 |  |
|
Ok you lovers of kitsch, as promised, my series of thoughts on "Kitsch, The World of Bad Taste", by Gillo Dorfles... As this is much more than a standard book review (when has lil Pop Tart done anything 'standard' anyway?), I promise that my opinions will be loud & clear, and that in many places, I will be far from scholarly - I will be completely emotional! *giggle* If you don't like it, feel free to blast an opinion on the message boards. Or email me some intellectual debate. It is welcome, I assure you! Now, back to the book... Following along with the order of the book, the definition of kitsch is provided. This is mainly the topic of the 'Introduction' and is given a small number of pages - hardly worthy of mention for most book reviewers (see disclaimers above *wink*), but it is here that the very essence of the author's views are stated. And, if you are a lover of kitsch, as I am, you may take issue with this point of view as well... Gillo uses definitions or standards of art to contrast & therefore create this (or his) definition of kitsch. "The word kitsch could derive etymologically from the English 'sketch' or, according to the other opinions, from the German verb 'verkitschen ('to make cheap'). According to Giesz (Ludwig Giesz: 'Phanomenologie des Kitsches' ...1960) which is without doubt the most complete work on the subject, the word kitsch could approximately be said to mean 'artistic rubbish.'" Simply stated, this book defines kitsch as 'really bad taste.' While it may be true, as a textbook definition, I think it is too dry, like most textbooks themselves are. Gillo also spends plenty of time using lots of words (dry words) to 'cover his arse,' by mentioning that all of this is subject to change as times change - historical context & all that. The clearest example (and I do mean the easiest to read!) is that kitsch is "fated to remain as such, unless it is 'taken up' as an element of artistic sophistication and embodied in later work; but will still be partial, temporary and paradoxical." Huh? While Gillo does not give me much time to recover from that statement, he does (amazingly!) sense my frustration, or anger, and address it here: "If anyone is not satisfied with our choice and finds some of the images artistic which we will present as pseudo-artistic, un-artistic, too bad! To us at least it will mean that our reader is really a 'kitsch-man' of the first water; and that the psychological test has worked properly." I am not sure, but I think I have been insulted... At the very least, I must be dumb, because I didn't sign up for any test, psychological or otherwise... However, least I be too un-artistic, but still holding on to that 'first water' business, I continue to read... He does 'warn' us of the following, so perhaps I should take heart: "...the reader will readily understand that he will have to see our choice as built up round a single point of view, a cultural pedestal as it were, a sociological attitude which is thoroughly subjective & personal." (And you thought my disclaimers were bad! *giggle*) So, with the definition squared away, we will continue to move on to the meat of the book next time...
|
|
