Recently, on the internet …
MK: You know the matter of Kitsch is that, it’s bloody beautiful but empty! like 100 other beautiful meaningless things that we know! There is no depth no meaning, no question no answer. It’s just what it is and it’s beautiful with no doubt, but empty!
BB: emptiness is at least honest. i can see beauty in emptiness. but it also scares us. we like to see meaning in the world, but if there isn’t, it’s not less beautiful.
GC: Maybe kitsch is just the pretending of a non-existent feeling. In this case, the matter whether its kitsch or not, depends more on our attitudes of life and has less to do with the thing-in-it-self. So: If we „like it“, its no kitsch 😉
MK: BB you got me wrong, and GC I do not agree. 1. kitsch is not emptiness literally! It means kitsch is something but not something meaningful. For instance this is a great beautiful picture of Autumn. It’s something but something that we know and we can categorize rapidly. The picture is empty of course but still we know what it is. Furthermore there are maybe 100 pictures related to this theme (Autumn). The pic is full of feeling, you know, it can be seen as melancholia, as loneliness as natures beauty as season’s changes and…it’s still not something perplexed that you can interpret totally different! One can’t say it’s may be a picture of a dog chasing a cat!! Kitsch has feeling and meaning but just the conventional ones. Kitsch is not empty of meaning or senses, it’s just the surface and doesn’t go further. BB the emptiness that you are talking about is not present in here. And GC, I do like this pic very much although I might call it Kitsch! Cause for me it’s just a beautiful pic (with feeling) but nothing further more. I can’t interpret it differently than any one who sees it!
GC: Maybe what you say is one of the mayor qualities in a painting. Because in Fotos everything is easy and quickly categorized. When everything is said and done, there is no more chance to learn, create and communicate with one another. I just… think about the difference between „Bild- und Glanzfarben“ (sorry, I don’t know the translation). Some things are just a bright surface, and others keep a secret behind. They just go so far, that one can get the idea, that there might be no emptiness behind. But I think its hard to experience such qualities in a foto. They are always more like „HELLO! ITS ME! :)“
BB: @MK: Your right, the emptiness i had in mind is not in this photo. And i agree, what we mean by „kitsch“ is related to a bare surface. But when i ask myself, what makes us think that there´s more than surface to some things, i wonder what that might be and why we think it is. In GCs pic there are just colors and trees. What we consider to be just beautiful surface, maybe as meaningful and „deep“ as any other thing. what makes the difference? Don’t get me wrong, I feel also that there is a difference. But it’s impossible to measure. thats why this question is interesting.
GC: Ha: Now I got the translation: Its “image” and “luster” colors, but I mean it more like a character, like some people are extroverted, and others are introverted.
MK: It’s a pity we communicate like this, would love to had you with me to have some real discussion! Agree with GC, it’s harder to graspe kitsch in Photography than painting! BB maybe that thing that you want to grasp is just a question, or feeling! you also raise that question for me, and I have no answer for that, but I know it’s not always there, just sometimes! 🙂 shit how I wish we could discuss this in a real world and not in here!
MK: GC, great example, exactly ! some artworks are extroverted some introverted! And it’s not the matter of good or bad just the matter of how they are!
GC: Yes, would be nice to have this discussion in real! If we compare this with food (I love examples…) it might be a matter of taste too. And the way one feels at the moment, and allergies, vegetarians… And than, kitsch is like fastfood: Its not bad, but too much flavor enhancer is also not a solution… hihi
BB: Yes, we are using poor ways to communicate (facebook etc). Having you around would make this discussion even more interesting (and besides, it would be really nice to see each other.) But on topic: i like GCs intro/extroverted comparison…, but does this mean, „extroverted“ colors/pictures/people have less to offer behind their bright surface? obviously not. but we tend to distrust the bright and shiny things. Sometimes Gold is real Gold, and not just shiny effect. As a painter of faces, i often have this question about real values behind surfaces, and the way i decide if a painting has more to offer than a mask, i have to rely on my feeling (just as MK said). I will have this question for my lifetime, i guess.
MK: „extroverted“ colors/pictures/people have not less to offer, they just don’t leave more place for Phantasy! Thats the point! And of course one can always doubts that the things they show! You know I personally like extroverted people a lot cause they seem to be more simple to handle, but it’s actually also obvious that they may not exhibit the truth inside. In both cases they leave you less room to phantasize! In other hand introverted ones remain a mystery, you can’t even judge them if they are shy or have nothing to say or maybe have a lot to say and no urge to do it so! When something is not obvious every one is allowed to interpret it in a way he wants, and thats the beautify of it. It’s also possible that every one is wrong but who cares as long as you can go on and phantasize more! For me thats a good art peace criteria.