I am in complete agreement. "No purposefully ugly demoralizing meta-ironic work no matter how derivative, or already done, is ever described as kitsch, and no beautiful uplifting sincere work, no matter how technically innovative is ever described as anything but."
Entertaining subject matter selection, to be sure.
Garden gnomes and cocks as scene-setting for a discussion of dreadful rainbow BLM "art", and its adherents' semi-conscious attempts to devalue Western civ's fruits.
My only takeaway from all this is: We should all start snootily describing neo-modern artistic faggotry as 'kitschy', in a bemusedly patronizing way. Nothing would devalue/defang attempted transgressive "art" production faster than being tarred with that benighted label.
Now here's an example for "kitsch" at my own expense.
As a kid I was doing folk dance. And I hated it. Mostly you get told that it's lame. So I bitched enough until fifth grade so I won't be forced anymore.
Now look at those who stayed. Straight back, good build, good posture, good bearing. You might get the hint that it was not that pointless.
My posture immediately started to get worse as I left. Luckily on my grandparents pressure I started doing sports (which is always kind of cool at least) so I don't fall apart.
Now, who told us that it was lame? The media. Not the stupid kids themselves, they really don't care that much. If anything, it did actually did help in my social life. And impressionable young kids are really endangered by it.
Couldn’t agree more. Was at the Bilbao’s Guggenheim Museum, once inside art was left behind. I walked through 5 floors looking for art. By the third floor, I felt I was on a scavenger hunt. It wasn’t until the 5th floor I discovered a room with half a dozen dreary paintings. My question the same, “Where is the art located?” The first floor was a maze where the walls were a grayish white and too tall to even in the entirety of the maze. So like a blind mouse, one experienced it a bite at a time. Quite honestly I don’t remember much else, some wannabe hieroglyphs, some voodoo sculpture, who knows, can’t remember. The fifth floor with the 6 or so paintings was bare and had an unfinished look and feel. I didn’t stick around, i walked into the city to look for a much more artistic place to eat some lunch. Bad timing, perhaps, but shouldn’t art museums always display.……art?
Yes. Architects love to call any buildings with a sense of place and culture "pastiche."
They pat themselves on the back for putting form over function and avoiding any decoration that might tie their building to local history, but in practice they do add plenty of decoration, it's just ugly and soulless.
Like most modern terms, "kitsch" can be most usefully and indeed easily defined as "What Jews don't like." As, "democracy" = what Jews like (hence, electing Trump or the AfD is "anti-democratic), "the science" = what Jews like (vaccines good, anti-vaxx bad), etc. This even explains why the only thing Republicans do is try to lower taxes on the rich (rich = Jews, so taxes are bad),
No depiction in words or pictures of a helpless bube being raped by Cossacks or put in a cage with an eagle and a bear by Nazis, no matter how tasteless and sentimental, will ever be labelled as "kitsch." Anything produced by or for goyim, however, is ripe for such labelling.
Step one: limit the tax deduction for donating art to the COST BASIS of the piece in question.
I suspect a long running scam. Here is how it goes:
1. Insiders buy a few copies of really crappy art on the cheap.
2. The Correct galleries later "discover" the "great" artist.
3. The Insiders bid up the price of some of the artists' works to ridiculous values.
4. The Insiders then donate works bought on the cheap and claim ridiculous tax deductions using appreciated values based on the aforementioned auctions. The value of the tax deductions far exceed the initial purchase price.
I do not have direct proof of this scam. I'm just noting that it would be workable. It doesn't require that many people to be in on the scam and they would have big incentives to keep it that way.
Note that the scam requires crap art to be "discovered", as good art could get appreciated too early.
Purely speculative. But AOC was might sexy in her Tax the Rich dress at the Met Gala. We should act on her plea...
You are not far off. In actuality, art is used as a money laundering scam. Like Michel Basquiat. His crap is still being used today. The technique, find an artist, preferably doing ugly outsider art, Art Brut or some such, squiggles and colourfield is best. Find a patron. Usually a curator. Build up artist. Privately explain to buyers, unless they know the game already, how to dump their money, with whom, etc. That money coming from illegal sources and whatnot.
It's an open secret. But expecting it to be shut down is ridiculous: The system will never arrest itself.
It's also used for money laundering: Who can prove that that million dollars I just gave you was really for a few kg of cocaine rather than the crappy painting your nephew did.
It can be used for bribery too: Politician does a bunch of quid pro-quo legislative actions for some power broker. Then when he leaves office he has a memoir ghost written and the power broker buys a few thousand copies through various shell organisations. Sheep will happily swallow the story that the book was just really good, and maybe even buy a copy themselves. And if they're in Ireland then the income is also tax exempt since it's an artistic work.
Not the first person to have noticed this scam, but you lay it out very well here. I hadn't thought of the Tax deduction angle - much more workable than the alternative, which is selling the art to some tasteless rube who desperately wants to fit in with the scene.
Funny. When I was growing, kitsch always referred to the endless array of tasteless nick-nacks that *Jews* themselves used to festoon their garments and mantlepieces. Typically very plasticky and solipsistic items, like a gloopy plastic sculpture celebrating a bar mitzvah "in a modern style".
I am reminded of a personal favourite of mine, Frank Frazetta. I am old enough to remember Death dealer on countless 70's vans. Here is a man who did sword and sorcery sci-fi covers, movie posters with utterly kitsch subjects but who used classical art training in his works. I would often challenge artist friends with this question: "Was Frazetta kitsch or not?" And the clearest answers I ever received were avoidance of the question, confusion and occasionally word salads. I propose that Frazetta stands as a kind of a test. His themes and chosen media presentation on the covers of pulp novels (Conan sold quite well after he did the cover art for it) and such are thoroughly kitsch, but his technique was classical art (Boston Academy of Art I think). I myself think he's both kitsch and fine art. Which makes me love his work all the more.
I wonder if the same question can be applied to Bob Ross?
I feel that there is much more to this thread than what is sketched here. The use of a derogatory term to discredit any populist movement is clearly a power move, one which is not purely ethnic although the victims are clearly coherent group ethnicities.
The overall image here, us one that aesthetics matter politically and if we thus embrace our folk aesthetics and traditions, we have to not only accept kitsch, but celebrate it, with the addendum that we do it to discomfort Jewish power, challenge black assumptions etc.
I see a seed of a politically charged cultural movement here, one which celebrates the link between folk traditions, elite mockery and humor, and political revolt.
Trumpist garden gnomes, with penis erect, small statues of mechants and faggotry, proudly on display in millions of gardens.
Nothing is more certain to kill off an artistic field than state funding. Even when states were sane government funded artwork tended to be dull. All it encourages artists to do is appeal to whatever the political class consider safe, which is the opposite of what art is supposed to do: Excite people.
To say art is supposed to "excite people" is o broad as to be nearly meaningless. To be shot at is exciting. To be burned alive is exciting. An earthquake is exciting. What art should do is enrich people's lives, either by providing much needed escape from drudgery, or uplifting our spirits to virtue, or commemorating past triumphs and tragedies.
"To be shot at is exciting. To be burned alive is exciting. An earthquake is exciting."
Yes.
And in practice that is exactly what people expect from art. When was the last time you heard anyone walking out of a horror film because it didn't uplift their spirit to virtue? Or returned a game because it didn't commemorate any past triumph?
As a gamemaster, one might deal with a variety of game types, so what tells you if a game is good or evil? Its effect on the player. Did it make him a better person at the end (whether from a chance at escapism, or greater wisdom, or self-knowledge or...)?
I think you are wrong about horror movies as they have lessons, or many do. But even if not, I don't want art that doesn't help people.
Almost all of the states you're referring to were tiny. If they existed today they would be classed as small regional towns. They had nothing equivalent to the sprawling unaccountable bureaucracies and slush funds that exist today.
The one exception is the Roman empire and as they grew in power and scale the quality of their public artwork took a nosedive.
The Macedonian empire is also technically an exception but when was the last time you heard an art historian raving about "Macedonian art."
I am in complete agreement. "No purposefully ugly demoralizing meta-ironic work no matter how derivative, or already done, is ever described as kitsch, and no beautiful uplifting sincere work, no matter how technically innovative is ever described as anything but."
Sort of. Uplifting works that are sufficiently old will not be described as kitsch.
Entertaining subject matter selection, to be sure.
Garden gnomes and cocks as scene-setting for a discussion of dreadful rainbow BLM "art", and its adherents' semi-conscious attempts to devalue Western civ's fruits.
My only takeaway from all this is: We should all start snootily describing neo-modern artistic faggotry as 'kitschy', in a bemusedly patronizing way. Nothing would devalue/defang attempted transgressive "art" production faster than being tarred with that benighted label.
Thank you for the insight!
I like this idea a lot. Looking forward to putting it into motion.
"What do you think of that?"
"Oh, I don't know, not my taste, its kind of kitschy, isn't it?"
D party line kitsch deserves contempt.
Now here's an example for "kitsch" at my own expense.
As a kid I was doing folk dance. And I hated it. Mostly you get told that it's lame. So I bitched enough until fifth grade so I won't be forced anymore.
Now look at those who stayed. Straight back, good build, good posture, good bearing. You might get the hint that it was not that pointless.
My posture immediately started to get worse as I left. Luckily on my grandparents pressure I started doing sports (which is always kind of cool at least) so I don't fall apart.
Now, who told us that it was lame? The media. Not the stupid kids themselves, they really don't care that much. If anything, it did actually did help in my social life. And impressionable young kids are really endangered by it.
More of the "Not invented here" syndrome.
Couldn’t agree more. Was at the Bilbao’s Guggenheim Museum, once inside art was left behind. I walked through 5 floors looking for art. By the third floor, I felt I was on a scavenger hunt. It wasn’t until the 5th floor I discovered a room with half a dozen dreary paintings. My question the same, “Where is the art located?” The first floor was a maze where the walls were a grayish white and too tall to even in the entirety of the maze. So like a blind mouse, one experienced it a bite at a time. Quite honestly I don’t remember much else, some wannabe hieroglyphs, some voodoo sculpture, who knows, can’t remember. The fifth floor with the 6 or so paintings was bare and had an unfinished look and feel. I didn’t stick around, i walked into the city to look for a much more artistic place to eat some lunch. Bad timing, perhaps, but shouldn’t art museums always display.……art?
"McMansion" is the same thing applied to homes.
Yes. Architects love to call any buildings with a sense of place and culture "pastiche."
They pat themselves on the back for putting form over function and avoiding any decoration that might tie their building to local history, but in practice they do add plenty of decoration, it's just ugly and soulless.
Like most modern terms, "kitsch" can be most usefully and indeed easily defined as "What Jews don't like." As, "democracy" = what Jews like (hence, electing Trump or the AfD is "anti-democratic), "the science" = what Jews like (vaccines good, anti-vaxx bad), etc. This even explains why the only thing Republicans do is try to lower taxes on the rich (rich = Jews, so taxes are bad),
No depiction in words or pictures of a helpless bube being raped by Cossacks or put in a cage with an eagle and a bear by Nazis, no matter how tasteless and sentimental, will ever be labelled as "kitsch." Anything produced by or for goyim, however, is ripe for such labelling.
Step one: limit the tax deduction for donating art to the COST BASIS of the piece in question.
I suspect a long running scam. Here is how it goes:
1. Insiders buy a few copies of really crappy art on the cheap.
2. The Correct galleries later "discover" the "great" artist.
3. The Insiders bid up the price of some of the artists' works to ridiculous values.
4. The Insiders then donate works bought on the cheap and claim ridiculous tax deductions using appreciated values based on the aforementioned auctions. The value of the tax deductions far exceed the initial purchase price.
I do not have direct proof of this scam. I'm just noting that it would be workable. It doesn't require that many people to be in on the scam and they would have big incentives to keep it that way.
Note that the scam requires crap art to be "discovered", as good art could get appreciated too early.
Purely speculative. But AOC was might sexy in her Tax the Rich dress at the Met Gala. We should act on her plea...
You are not far off. In actuality, art is used as a money laundering scam. Like Michel Basquiat. His crap is still being used today. The technique, find an artist, preferably doing ugly outsider art, Art Brut or some such, squiggles and colourfield is best. Find a patron. Usually a curator. Build up artist. Privately explain to buyers, unless they know the game already, how to dump their money, with whom, etc. That money coming from illegal sources and whatnot.
It's an open secret. But expecting it to be shut down is ridiculous: The system will never arrest itself.
It's also used for money laundering: Who can prove that that million dollars I just gave you was really for a few kg of cocaine rather than the crappy painting your nephew did.
It can be used for bribery too: Politician does a bunch of quid pro-quo legislative actions for some power broker. Then when he leaves office he has a memoir ghost written and the power broker buys a few thousand copies through various shell organisations. Sheep will happily swallow the story that the book was just really good, and maybe even buy a copy themselves. And if they're in Ireland then the income is also tax exempt since it's an artistic work.
Not the first person to have noticed this scam, but you lay it out very well here. I hadn't thought of the Tax deduction angle - much more workable than the alternative, which is selling the art to some tasteless rube who desperately wants to fit in with the scene.
Funny. When I was growing, kitsch always referred to the endless array of tasteless nick-nacks that *Jews* themselves used to festoon their garments and mantlepieces. Typically very plasticky and solipsistic items, like a gloopy plastic sculpture celebrating a bar mitzvah "in a modern style".
I am reminded of a personal favourite of mine, Frank Frazetta. I am old enough to remember Death dealer on countless 70's vans. Here is a man who did sword and sorcery sci-fi covers, movie posters with utterly kitsch subjects but who used classical art training in his works. I would often challenge artist friends with this question: "Was Frazetta kitsch or not?" And the clearest answers I ever received were avoidance of the question, confusion and occasionally word salads. I propose that Frazetta stands as a kind of a test. His themes and chosen media presentation on the covers of pulp novels (Conan sold quite well after he did the cover art for it) and such are thoroughly kitsch, but his technique was classical art (Boston Academy of Art I think). I myself think he's both kitsch and fine art. Which makes me love his work all the more.
I wonder if the same question can be applied to Bob Ross?
Brilliant analysis
Could have made it less wordy
I would guess that makes Hunter’s art Nuevo, then.
I feel that there is much more to this thread than what is sketched here. The use of a derogatory term to discredit any populist movement is clearly a power move, one which is not purely ethnic although the victims are clearly coherent group ethnicities.
The overall image here, us one that aesthetics matter politically and if we thus embrace our folk aesthetics and traditions, we have to not only accept kitsch, but celebrate it, with the addendum that we do it to discomfort Jewish power, challenge black assumptions etc.
I see a seed of a politically charged cultural movement here, one which celebrates the link between folk traditions, elite mockery and humor, and political revolt.
Trumpist garden gnomes, with penis erect, small statues of mechants and faggotry, proudly on display in millions of gardens.
Nothing is more certain to kill off an artistic field than state funding. Even when states were sane government funded artwork tended to be dull. All it encourages artists to do is appeal to whatever the political class consider safe, which is the opposite of what art is supposed to do: Excite people.
To say art is supposed to "excite people" is o broad as to be nearly meaningless. To be shot at is exciting. To be burned alive is exciting. An earthquake is exciting. What art should do is enrich people's lives, either by providing much needed escape from drudgery, or uplifting our spirits to virtue, or commemorating past triumphs and tragedies.
"To be shot at is exciting. To be burned alive is exciting. An earthquake is exciting."
Yes.
And in practice that is exactly what people expect from art. When was the last time you heard anyone walking out of a horror film because it didn't uplift their spirit to virtue? Or returned a game because it didn't commemorate any past triumph?
As a gamemaster, one might deal with a variety of game types, so what tells you if a game is good or evil? Its effect on the player. Did it make him a better person at the end (whether from a chance at escapism, or greater wisdom, or self-knowledge or...)?
I think you are wrong about horror movies as they have lessons, or many do. But even if not, I don't want art that doesn't help people.
That's nice and all, but people generally don't go to the cinema to be a better person, they do it because it's exciting.
Nearly all the classical art that we think of as archetypal Western Art was state-funded.
Almost all of the states you're referring to were tiny. If they existed today they would be classed as small regional towns. They had nothing equivalent to the sprawling unaccountable bureaucracies and slush funds that exist today.
The one exception is the Roman empire and as they grew in power and scale the quality of their public artwork took a nosedive.
The Macedonian empire is also technically an exception but when was the last time you heard an art historian raving about "Macedonian art."
This is actually a really interesting point. Also I have to admit the quip about Macedonian art made me chuckle.
I’d consider your lumbering prose and unqualified emotive pronouncements to be part of the “ugliness coalition.”
Lame response. Despite any imperfections in the writing there is an argument here and you failed to demonstrate that you even read the piece.