What is Kitsch?

            When it comes to paintings there is some debate about exactly what Kitsch is.  Some, taking the view expressed by wealthy art collectors in the Victorian era, say that it is any soft, feminine work of art.  This, however, would mean that the work any artist from the Rococo period is kitsch, and that certainly isn’t accurate.  Some say that it is any reproduction of artwork.  This, however, is a thoroughly elitist view, as it rules out anything that average citizens can afford.  Besides that, it is certainly incorrect.  The artistic value of a painting is placed on the work itself, not on its monetary value.  While there is certainly something awe-inspiring about standing before the actual canvas that was transformed into art by the loving strokes of a master artist’s brush, I would argue that the actual artistic value of a painting lies in the emotions it produces, the contemplations it instigates and in the creative skill it embodies.  The wonderment one feels when gazing at the original is of a more historical nature, and is derived more from the thought that this is indeed the painting that the artist actually touched.  One would feel much the same way when gazing on the sword that William Wallace wielded, or the flag that inspired the Star Spangled Banner.  When prints of a painting are made, the historical value may not apply to the copies, but the artistic value remains intact.

            What, then, is kitsch?  After careful thought, I have formed two opinions on the matter.  The first is simply that kitsch– if there truly is such a thing– must apply to the original work.  There must be something about the painting that lessens it in some way.  As an illustration, I have chosen two artists.  I like both, both offer prints of their work, and both have soft, “feminine” styles, but I believe one may be considered kitschy while the other is not.

            The first is Thomas Kinkade.  Now, please understand that I mean no offence when I say he is a bit kitschy.  I think that his paintings are beautiful, but the fact is that they are not thought provoking, they do not inspire a range of emotions, and they are, frankly, a little repetitive.  Google the term Thomas Kinkade and you will find a lot of beautiful paintings that are all basically the same.

            The second artist is Josephine Wall.  While she has a unique style that is evident in all of her work, each of her paintings is unique and seems to tell a story all its own.  Different Josephine Wall paintings carry different emotions and provoke different ideas, though admittedly they all tend to be of a pleasant sort.  (In my mind this is no bad thing.  I resent the idea that something has to be controversial and unhappy in order to be art.  That is like saying only somber aires actually count as music.)  There are multitudes details that draw one in– faces peer out from the landscape, clouds take the form of dancers, figures dissolve into scenes– and viewers begin feeling like they are falling into a dream.  In many cases, these details contain symbols that hint at the personification or myth the painting is meant to portray.  If one has a background in Paganism, Mythology, New Age Philosophy, or all three, one is likely to recognize important or sacred symbols in Josephine’s work.  Even if one knows nothing about the aforementioned things, however, one understands that there is a deeper meaning hidden in the artwork.  Any person who truly stops and looks at a Josephine Wall painting cannot help but wonder what significance or story is masked in that veil of paint.