Monday, February 20, 2012


I've been thinking about the word "kitsch" lately. It annoys me to hear this word applied to works of art that seek to explore beauty. I freely admit to exploring beauty in my work, does this automatically classified it as "kitsch".

I don't think Romanticism is kitsch. What is kitsch about expressive and evocative works of art? What is kitsch about developing work started from another time and/or culture? Is the only valuable work of art, one that is completely unique and different. Is it enough for a work of art to be just different? Maybe ironic or crude?

How I understand Kitsch, is that it's a derogatory term used to discuss art made easy, a simple, or unoriginal idea, a sentimental, false, shallow, and poorly crafted work. Then again, work that is kitsch might show technical ability but poor taste in subject. Kitsch purportedly parodies the aesthetic experience, or it is art work that panders commercially to the general public.

Therefore, my Northern style ink brush paintings are kitsch in a frame and postmodern ironic glued to a cash register receipt roll. Oh, I get it now...