Kitsch Art

Milica Jovicevic 447848 Sociology of Arts and Culture- CC1003 PACS J.C.F Schaap Assignment 3 16.1.2016 Spray Paint Art ; A Socially Stratified Art Genre The audience watches as the artist performs their ritual and awaits in fascination, succumbed to harsh smell of spray paint and the interminable successful result. Spray paint art (SPA) may be considered, to some, of high artistic and creative quality, and to others simply as kitsch, or as bad taste. Figure 1. Zoriana,M. [Melina Zoriana]. (2014, October 23). AMAZING New York City Spray Paint Art in Time Square 2014 [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36lZPqL8y3Q Through defining kitsch art, looking at Bourdieu’s Distinction theory, applying McCoy and Scarborough’s (2014) viewing styles, and linking it to Goffman’s dramaturgical analysis, the following essay will elaborate on the role of kitsch art in society and how it is an example of bad taste. Kitsch art, as Morreall and Loy (1989) describe it, is a form of art that is “perfectly suited to most people’s passivity, short attention span and shallow understanding, for it promises…immediate gratification” (p. 68). Art critic Clement Greenberg (1940 [1939]), !1 defined Kitsch as “mechanical” that “operates by formulas” and “demand[s] nothing of its customers except their money — not even their time” (p. 262). The ten minute SPA (figure 1.) is predictable and mechanical, they use the same stencils and techniques repetitively only in remotely different patterns, immediately gratifying the spectators. Good taste on the other hand, is art comprised by a conforming aesthetic canon, labelled as “high culture”, by the elite who buy, sell, curate or collect art (Maltby, 2012) A canon, are works of art that surpassed a suspensive gatekeeping process and “that scholars have deemed better or more important than others” (Alexander, 2003, p. 238). Bourdieu’s theory of Distinction would describe these elite gatekeepers and consumers, as those with high economic and cultural capital, who reinforce a symbolic boundary between social groups (lowbrow and highbrow) but also between what is “high” art or “low” art (i.e ‘good’ taste and ‘bad’ taste) (Maltby, 2012). As Alexander (2003) explains, “cultural capital is a currency based on taste” that is inherited from social class, education and cultural knowledge (p. 229). A symbolic boundary is “an invisible boundary between [the upper classes] and lower classes,” which is reinforced by the powerful elite who “recognize other members of the upper class by their taste” and hence fortify social stratification and monopolization of resources (Alexander, 2003, p. 229) The symbolic boundaries established by the elite, hinder “lowbrow” social groups of climbing the ladder of culture capital, garnering no standards for what is to be considered “high art” and “low art.” As Alexander (2003) explains, the elite “perpetuate class distinction intergenerationally” — through social reproduction of habitus (internalized class conditioning) from the family, and the upper-class that are in constant “positions of power.. [such as in institutions] to favor themselves” (p. 229). Kitsch art can be seen as a symbol of a socially stratified art genre, only belonging to the “lowbrow”, low-income and low cultural capital society. SPA simply does not pertain to the aesthetic standards set by the elite and the institutionalized gatekeepers such as galleries and museums. ‘High’ art conversely intellectually challenges the viewer, to interpret and react to it — as Morreall and Loy (1989) said it, in good art, “aesthetic value is proportional to the effort needed to process the work cognitively” (p. 68). Kitsch art is insufficient in conceptual novelty and turns out conservative, it does no expect critical thinking, instead, it adopts the role of a replicable and !2 instantly consumable commodity. Hence, consumers of Kitsch art, like SPA, ideal typically belong to social groups who have less cultural capital, less intrinsic drive to be visually critically challenged and simply want a “shortcut to the pleasure of art [detouring] what is necessarily difficult in genuine art” (Maltby, 2012 p. 54). Nevertheless, as Matlby (2012) said, Bourdieu's distinction theory may have “functioned in Paris, in the 1960’s” but it is not relevant for “postmodern media culture” of today — instead, the boundary “between “high art” and mass culture” is dissolving (73). In our post- industrial society, a new cultural taste has emerged. There are upper-class individuals who consume a combination of “high” art and “low” art, Peterson and Simkus (1992) named them “cultural omnivores.” (Alexander, 2003, p. 231) Moreover, Peterson and Kern (1996) illustrated that highbrows are “increasingly omnivorous over time,” potentially due to “status-group politics influenced by changes in social structure, values, art-world dynamics, and generational conflict” (p. 900). With the forthcoming omnivorous elite, there are diverging consumption typologies manifesting amongst consumers of ‘bad’ art (like SPA). With the diminishing traditional distinction between high and low culture, the omnivorous elite are distinguished by the ways they are consuming the varied art forms — as McCoy and Scarborough (2014) said “elite cultural consumers do not find cultural distinction by consuming a distinctive set of cultural objects, but by consuming a range of cultural goods in a distinctive manner” (p. 44). Their research, demonstrate these distinctive consumption style through using the “active audience” approach in reception theory. An active audience approach implies the assumption that the omnivorous “consumers actively create their own varied meanings from “texts” of popular culture” (p. 44). They define the different viewing strategies that exist when consuming ‘bad’ art, as traditional, ironic, camp sensibility and guilty pleasure. According to their research, the “traditional viewing style” is reduced to the viewer who “abstains from watching” it because they find the art so bad (p. 48). Theoretically, that would be the highly educated and traditional univorous elite who is only interested in Velasquez or Yves Klein, never in SPA. As Peterson (1992) explains, a univore is one that is “actively involved in just one, or at best just a few, alternative aesthetic traditions” (p.254) On the other hand, ironic consumption is when “the viewer places [themselves] on one side of the symbolic boundary and [bad art] on the other” (p. 48) — that would be viewers !3 who digest SPA ironically, mocking and ridiculing it for their own pleasure. Furthermore, Kitsch art has been the subject of ironic consumption of many contemporary artists, they utilize kitsch aesthetic and objects to specifically decontextualize its meaning within the high arts (e.g Jeff Koons) (Maltby, 2012). In camp sensibility, viewers “exchanges the normal esthetic standards of taste for an evaluation [and appreciation] of the object on its own terms” (51). Although no scientific research has been done on SPA consumers, a camp sensibility would hypothetically be the most common viewing style. Many viewers watch the spray paint artist knowing they are not to the standard of a museum, and appreciate their work for what it is — “the vision of the creator is admired, rather than the end result” (McCoy and Scorborough, 2014, 48). Despite that, there may be viewers with high cultural capital that have bought kitsch art and are fully of ashamed of it, employing the guilty pleasure viewing style. For instance, that would be the wealthy art advisor who recommends an Anne Imhof to its client but for themselves secretly and shamefully enjoys the passivity of SPA or a simple flower from Ikea art. In fact, one could go so far to relate this to Erving Goffman’s dramaturgical analysis, his investigation on social interaction as a theatrical performance. Goffman’s analysis “emphasizes how we [in daily life] resemble actors on a stage as we play out our various roles before others” (Macionis and Plummer, 2012, p 34). Every individual performs on a daily basis for a public, in attempt to create an impressions of themselves to the audience — what Goffman called, a ‘presentation of self’ or ‘impression management’ (Macionis and Plummer, 2012). Elitist “high art” taste can be seen as dramaturgical mask used for impression management. The mask is utilized to maintain and symbolize their high social status, but really backstage all they want is something to decorate their walls with and passively enjoy. Moreover, the emerging cultural omnivorousness can be seen as an entire upgraded costume of a social class. Bryson’s (1996) research explained how the omnivorous elite who liked more variations of art styles, specifically disfavored the popular art as it is particularly linked to the working class. He claimed that “culture breadth, or tolerance, could itself be a source of cultural capital” (pg. 888) — bringing us back to Bourdieu’s class distinction through taste (omnivorous taste). !4 Nevertheless, the problem of kitsch as ‘bad’ taste is empirically questionable, as Kulka (1996) said, it is not “altogether clear whether the art-educated elite is entirely immune to the seductive powers of kitsch” (pg. 21) To validate Kitsch as bad taste, research should be done to prove that the demanders of kitsch “consistently prefer bad works of art to good ones, outside there realm of kitsch” (Kulka, 1996, pg. 21). It is clear that labelling kitsch as “bad” taste has its limitations, but to elaborate further upon this aesthetic, philosophical and sociological problem, is beyond the scope of this essay. All things considered, Kundera (2009 [1984]) perfectly observes that “none of us is superman enough to escape kitsch completely” and that “no matter how we scorn it, kitsch is an integral part of human condition” (pg. 256). !5 References Alexander, V. D. (2003). Sociology of the Arts: Exploring Fine and Popular Forms. Malden, MA: Blackwell Bryson, B. (1996) Anything but heavy metal: symbolic exclusion and musical dislikes. American Sociological Review, 61, 884-899. Greenberg, C. (1940 [1939]) Avant-Garde and Kitsch. Horizon, April, pp. 255-27 Kulka, T. (1996). Kitsch and Art. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. Kundera, M. (2009[1984]). The Unbearable Lightness of Being (M. H. Heim, Trans.). New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics. Macionis, J. J., & Plummer, K. (2012). Sociology: A Global Introduction (5th ed.). Harlow, England: Pearson/Prentice Hall. Maltby, P. (2012). Kinkade, Koons, Kitsch. Journal for Cultural and Religious Theory, 12(1), 53-81. McCoy, C. A., & Scarborough, R. C. (2014). Watching “bad” television: Ironic consumption, camp, and guilty pleasures. Poetics, 47, 41-59. Morreall, J., & Loy, J. (1989). Kitsch and Aesthetic Education. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 23(4), 63-73. Peterson, R. A. (1992). Understanding audience segmentation: From elite and mass to omnivore and univore. Poetics, 21(4), 243-258. Peterson, R. A., & Kern, R. M. (1996). Changing highbrow taste: From snob to omnivore. American Sociological Review, 61(5), 900-907. !6