Comments on: Kitsch… is so hurtful, if not Evil: Part 3 http://www.theveilaway.com/commentary/2010/03/kitsch%e2%80%a6-is-so-hurtful-if-not-evil-part-3/ Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:58:48 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Adam Schultz http://www.theveilaway.com/commentary/2010/03/kitsch%e2%80%a6-is-so-hurtful-if-not-evil-part-3/comment-page-1/#comment-376 Adam Schultz Wed, 24 Mar 2010 00:10:09 +0000 http://www.theveilaway.com/commentary/?p=572#comment-376 That is an interesting question... Certainly, the example I used of the rose motif suggests kitsch by way of historical imitation. Without the existence of previous degeneration (kitsch) the rose is a legitimate subject and its representation legitimate art. However, Seerveld's definition of kitsch, art that lacks sufficient allusive qualification (rich, metaphorical, symbolic allusivity) would seem to be possible without any previous historical grounding. Now, the fact that I can't think of a single example of kitsch that rises out of the primordial ooze without a true art referent suggests that such a non-historically qualified kitsch is unlikely. Yet, by Seerveld's definition, it would seem to be possible. For Broch, kitsch is only possible as the repetition, subversion, twisting of existing positive cultural formation. Thus, any art that moves in ANY direction - moves in a positive direction, and cannot be considered kitschy. Art that does not move at all - moves in a negative direction and is kitsch. That is an interesting question… Certainly, the example I used of the rose motif suggests kitsch by way of historical imitation. Without the existence of previous degeneration (kitsch) the rose is a legitimate subject and its representation legitimate art. However, Seerveld’s definition of kitsch, art that lacks sufficient allusive qualification (rich, metaphorical, symbolic allusivity) would seem to be possible without any previous historical grounding. Now, the fact that I can’t think of a single example of kitsch that rises out of the primordial ooze without a true art referent suggests that such a non-historically qualified kitsch is unlikely. Yet, by Seerveld’s definition, it would seem to be possible.

For Broch, kitsch is only possible as the repetition, subversion, twisting of existing positive cultural formation. Thus, any art that moves in ANY direction – moves in a positive direction, and cannot be considered kitschy. Art that does not move at all – moves in a negative direction and is kitsch.

]]> By: Robert Minto http://www.theveilaway.com/commentary/2010/03/kitsch%e2%80%a6-is-so-hurtful-if-not-evil-part-3/comment-page-1/#comment-373 Robert Minto Tue, 23 Mar 2010 17:39:55 +0000 http://www.theveilaway.com/commentary/?p=572#comment-373 Isn't it the case that kitsch is historically determined for Seerveld as well? He doesn't say it explicitly, as perhaps Broch does, but your whole example of the rose --- only kitschy in <i>re</i>iteration --- points in that direction... Isn’t it the case that kitsch is historically determined for Seerveld as well? He doesn’t say it explicitly, as perhaps Broch does, but your whole example of the rose — only kitschy in reiteration — points in that direction…

]]> By: Robert Minto http://www.theveilaway.com/commentary/2010/03/kitsch%e2%80%a6-is-so-hurtful-if-not-evil-part-3/comment-page-1/#comment-372 Robert Minto Sun, 21 Mar 2010 15:47:59 +0000 http://www.theveilaway.com/commentary/?p=572#comment-372 I'm waiting for the final part of the series to comment substantially, but I just wanted to let you know that I've been following your series with interest. I’m waiting for the final part of the series to comment substantially, but I just wanted to let you know that I’ve been following your series with interest.

]]>