Discuss the art criticism of Clement Greenberg, Hermann Broch and Gillo Dorfles. Do they have a valid point to make against popular art, or are they just snobs?
Kitsch in art in its basic description is parallel to bad taste in art. The criticism by all these artists is that kitsch is mindless, and not though provoking which can be dangerous for all manner or reasons. The kitsch art is popular because of the love of fantasy and escapism which is considered to be wrong in art. However whilst Greenburg, Hermann and Gillo Dorlfes have a valid point that it can be dangerous, most think it somewhat dramatic. Harmful enjoyment in kitsch art is not going to hurt anyone necessarily and is deeply imbedded in our society today.
Clement Greenburg, Hermann Broch and Gillo Dorfles all had the same opinion that Kitsch art is unchallenging to the mind. This is to say that it is too easy to look at Kitsch art and it doesn’t make the viewer think or ask any hard questions about society. It lets people escape into a different world away from their own and it is the escapism that makes the kitsch art, the popular art, so mass produced and brought and popular. The danger with the popular art is described by Greenburg in Gillo dorfles’s Kitsch: An anthology of bad taste is that because the mass of people are ‘ignorant’1, the poor man will always chose to look at popular art or music because they can ‘enjoy Kitsch without effort’2 this make the common man susceptible to fascism and likely to believe propaganda, taking and believing any information given to them as the truth. The government therefore can use kitsch to manipulate the people outlawing the avante garde because popular art is away they can get the masses of their society to follow the regime in question because they have brought the culture down to an easy level. It is also used to hide the truth about the society, sweetening the mind of people so they forget about the real issues. However this could be seen as snobbish, because some critics believe that there is no harm in looking at unchallenging art, that there is nothing wrong with fantasy. They go as far as to criticize not having any fantasy as an unhealthy and that escapism as long as not used all the time is absolutely fine.
Clement Greenburg, Threodore Adorno and Broch had some interesting theories on the avante garde and Kitsch. It is essential to talk about Adorno’s theory when talking about the fear of kitsch being a way of oppressing society. Adorno believes that people in society today consume things because they are popular, they follow the masses. We are a consumerist society, and if people continue to follow what they are told is, eventually this makes us weaker and therefore more likely to be victims of a totalitarian state. An example of this would be a painting like Boris Vladimirski’s Roses for Stalin who was an artist in the movement of socialist realism. This painting shows children giving roses to Stalin and is a classic example of propaganda in the USSR. The painting obviously portrays a country that is not in trouble; with children surrounding Stalin it also shows trust and likability. However what is actually going on in Russia, when the truth is that Stalin created a ‘regime of terror [that] caused the death and suffering of tens of millions3’.
In the critiques of these artists another reason why the art is subject to snobbery is because of the formulaic nature of popular art. The art and architecture of popular art is ‘reassuring’ because of its familiarity to the onlooker. Societies are not surprised by Kitsch; they find comfort in its constant stableness and meaningless art which is to be considered bad taste. Popular art can be aesthetic; Broch describes the art as ‘merely academic’4 because academic art is constantly trying to find the ways and rules of achieving true beauty. And so whilst we enjoy looking at art that is kitsch because its conventionally beautiful and nice to