from theoretical writing, referring to pastoral and maudline art, and moving to the crass and low-brow definition. I think that an more appropriate example of kitsch would be some sort of Christian angel lamp, or some other maudline, non-ironic, conventional piece of art.

Changes
I am expanded the article to what it is, I wasnt happy with some of the recent changes I am changing a few things back and editing some things.

One of the changes was the reduction of "wordiness", this would include the sentence saying that kitsch is associated with sentimentality because the term was a response to 19th c taste. This was important to point out so I put it back, because it has a lot to do with why people use the term how it is used. I didn't put back the section on the origins fo the term yet though i think it may be important to establish.

Some of the rewrites were sort of wrong also. The first paragraph said it appealed to 'lowbrow' taste.. The critique of kitsch is that it appeals to 'middlebrow' taste. Lowbrow is lower class bar room ,etc. Middlebrow is from middle class which is the bourgeois, which admired and collected kitsch. (broadway musicals are often called middlebrow, and many people who criticize kitsch also criticize musicals). Also someone made the link where it says 'adorno popularized' link popularize to the article on 'pop culture' this is wrong because Adorno popularized it first mainly among intellegensia

I also put the paragraphs on Kundera back into the avant-garde section because he was speaking an avant-gardist philosophy. He was also not that important a theorist on kistch himself to merit a section, Adorno and Greenberg and Broch were more important. I dont believe the article should have too many sections.

The picture of Vegas was replaced with the garden gnome, and this is ok but the article didnt really talk about cheap produced items like this being kitsch (one of its faults).

The Chabas picture was moved up but put in a clumsy place so I removed it. But I always had thoughts about removing it. When the Chabas picture was first put in the article I also talked with the person who put it there, and we discussed the idea that a better example could be put in its place. Chabas' painting isnt really bad even though its not so good, it has good compositional qualities. The thing about Chabas is he becomes ludicrous once you see all his paintings are of bathing girls. There is still contention over whether his paintings are kitsch. Regardless of any of this, a better, clearer example of what is called kitsch should be used. The person who put the Chabas picture agreed and said if I could find a better example to put up I should.

I am going to look for something to replace it. I might go for a Thomas Kinkade, but that might be harder than I think because of the copyrights he puts on this.

If anyone has any disagreement with me or problems with me re-editing the article, talk here or give me a message on my user page, so we can work it out before any edit wars happen.

I will also work on modifying the article to include cheap commercial productions though this is tied to its use in art

User:Brianshapiro

Add Bev Doolittle
Please please please add Bev Doolittle to the examples. I don't know if it's possible to get a public domain image but here's a link to a picture on her website. http://www.bnr-art.com/doolitt/originals/callingbuffalo.jpg - if that's not the perfect example of kitsch then nothing is. I would add it myself but the editor nazi's always mark my submissions as trolls...

edit - ahh ahh omg i can't stop laughing when I see her work. All I can think of is a native american shedding a single tear

user:Windkin

Gypsies
If someone became famous for his numerous variations of the Gipsy Girl, it's definietly J.H. Lynch http://www.jhlynch.org whose work "Tina" is probably one of the most prominent works of mass market art - at least one of the best selling ones. Excuse my ignorance, but I have neither heard about Charles Roka before nor have I ever seen one of his gypsy girls.


 * You havent heard of Charles Roka because he painted in the early 20th century, which is around the time intellectuals started talking about kitsch. What this article states is accurate; that he was one of the first important examples of a kitsch painter. He was rather famous then and his paintings reproduced and was the first one to capitalize on the theme of gipsy girls. J.H. Lynch isn't really well known either, but I think less important to include in the article.

Elvis Presley
Can Elvis Presley himself be considered and example of Camp and Kitsch? I'm waiting for further approval before posting it, but as far as i'm concerned, he fits in all pre-requisites for being considered kitsch and camp.

Romanticism, and Victorian Art
Much of the Romanticism and Victorian art can also be considered Kitsch. Should we open a section in the arcticle discussing seriously the issue? As I can see, ultra-romanticism features an exaggeration and a phony copy and idealization of older concepts. Victorian art seems to be not only a darker variant but an interesting phoenomenon.

time and a reference
Călinescu, Matei.Five faces of modernity Duke University Press, 1987. has some good stuff. he identifies at least 3 possible etymological sources for the word. One thing that strikes me is how ideas of what is kitsch seem to change over time.

p g-b

pronunciation
Perhaps give readers an idea of its pronunciation, sounds like 'mitch'?

inferior copy yea, "questionable quality" extremely subjective
most of the time an "inferior"(calling sth "inferior" is usually subjective too) or simply a copy of something else, can be identified.

but, "questionable taste" in art is such a wide field it can only be attributed to individual taste. I don't think therefore that an artist can seriously be identified as "kitsch" by all groups or all cultures, unless it's in the meaning of the easily identified copy of a previous work of art.

besides, special and original art forms are usually seen by the masses(which includes the masses of "critics") as "questionable" before they gain any serious recognition. should they be identified as kitsch? in that case it brings the meaning to the exact opposite end of the word where it doesn't sound good at all.

Trivia
That meaningless trivia section has got to go. Except for its untranslatability, none of it is relevant to discussion of Kitsch at all.

A subject that deserves further refinement
The author has made a good start for this article, but it reads like a first-year college essay.

This article (http://humanities.uchicago.edu/faculty/mitchell/glossary2004/kitsch.htm) does a better job of handling the subject.

Kitsch or Not
As a supplement to the above pictures, I think the site www.kitschornot.com may be worth a look. It rates art according to how kitsch it is.