Dan Petley, 'Rubens: from the sublime to the ridiculous?'

Rubens: from the su= blime to the ridiculous?

A discussion of Rub= ens, gnomes and kitsch theory and practices

Submitted by

Dan Petley =

to Plymouth College o= f Art and Design in partnership with The Open University as a dissertation towards the degree of Batchelor of the Arts by study of

BA (Hons) Fine Art Practices 2008.<= /p>

‘I certify th= at all materials in this dissertation which are not my own work have been identified’

Abstract<= /o:p>

Through conduc= ting interviews about peoples’ perceptions of the work of Rubens, I realis= ed that not only was the word ‘kitsch’ frequently used, but many questions about contemporary meanings of kitsch theory arise from these misunderstandings. This made me wish to confront my own limited perceptions= of the meaning of the term. I wanted to find a connection between a number of things that I reference in my own work; interpretations of kitsch, tacky ornamental products (which the garden gnome is a triumphant example of), and contemporary receptions of Baroque paintings. To undertake this study the w= ork of theorits such as Greenberg, Ward and Calinescu are combined with the satirical wit of Pete= r Cook and Dudley Moore. The content of th= is research explores the nature of the avant-garde, mannerism, postmodernism a= nd the historical origins of the term kitsch.

The work of Ru= bens is discussed, focussing on his painting The Raising of the Cross (1610), looking at the relationship that his style= has to notions of the sublime, the work of Jeff Koons and discussions about kitsch. The dissertation explores recent discourses referencing garden gnomes, as a case study of what I had learnt about the meaning of kitsch. I used the work of contemporary artist Sherie Levine in order to deepen these associations. The resulting body of work is an engaging examinatio= n of the fascinating misunderstandings that can be caused by the segregation of = art and mass culture.

Contents=

-          Introducti= on

-          Chapter 1 R= 11; theory and history of kitsch

-          Chapter 2- Rub= ens case study

-          Chapter 3 – contemporary ideas of kitsch

-          Conclusion=

-          Bibliography

Illustrations<= /o:p>

-        &= nbsp; Fig 1. Rubens, P. ‘Raising of the Cross (central panel)’ 1610 Oil on panel,         &= nbsp;         460 x 340 cm O.-L. Vrouwekathedraal, Antwerp (1863)         &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p; http://www.wga.hu/index1.html accessed 26.02.08<= u>

-        &= nbsp; Fig 2. Koons, J. ‘Bear and Policeman’ polychromed wood
       &= nbsp;   215.9 x 109.2 x 94 cm (1988) htt= p://jeffkoons.com/site/index.html        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;      accessed 26.02.08

-        &= nbsp; Fig 3. Levine, S. ‘Avant Garde and Kitsch’ 2002 Glass and Bronze castings,         &= nbsp;      Paula Cooper Gallery (2002)         &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;                    &= nbsp;    http:= //www.artnet.de/magazine/features/bunz/bunz12-15-05.asp

        &= nbsp; accessed 26.02.08

Introduction

Kitsch is a heavily contested word. It has a multiplicity of meanings that are dependant upon a number of factors such as context, time and subject. In trying to define Kitsch, Ward states ‘the current colloquial usage is generally too lo= ose to be useful, as the word is mis-applied now to anything that could be vaguely regarded as bad taste, from the outrageously offensive to high camp’ (Ward 1991,16). Bearn introduces his essay on the term by discussing how its origins are mysterio= usly obscure, in that ‘English dictionaries tell us the word derives from = the orthographically identical German word, but German dictionaries tell us the word may actually come from English’ (1998,65). He then explains how, because of this, definitions of the word often entail the use of ‘reflective judgement’, meaning that accounts of what makes kitsch kitsch are based on discussions about things that are already referred to in this way. I will try to avoid this method in this pa= per, in order to focus my writing on the theories behind notions of kitsch rather than on objects themselves referred to in this way. An example of the effec= tive use of the reflective judgement process is the book ‘Kitsch in Sync’ (Ward 1991). This book uses examples of kitsch in order to bring the term into contemporary focus. As the text was written in the early 90s, it is strange= to consider how tastes have, or haven’t, changed in that time. The description offered in this book still seems to be correct today, 18 years later, whereas 18 years previous to the book being written the notion of ki= tsch was quite different. In doing this research, I intend to answer a question = that I feel will help me to examine what cultural factors may have brought this about, i.e: what is the relationship between ki= tsch and theories of postmodernism?

The inspiration behind me taking part in this research came in discussing the Baroque paint= er Peter Paul Rubens (1577-1640). I realised that many people use the word ‘kitsch’ when asked what they think of this artist’s work= . I recorded interviews with seven people who I know socially, and five of these interviewees used this word, unprompted, as a categorisation of the work. T= his hinted to me that there is widespread uncertainty, both about the concept of kitsch and the work of Rubens, which inspired me to conduct my research aro= und the exploration of both. In writing this paper, I intend to discover whether the opinion that the work = of Rubens could be considered kitsch (once we have clarified its meaning) has any<= /span> validity.

I personally have f= ound myself deeply moved by the work of Rubens. When I saw his notorious Medici Cycle in the Louvre in <= st1:City w:st=3D"on">Paris, I first of all felt dominated by= its size. Deeper inspection gave me a chance to appreciate the rhythm and arran= gement of the compositions, which further enhanced the sense of authoritative magnificence of the piece. When viewing the work of Rubens, I feel that it = is hard to forget that this is the work of a man of great political authority. Seventeenth century admirers saw Rubens as an inspirational character, ‘they saw his art as an extension of the qualities of the man’ = (Belkin 1998,323). On refle= ction, I accept that as a contemporary artist, my perception of the Medici cycle sho= uld have taken into account certain artificial qualities in the work, for examp= le, it was painted to glorify the benefactor of the work (By today’s standards, this is the kind of thing that could cause a piece of work to be considered as being ‘untruthful’). In my research I will explore this noti= on of truthfulness and see what this can tell us about contemporary interpretations of his work.

The strength o= f the work, for me, lay in its art historical relevance, the scale of its executi= on, and most importantly, I feel that Rubens’ intention was to demonstrate his own love of beauty, in the words of Gombrich, ‘to make us feel that he enjoyed the manifold beauty of things.’ (1995,397) this point could help us to argue for Rubens’ authenticity= , as Baroque over exuberance was a g= enuine way of representing emotional ecstasy, enhancing the audiences’ engagement with the piece at the time. Can we view Rubens’ work as a genuine spiritual enquiry, not just a representational story? By looking at= his work I intend to open up discussions regarding the evolving ‘value= 217; of beauty, which would have meant something different in the Baroque as bea= uty was considered rare and exceptional.

Chapter 1 R= 11; theory and history of kitsch

There are different types of kitsch, but they all share an ele= ment of inappropriateness (Bayley 1991,65)=

In this chapter I w= ill look at the history of kitsch by first of all looking at how discussions st= arted to become popular in the 1900s with the rebellious actions of avant-garde artists. I will then look at how this evolved into deeper discussion in the 1940-50s with authors such as Greenberg. I will define some contemporary interpretations of kitsch that polarise aesthetic sensibilities concerning appreciation of kitsch based upon either elitism or sentimentality. The genealogy of the word kitsch is contested. This is eloquently explained by = Bearn (1998,65):

The German term Kitsch= appears to have been invented around 1870 in the art circles of Munich, but its origins remain obscure. English dictionaries tell us the word derives from the orthographically identical German word, but German dictionaries tell us the word may actually come from English, from the word sk= etch. On this etymological hypothesis, the English touring Bavaria and seeking souvenirs, would ask merchants and crafts people to provide quick sketches = of local scenery to take back home, and one can easily imagine that these Bava= rian landscapes might have included saccharine, proto-Hummel inhabitants. <= /o:p>

When reading a= bout kitsch, it becomes apparent that there are differing ways of discussing it.= One angle is summed up here by Bayley.

If the avant-garde is consciously individualistic and self-referential, then the expression of communal values is, by definition, anti-art, which is to say, kitsch. (1991,67)

This is an eli= tist model of art reception (or art criticism) that relates to modernism and the avant-garde of artists like Duchamp. Marcel Duchamp belonged to a group of artists called the Dad= aists, who were angry at the outbreak of the First World War, and wished to attack= the art and aesthetic values of the time (Godfrey 1998; Hughes 1991). In order = to do this they considered the idea that political systems that had allowed wa= r to happen were the same patronising ones that defined taste.

Another variety is = the type that is discussed in popular culture, which the general public would be more familiar with. This model is summed up well by Ca= linescu, in the book Five Faces of Modernity= (1987)

A kitsch object is attractive not only because it is nice look= ing but also because it – or any other similar object – can be obta= ined by anyone willing to buy it (1987,252).

This sentimental mo= del exemplifies the link between kitsch and mass production, which may have a parallel with the ideas of the avant-garde, for example, Duchamp’s ready made pieces such as Bottle Ra= ck (1914) and Fountain (1917).

Whether approaching= from an academic, or a popular cultural method, I have noticed that the most important factor in defining kitsch is the concept of taste. Let’s lo= ok at the first definition. In order to understand this it is imperative for m= e to define the term avant-garde. It is generally used to describe artists who w= ant to push the boundaries of what is regarded as be= ing art. This is generally because they find that the idea of defining art as b= eing something that is tasteful is wrong. Public acceptability marks the death of art rather than its legitimacy. Notions of the avant-garde emerged during th= e First World War with the Dada movement, which ‘challenged ‘art’= by accusing it of being kitsch, implying that the good taste that it represent= ed was totally false.’ (Ward 1991,88).= GreenbergR= 17;s essay, Avant-G= arde and Kitsch (1939), is an important theoretical document that discusses the relationship, as he saw it at the t= ime, between these two concepts. ‘If the avant-garde imitates the processe= s of art, kitsch, we now see, imitates its effects’ (1939,546). The Da= da methods of intellectually ridiculing the art establishment continued, until avant-gardism itself became accepted by the art world. Artists like Salvador Dali started to exploit the celebrity status that accompanied being an eccentric modern artist. Dali was a genius at exploiting the media to gener= ate publicity for himself. As much as his paintings = are beautifully executed, ‘they are essentially phon= y and meaningless, a perfect definition of kitsch. Like all kitsch merchants, Dali was motivated to make more and more money from people who thought they were buying something of value.’ (Ward 1991,90-91) I think that this demonstrates that Dali understood kitsch, and was a self aware fashionable example of it. This brings us on to the second definition= of kitsch.

A sentimentally orientated conception of art; a form of aesthetic escapism; kitsch art appl= ies a ‘principle of mediocrity’ (Calinescu 1987,249). The kitsch that = Calinescu discusses is a mass production of objects related to the concept of art. Ward’s (1991) definition is a lot more concerned with the idea that t= he owner of the object knows that = it is trashy and garish, and collects such objects for that exact reason. This phenomenon is explored in Ward’s (1991) comical, but well researched = and executed, book ‘Kitsch in Sync’. He states that ‘Kitsch is not simply bad taste, even though it is a creature of bad taste. It has a p= owerfully seductive ability both to attract and repel you at the same time’ (19= 91, 17).

Ward sets out a con= cise history of kitsch, in which he discusses how the eclecticism of the late sixties and early seventies lead to kitsch objects becoming a fashionable declaration of one’s own superior taste.

The new eclectic spirit meant that things that were previously perceived as other people’s bad taste, such as china flying duck sets, could, if owned by somebody with a little more sophistication, be regarded = as chic and witty. Despite the reassertion of the notions of good taste, a new beast emerged – people began to enjoy bad taste and the kitsch boom began. (1991,15)

Calinescu talks about p= eople who are charmed by these objects because they know no better. So Calinescu’s views on kitsch are clearly differe= nt to those of Ward. Calinescu focuses on popular kit= sch, but does recognise an elitist form of it. He shows this in point 2, below

we can come close to an understanding of the phenomenon by combining (1) the historico-sociological approach, in which k= itsch, as we use it, is typically modern and as such closely linked to cultural industrialisation, commercialism, and increasing leisure in society, and (2) the aesthetic-moral approach, in which kitsch is false art, the production = on a smaller or larger scale of various forms of ‘aesthetic lies (Calinescu 1987,261-2)=

Kitsch can definitely be seen as emerging at the same time as Romanticism, which Calinescu (1987,237) says = makes it a product of modern democracy. Later on in his article, Calinescu discusses how ‘we have… to recognise the existence, along with = the humbler varieties of kitsch, of a gorgeous kitsch that is the privilege of = the rich’ (87,243). The discussion of kitsch is difficult because it is d= efined by taste and class. Kitsch is unthinkable without industrialisation and fee= ds off it. Something kitsch almost invariably involves an adaptation from one medium to another, from appropriate to inappropriate, transformations made possible by advances in technology (Bayley 1991= ,64).

Through examining b= oth the elitist and the sentimental modes of kitsch, we can recognise that they= are both strongly associated with perceptions of taste. This exercise of judgem= ent is an interesting thing to discuss, and I intend to do this through an examination of a comedy sketch by Peter Cook and Dudley Moore. The sketch, first shown in 1966 in the classic television series Not Only But Also, and transcribed i= n the book The Dagenham Dialogues (19= 71), shows two established characters called Pete and Dud during a visit to an art gallery. I will examine how this sketch can be viewed as a playing out of t= he two conceptualisations of kitsch.

In this sketch Cook= and Moore perform a personification of working class people who don’t rea= lly understand art, and in doing so, are joining in with the elevated sense of status that the acknowledgement of kitsch can bring. We can use this performance to discuss the basics of the term kitsch through doing a textua= l analysis (Bell 1999). The ch= aracters that Peter Co= ok and Dudley Moore play in this sketch are intended to be normal working class people. They overtly discuss notoriously kitsch artists of the time such as= Vernon Ward. They are fans of lowbrow artists and remark, ‘I’ve been looking for that lovely green gipsy lady’ (1971,6= 8), obviously referring to the poster artist Vladimir Tret= chikoff. Their characters&#= 8217; misunderstandings about art are the product of not really understanding the context of paintings. Their discussion focuses mainly on functional aesthet= ic qualities in the work. The work of Tretchikoff was produced<= /span> to be functional a= nd decorative. Their mode of critique could be described as being formalist (<= /span>Berger 1991; <= span class=3DSpellE>D’Alleva 2005). Roger Fry is a well known example of a formalist thinker.= His judgement focuses mainly on formal organisation and technical execution, wh= ich Rosenberg (1967) criticises, saying ‘his too exclusively ‘formal’ approach turned out to be misleading for art with a cultural purpose and content.= 217; (1967,124) We could criticise the characters that Coo= k and Moore play in the sketch for having a similar, if less informed approach.= They want the = work of art to be beautiful, and in this pursuit of beauty, all interests in a painting’s content or uses are sacrificed. This means that they don’t understand the cultural climate when the work was produced (this approach would be encompassed by a Marxist form of criticism (Berger 1991; = D’Alleva 2005)), and so the work to them has no= more depth than its purposefulness in form. They are interested only in the aest= hetic properties of paintings (Rosen= berg 1967).

Unenlightened, but still discussing their strong feelings on the display of classic painti= ngs, the characters draw o= ur attention to another signifier of kitsch, the reproduction of art. When Pete and Dud discuss the inappropriateness of having certain paintings (such as Hals’ L= aughing Cavalier 1624) hung in the lavatory, they are obviously discussing reproductions of well known paintings, in the form of printed copies. Walter Benjami= n, in his essay The Work of Art in the Ag= e of Mechanical Reproduction, comments on how mass reproduction can sacrifice the ‘aura’ of a piece, saying ‘the technique of reproduct= ion detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition’ (1936 in Harrison and Wood 2003,521). Pete and Dud’s discussion about feeling awkward using the lavatory near to the Laughing Cavalier is a perfect example of how the aura of the original painting = has been diminished to such an extent that the characters in the sketch can be having this discussion in the first place (although the aura of the piece s= till exists in the way that they are feeling awkward). The reception of this pie= ce has been altered by its reproduced form, meaning that it can now exist anywhere. Calinescu focuses his essay = on the definition of kitsch that equates it with reproductions. ‘Kitsch may = be defined as a specifically aesthetic form of lying. As such, it obviously ha= s a lot to do with the modern illusion that beauty may be bought and sold’= ; (Calinescu 1987,229). In th= is way Cook and Moore are exploring notions of social class, aesthetic value and t= aste by counterpointing fine art and working class culture.

Peter Cook and Dudley Moore are covertly exposing their own perceptions of art by playing these characters. Their attitude seems to reflect the thinking of Clive Bel= l. His essay The Aesthetic Hypothesis<= /i> (1914) resembles a manifesto for the aesthetic understanding that people looking at art of the time needed to grasp. He describes the problems encountered by those who don’t understand modern art, writing ‘Instead of going out on the stream of art into a new world of aesthe= tic experience, they turn a sharp corner and come straight home to the world of human interests.’ (1914,110). This seems like an exclusivist way of thinking, in that by discussing those who he feels aren’t intellectua= lly advanced enough to appreciate modern art, he is saying that uneducated peop= le lack the intellectual depth to gain anything from experiencing art. The cha= racters in the sketch seem to be a manifestation of the people Bell is looking down upon. The art they reference doesn’t tackle issues any more daring than what can be seen= in everyday life. Bell (1914,109) might say of them, ‘they read into the forms of= the work those facts and ideas for which they are capable of feeling emotion, a= nd feel for them the emotions that they can feel – the ordinary emotions= of life’. The characters in Cook and Moore’s sketch exemplify this as they relate the imagery in each classic piece that they discuss to their experiences of everyday life. This sketch exposes Cook and Moore’s belief that they have a better understanding of art than = the uneducated hoi polloi. Cook and Moore were both well educat= ed, Cook studied at Radley and Pembroke College at the University of Cambridge, where he read Fren= ch and German (Thompson 1998), and Moore studied music and composition at Magdalen College, Ox= ford University (Fruchter 2004). That the= y successfully gradua= ted from these colleges is evidence that they were hard working intellectuals. = The Pete and Dud characters are a covert way of promulgating the middle class v= alues that Cook and Moore would have become aligned with during their education. = By ridiculing people who are intellectually incapable of reaching the same understanding of art, they are illustrating their own elevated intellectual status. They are using self aggrandisement to flaunt their good taste.=

In summary, there h= ave been a number of meanings attached to the term kitsch. From its initial use= , to imply quick uncomplicated production of unchallenging artwork, to its devel= opment into Greenberg’s definition (1939), which highlighted its relationshi= p to the avant-garde, on to contemporary meanings, there have been subtle variations of the term.= Calinescu gives us a retrospective exploration of the phenomenon of kitsch (1987) and views it as a kind of ‘effortless enjoyment’ (1987,259), which is given a more positive angle by Ward (= 1991), who discusses the contemporary variety that we are all familiar with – where kitsch has become celebrated, at least by the cultural elite, rather = than being sniffed at. According to Bayley (1991<= span class=3DGramE>,67) ‘Kitsch can be rehabilitated by cont= ext, or at least by intention.’ Our age is less dogmatic, and as can be se= en in Ward’s work; the eclecticism that emerged during the 1980s ‘= made it possible for people actually to find a perverse pleasure in taste that h= ad previously been regarded as simply awful’ (1991,1= 5). This is the turning point when kitsch became what Ward defines it as being.=

In the age of postmodernism, which actually depends on copying= and on restless neophilia, both the avant-garde and kitsch have become emasculated – or become the same thing, depending = on your point of view. (Bayley 1991,58-9)

I would say that th= is interpretation of kitsch, where it is knowingly celebrated, still rings true today.

Chapter 2- Rub= ens case study

Rubens gives us staginess and somehow it’s powerful: it makes our modern frameworks for assessing good and bad in art appear inadeq= uate (Collings 2003,87)

When reading about Rubens, it seems customary for an author to sound almost apologetic in expl= aining their love for the work. Writers often list reasons why Rubens’ paint= ings are disliked by some.

His compositions are filled with action; his protagonists make= the kind of dramatic, rhetorical gestures so typical of Baroque art, which may appear overstated and exaggerated to modern eyes; and his subject matter is often obscure. (Belkin 1998= ,327)

It is definitely no= t as fashionable to talk of Rubens as it is to talk of, say, Rembrandt (Belkin 1998). In his television series Matt’s Old Master’s (2003), an episode of which is dedicated to Rubens, Collings tries to ignite enthusiasm for a selection of old master painters; he is clearly keen to influence the viewer with his enthusiasm for Rubens’ work. In this series, Collings champions these artists as he doesn’t see that the opinion that they are ‘unfashionable’ is an adequate reason for disliking their work.= Collings reassesses their work using an accessible wa= y of talking. His enthusiastic study has helped to reopen a debate surrounding t= he nature of Rubens’ work and its reception at the time of its making, as well as its contemporary significance.

I intend to lo= ok at different contemporary interpretations of the work of Rubens to try and find clues about how the relationship between the work and those who view it has changed since its production. Through this method I hope to explain how some people now find it appropriate to refer to his work as being kitsch. As this programme is aimed at the general public, I thought it would be appropriate to address t= he main criticisms of Rubens’ work highlighted near to the end of Belkin’s book, using Colli= ngs, as a fashionable and approachable but learned educator about the arts, as a foil.

fig.1 Rubens, P. ‘Raising of the Cross (central panel)’ 1610

Peter Paul Rubens w= as ‘the most sought after and best rewarded artist of his time’ (<= span class=3DSpellE>Collings 2003,70), he was = born in 1577 and died in 1640, and is seen as the archetypal Baroque painter. His w= ork is still very well known today, but he is less popular than other old master painters. In this chapter I will explore whether this can be explained by w= hat we have already observed about notions of kitsch.

The Baroque movement arose as a reaction against Mannerism in painting and sculpture. Belton (20= 02,96) explains that, ‘At its best, the Baroque st= yle of painting resulted in a riot of colour which appealed to the emotions rather than the intellect’. Rubens is seen as a typical figurehead of this movement. This ‘riot of colour’ mentioned by Belton is noticeab= ly present in The Raising of the Cross= (1610-11, fig 1). Fig 1 is a panel from Rubens’ first major altarpiec= e, which he was commissioned to produce for the high altar of St Walburger church in Antwerp in 1610. The original height of the altar piece was a staggering 10.7m. In the context of this dissertation the ‘riot of colour’ can be interpreted in two different, but equally important, ways. Firstly, this pejorative statement could be seen as evidence that the overblown elements of the work could be interpreted as kitsch by a contemporary audience. The use of the term ‘riot’ suggests that the colours are overblown, exuberant, or crass. It implies that work by Baroque painters such as Rubens is overly decorative. On the other hand, the ‘riot of colour... appealed to the emotions rather than the intellect’ and this could have been an impor= tant element of Rubens desired effect. He may well have been trying to elicit a sense of the sublime in his audience through ‘pre-reflective experience’ (Flynn 2004).



The effects that th= is painting may have had on its viewers can be explored by examining the theor= ies of thinkers who have referenced notions of the sublime. There are two distinctive forms of the sublime that are relevant to Rubens work. Firstly,= the overwhelming scale would definitely have had a powerful effect on those who= saw the painting in its original setting. They would have been affected not onl= y by the imposing size of the piece, but also by the setting that they found it = in, a grandly designed church. This would have contributed to the overwhelming sensation of experiencing the piece. This sense of being overwhelmed is discussed by Burke (1757), who recognises that one ‘can regard an obj= ect as fearful without being afraid= of it’ (in Ferguson 1998,328). Burke ‘had stressed the importa= nce of natural might that reminded human beings of the comparative insignificance = of their own powers’ (Ferguson 1998,329). Burke’s view of the sublime can demonstrate how, by playing with the viewer’s sense of the spectacular, one can be made to feel an intense physical and emotional involvement with a piece.

Secondly, anot= her powerful effect of the painting would have been its beauty. Notions of the meaning of beauty as an aesthetic are discussed by Kant (1790 in Korner 1955), but he separates the beautiful and the sublime. Later authors, such as Ruskin, saw how beauty can produce sublime emotions. Landow (2005 online) explains that

Under the influence of the sublime, writers on aesthetics came to believe that beauty was a matter of emotion and not reason, and tha= t, moreover, it should be described in terms of an emotional reaction and not = in terms of qualities residing in the perceived object. After changes in conceptions of the beautiful had removed the basic opposition between subli= me emotions and the qualities of beauty, the way was open for theorists to bri= ng ideas of beauty and sublimity closer together. = If one looks at the history of the sublime, one can see how it served to introduce= new sources of beauty into modern Western thought. In the sixteenth century few considered mountains very attractive; in the eighteenth century many were captivated by their sublimity, if not their bea= uty; and in the twentieth century most people would regard the usual sources of eighteenth-century sublimity — mountains,= seas, and skies — as sources of beauty.

By looking at the painting we can read both interpretations of the sublime. As mentioned, the picture is very large and set in a dominating cathedral. It is showing a gruesome event taking place, a crucifixion. The pyramid composition, coupled with the dramatic positions of the characters, which have been depicted in strenuous poses, all give a sense of dramatic tension that would transfer itself to the viewer. Rubens would have intended to overawe the viewer into feeling involved in the scene, and contemplating what the biblical story me= ans to them as Catholics. The viewer would literally be sublimated to Catholic orthodoxy. The painting creates sublime beauty through the attractive compo= sition, the rich and contrasting use of colour as well as the dramatic stance of the characters. These discussions about the affect on people experiencing a wor= k of art occurred long after the time when Rubens was working. We are discussing= the reception of the work in its own time using principles that were not discus= sed during the Baroque period. Do our understandings of kitsch not incorporate Baroque views of beauty or fearfulness? Has our society lost the ability to have pure understandings of those emotions and appreciate the historical reception of the work? Cook and Moore (1971,72) = have Pete saying

[Rubens] does all the fat ladies with nothing on. Great big fat ladies, naked except for a tiny little wisp of = gauze that always lands on the appropriate place, if you know what I mean.=

The appreciation of= the aesthetic sensibilities of the Baroque period are misunderstood, or underst= ood but not felt, by contemporary audiences in the way that they were at the ti= me. It should be remembered that ‘it is extremely hazardous to speculate abo= ut what bad taste was like in older times’ (Calines= cu 1987,240).

The rhythmic compos= ition of the bodies emphasises Christ’s muscular body, which underlines his heroic status. Rubens would have intended viewers to be reminded of the victorious aspect of the crucifixion, whereby Christ overcomes suffering. T= he counter-reformation wanted to promote the idea of using paintings to inspire their congregations, and Rubens has responded to their demands with a paint= ing that is striking and deeply moving. However, Rubens doesn’t practice a rebellious sense of exuberance the way Bernini,= for example, may have (Gombrich 1995,438-40). As Belkin points out, ‘Church delegates demanded g= reater accuracy in the depiction of biblical events’ (1998,112), and we can = see that Rubens followed this by the way he depicts the Virgin, not swooning, ‘as she is frequently shown in fifteenth- and sixteenth- century art’ (ibid). The Virgin is shown standing. ‘This image not only adhered more closely to the gosp= el text but accorded with the positive, triumphant aspect of Counter Reformati= on Catholicism’ (Belkin 1998,112). From this= we can see that Rubens was producing work that followed the instructions of ‘the establishment’, but was developed by him and his workshop = to excite the tastes of the general public. Collings (2003) highlights how this work was produced to promote Catholicism. <= /o:p>

Rubens was a genius at expressing a kind of visual generosity, where everything has an implication or resonance of vitality, and of heaving sexuality and power. But he used his genius to express a vision of religion that was invented for him by the power set-up of the day, the Catholic Chur= ch with its bases in Rome and Spain. (2003,79)

These altarpieces w= ere intended for the public who would have attended church; they would have been Catholics. These kind of religious works were ‘Visual images as a veh= icle for instruction and propaganda’ (Belkin 1= 998,103). The writhing bodies that we can see in the pain= ting have been composed by Rubens to excite the audience with their action and physical beauty. Rubens’ job was to stir intense feeling in the congregations at the church. So in this context, we are looking at Rubens a= s a very professional man at work, abiding by the rules of his superiors in ord= er to produce paintings that make a set religious statement.=

Does this following= of the rules make him a fake (a key aspect of kitsch involves work not being avant-garde, and of there being a suggestion of the mere reproduction of skills)? Collings (2003,79) lists ‘impersonality’ as one of the main difficulties encountered by modern audiences of Rubens’ work. Whereas Caravaggio had rejected Mannerism and painted biblical stories using the common man, in Rubens̵= 7; painting we see a glamorised representation. Although Rubens has still produced an individual and powerful piece, it doesn’t demonstrate the self reflec= tion that contemporary viewers often focus on in the work of Caravaggio (Gombrich 1995, 392-3). This raises questions about Rubens’ au= thenticity, and as we discussed in chapter 1, a lack of authenticity is a key characteristic of kitsch (Calinescu 1987). Is a= lack of authenticity enough to class Rubens as kitsch?

fig.2 Koons, J. ‘Bear an= d Policeman’ 1988

To confront this difficulty we should look at the work of a contemporary artist, Jeff Koons (fig.2), who has employed the finest Italian craftsmen to produce his works, and frequently uses motifs that correspond = with mass produced garish items that bring to mind Ward’s (1991) model of kitsch. Koons’ sculptures in his Banality exhibition (1989-90), wer= e made to his specific instructions by the finest Italian and German craftsmen. Th= is references the workshop system that Rubens operated in his own time. Koons is working towards the perfection of something kitsch, and reframing it in a fine art context by using professionally skil= led craftsmen. He states

The work wants to meet the needs of the people. It tries to br= ing down all the barriers that block people from their cult= ure, that shield and hide them. It tells them to embrace the moment inste= ad of always feeling that they’re being indulged by things that they do = not participate in. (Koons 1988, 381)

Ward (1991,97) states ‘His work packs an emotional wallop that raises unsettling que= stions about what art is supposed to be’, whilst Lane (1992,7) asks ‘are these works profound or superficial?’. Can we align Koons’ position= with that demonstrated in the comedy of Cook and Moore (1971)? Ward (1991,17<= /span>) states that ‘A connoisseur of kitsch unconsciously applauds his or her own cleverness at being able to appreciate qualities inherent in objects th= at are undetectable to simpler folk’. Does this mean Koons is above being kitsch? In Art in the Age of Mechanical Reprod= uction, Benjamin (1936) discusses how the ‘aura’ of a piece can be jeop= ardised through reproduction. In Banality, Koons is taking these mass produced objects and giving them an aura by aligning th= em with fine art. Both Rubens and Koons made origi= nal, singular pieces, and this may rescue the work from being kitsch. However, we must consider that our contemporary interactions with Rubens are mainly thr= ough reproductions, therefore the lack of ‘aura’ that allows a work = to be perceived as kitsch may reside in the reproduction, but not the original paintings. To sum this up, it seems Rubens work was not kitsch at the time = of its creation, but over time aesthetics have changed and the work has been r= epeatedly reproduced out of context. This may have lead to a misunderstanding amongst contemporary viewers, opening up the possibility for the reclassification of Rubens as a kitsch artist.

Chapter 3 – contemporary ideas of kitsch

The segregation of art and mass culture is an awkward battle (= Wallis 1992,30).

In this chapter I i= ntend to look at what kitsch actually means in the period of post modernity. I wi= ll use the garden gnome as a case study, and see what this can tell us about t= he relationship that artists today can have with previously accepted notions of kitsch.

The garden gnome is= seen by many as a symbol of bad taste. In a recent article examining the cultural significance of the garden gnome, K= itsch is Dead- = Long Live Garden Gnomes (Londos 2006,5), the case is made for the gnome’s respectability.

The garden gnome seems to have become respectable after centur= ies of exile from the sphere of good taste.

This quote demonstr= ates Londos’ belief that in post modernity, garden g= nomes have been used as inspiration to artists, who have taken more of an interes= t in their cultural heritage, thus making the term inappropriate when applied to= the gnome. Londos, who is an ethnologist who has do= ne research in popular art, domestic aesthetic culture and garden history, discusses in detail the history of the garden gnome. She explains how the 2= 006 exhibition of people’s garden gnomes at the prestigious House of Culture in Stockholm can be s= een as a demonstration of the renaissance of the garden gnome’s respectability= .

If we are to agree = with Londos, then garden gnomes were not referred to as be= ing kitsch until their mass production completely obliterated their original significance as pagan fertility symbols intended to be a humorous life-size ‘scarecrow’, promoting the growth of a prosperous garden. Londos’ essay highlights a concern for how the = Stockholm exhibition caused such a great deal of scandal due to many gardeners not wanting to accept the garden gnome as anything other than a vulgar object, = that did not deserve any serious recognition.

Another attempt to restore the status of the gnome was staged at the Jard= ins de Bagatelle in Paris, from March to July in 2000. This show featured ‘a historical exhibiti= on tracing the tradition to ancient Egypt’ (Blume 2000,1). In her article, Blume underlines that = the exhibition was not well received by many Paris gardeners, who disagreed with the press release that referred to them as the latest ‘snobisme’. She quotes Rudkin, a leading American landscape designer in Paris as saying &#= 8216;The people who have them think it shows they are so droll, so clever. It’= s a stupid new snobbery’ (Blume 2000,1). What Rudkin is critic= ising is a perfect demonstration of the self aware appreciation of kitsch discussed = by Ward (1991) that we looked at in the first chapter. I think that Rudkin’s concerns demonstrate a backlash against Ward’s ideas of fashionable kitsch.

Russell’s boo= k Gnomes (2004) is another example o= f an attempt to redeem the status of gnomes. Her past work includes celebrated b= ooks on the work and life of Monet, and she is a regular contributor to many gar= dening publications. Her high status in gardening discourse, and the popularity of this book, is evidence that the cult status she tells us the garden gnome is gaining is a genuine phenomenon in European garden culture. Both Russell an= d Londos describe negative reactions from some people, = and I believe that these disagreements about the appropriateness of the garden gn= ome raise questions about kitsch. If the Stockholm exhibition is anything to go by, Londos would s= eem to have opened up an interesting debate concerning how the term kitsch can be = seen as out dated when applied to the garden gnome. Londos<= /span> (2006,298-99) explains how

those who traditionally used to care about distinctions in t= erms of kitsch, were the middle classes, asking for guidance in etiquette books.= The upper classes, for their part, were busy looking for new styles and goods to consume at the same rate as their fashion was imitated by those beneath the= m on the social ladder.

She quotes Veblen, who in his book The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899), discusses a ‘trickle-down theory’, in which the ‘leisure class’ defines what is tasteful, which is then copied by the working classes, meaning that the lei= sure class have to develop new tastes in order to re distance themselves from th= ose below them on the social ladder. Both Londos (2006) and Russell (2004) mention how garden gnomes were first imported to Britain from Germany by the upper classes = (notably Sir Charles Isham) in the 1800s. Russell descri= bes how the working classes would have copied this humorous decoration. Veblen was inspired by Darwin, and believed that, ‘Like natural species, social entities change and develop by means of the respons= es and adaptive strategies they make to challenges originating in their extern= al environments’ (Carter 2003,42). However, i= f we use this model to analyse kitsch, we contradict Caline= scu (1987) and Ward’s (1991) understandings, that reference how contempor= ary trend setters use objects thought of as being kitsch in order to ridicule t= he ignorance of the common man. Veblen suggests a ‘top down’ model, but Calinescu and= Ward show how the work of artists like Koons use a ‘bottom up’ style.

We have seen by loo= king at the formalism exemplified by Fry (1909), filtered through the comedy of = Cook and Moore (1971), an example of a familiar criticism of the lower classes.<= /span> If we are to agree = with Londos, then this form of social mockery would now be obsolete, but the divide between fine art and low art suggests that there a= re still class based cultural divides. When discussing taste and kitsch, Bayley (1991,67) says

There is a parallel in the well rehearsed cycle of fashion: a suitable amount of time must have passed for revival to be acceptable, but there is a fine line between being at the forefront of a revival and simply being out of date.

Carter’s (200= 3) discussion of Veblen’s work highlights his belief that ‘movement through time is ultimately a progressive journey’ (2003,42). However, Bayley reassesses Veblen’s ‘trickle down theory’, and explores the idea that although this may be true, fashio= n also feeds off its own history, implying that the upper classes sometimes back t= rack and re-use fashions that have already fallen out of favour. I would see the recent renaissance in gnome gardens as being in line with this kind of a revival, but not without the strange chic referenced by Ward (1991) that accompanies items that have a kitsch status.

fig.3 Le= vine, S. ‘Avant= Garde and Kitsch’ = 2002<= /p>

An example of a contemporary artist directly using garden gnomes can be found in Sherrie Le= vine. Her work often deals with very direct image appropriation, but with Avant-Garde and Kitsch (fig.3 2002), which co= nsists of two gnome figures, one cast in glass and the other in bronze. By calling this piece Ava= nt-Garde and Kitsch, she is clearly refere= ncing Greenberg’s essay (1939), and exploring the meaning of that text to a contemporary audience. Bunz (2005 online) argue= s that ‘Levine covers repetition as a fundamental condition of art, and this condition has been exponentially continued’. By exhibiting reproducti= ons of already existing mass produced objects in this way, she confronts issues concerning the role of the artist. Perhaps the title intends to make us re-= consider the similarities between the concepts of the avant-garde and kitsch. This s= hows that Levine wants us to re-assess the importance of this text.

The viewer is the tablet on which all the quotations that make up a painting are inscribed without any of them being lost. A painting’s meaning lies not in its origin, but in its destination. The birth of the viewer must be at the cost of the painter. (Levine 1981,379)

Chapter 2 discussed= the possibility of Rubens becoming kitsch over time, whilst this chapter has explored the possibility of the garden gnome being accepted as anything oth= er than kitsch. Earlier Greenberg’s (1939) position that avant-garde art= is above kitsch was discussed, but now I believe that one can only reach an understanding of kitsch through developing an understanding of avant-garde = art, and vice-versa.

Conclusion

Through the process= of explicating a contemporary definition of kitsch, without falling into the pitfall of us= ing reflective judgement (Bearn 1998), I have success= fully confronted the issues regarding present-day uncertainties surrounding the w= ork of Rubens. We have confirmed that notions of kitsch did not exist in the ti= me when Rubens was working, and the exuberance in his compositions was accepta= ble when considering target audience of the time. Although a large painting featuring theatrical mannerist posturing could be considered as following a= n uninspiringly familiar and formulaic path if produced= in the present day, we have to accept that Rubens was actually the archetype of what has evolved into this style. He exemplified the use of the formalist sensibili= ties of his time, defining this era in the history of art.

We have observed ho= w our relationship with his work is now very different. In the first chapter we discussed Benjamin’s (1936) observations concerni= ng the sacrifice of ‘aura= ’ in the act of mass reproduction. This is definitely true of Rubens’ w= ork, which can be bought in postcard form from galleries and online. From this we can see that time and the out of context reproduction of his work has had a damaging effect on his reputation, making it harder for contemporary viewer= s to engage with the originals, which themselves are not situated in their inten= ded context, being exhibited in modern gallery spaces instead of religious buildings or the palaces of his rich clients (Belkin 1998,327; O’Doherty 1986).

People focus o= n the garish qualities present in the work of Rubens, and from a contemporary perspective, some refer to it as being kitsch. But by looking at the time w= hen the work was produced, we see that despite the fact that many of his motifs= could be aligned with current definitions of kitsch, these criticisms concerning authenticity and taste are totally irrelevant to the time when he was worki= ng.

By reviewing C= ook and Moore’s (1971) sketch we have seen how they exposed how a formalist mode of critique has developed among those who don’t understand the cultural context of Rubens’ work. We have used this example to discuss how the cultural e= lite define what they consider to be a misinterpretation of class and taste and = can label that as kitsch. We have seen Cook and Moore taking part in this proce= ss.

We have seen that i= n the wake of the avant-garde in the early 20^th century, kitsch was discussed as a demeaning term with reference to artists working at the time (Greenberg 1939), and examined how the relationship between avant-garde and kitsch has become increasingly cross-pollinated (Koons= , Levine) in the age of postmodernism. We have explored the effect that this = has had on the contemporary interpretation and status of the work. By using gar= den gnomes as a case study I have explored how the development of the relationship bet= ween avant-garde and kitsch has freed things that may have previously been refer= red to as kitsch, which gives us the opportunity to consider kitsch objects as being avant-garde. With this cross pollination, the term kitsch in itself has evolved, becomin= g a much harder word to understand, which has caused its misuse to become widespread, allowing for a common misinterpretation of Rubens’ painti= ngs. I would conclude that its use to describe the work of Rubens is born from a= mis-understanding of meaning, both of the term kitsch= and of Rubens’ work. This is summed up perfectly by = Collings (2003,122)

Rubens is always written about in art books as a great man who did great deeds and lived though great times – and he is great. No one else in art has quite his command of painterly flourish. But his greatn= ess for us can only be on our terms, cut down to our size. And that means being realistic about how art is set up now and what we think it can and can̵= 7;t do.

Bibliography

Bayley, S. (1991) Taste: The Secret Meaning of Things London: Faber and Faber

Bearn, G. (1998) ‘Kitsch’= ; in Kelly, M. (ed) (1998) Encyclopaedia of Aesthetics Oxford: Oxford Uni= versity Press

Belkin, K. (1998) Rubens London: Phaidon

Belton, R. (2002) Art London: Flame Tree

Bell<= /st1:City>, C. (1914) ‘The Aesthetic Hypothesis’ in Harrison, C & Wood, P (Eds) (2003) Art in Theory 1900-2000 Oxford: Blackwell

Bell<= /st1:City>, J. (1999) Doing Your Resea= rch Project: A Guide for First-time Researchers in Education and Social Science= Maidenhead: Open University Press

Benjamin, W. (1936) ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’ in Harrison, C & Wood, P (Editors) (2003= ) Art in Theory 1900-2000 Oxford: Blackwell

Berger, A. (1991) Media Analysis Techniques London: Sage =

Blume, M. ‘Paris Hails the Mighty Garden GnomeR= 17; in International Herald Tribune 1/4/2000

Bourdieu, P. (1999) Distinction: A S= ocial Critique of the Judgement of Taste London: Routledge

Bunz, M. (2005) ‘Wenn Wiederholung Kunst Ist’ in Artnet Magazin<= /u> 15.12.05

Butler, C. (2002) Postmodernism, a= Very Short Introduction Oxford: Oxford University Press

Calinescu, M. (1987) ‘Kitsch and Modernity’ in Five Faces of Modernity <= st1:City w:st=3D"on">Durham: Duke University Press

Carter, M. (2003) Fashion Classics from Carlyle to Barthes Oxford: Berg

Collings, M. (2003) Matt’s Old Masters London<= /st1:place>: Weidenfeld & Nicholson

Collings, M. in Ro= dley, C. ‘Matt’s Old Masters’ Channel 4 20^th = Nov 2003

Cook, P. & Moore, D. (1971) Dud and Pete: The Dage= nham Dialogues London: Methuen

D’Alleva, A. (2005) Methods and Theo= ries of Art History London: Laurence King Publishing

Ferguson, F. ‘The sublime from Bu= rke to the present’ in Kelly, M. (ed) (1998) E= ncyclopaedia of Aesthetics Oxford: Oxford University Press

Flynn, B. (2004) ‘Maurice Merl= eau-Ponty’ http://www.science.uva.nl/~seop/archives/win2006/entries/merleau-pont= y/

Accessed 26.02.08

Fruchter, R. (2004) Dudley Moore London: Ebury Press

Fry, R. (1909) ‘An Essay in Aesthetics’ in Harrison, C & Wood, P (<= span class=3DSpellE>Eds) (2003) Art in Theory 1900-2000 Oxford: Bl= ackwell

Godfrey, T. (1998) Conceptual Art London: Phaidon

Gombrich, E. (1995) The Story of Art London: Phaidon

Greenberg, C. (1939) Avant-Garde<= /u> and Kitsch in Harrison, C & Wood, P (Eds) (2003) Art in Theory 1900-2000 Oxford: Blackwell

Hagen, R. & = Hagen R-M. (2003)= What Great Paintings Say vol. 1&2 Cologne: Taschen

Held, J. (1958) Peter Paul Rubens London: Beaverbrook <= /p>

Kellein, T. ‘Pictures and Pictor= ial Strategies’ in Heuwinkel, C. (Editor) (20= 02) Pictures: Jeff Koons 1980-2002 Walther Konig, Koln

Koons, J. (1988) ‘From Full Fa= thom Five’ in Stiles, K. & Selz, P. (1996)= Theories and Documents of Contemporary Art: A Sourcebook of Artists’ Writings<= /u> Los Angeles: University of California Press=

Hughes, R. (1991) The Shock of the New London: Thames and Hudson

Körner, S. (1955) Kant London: Penguin

Lane, J. ‘Director’s Foreword’ in Koons, J. (1992) Jeff Koons San Francisco: San Francisco Museum of Modern Art

Landow, G. (2005) ‘Ruskin’= ;s Theories of the Sublime’ http= ://www.victorianweb.org/authors/ruskin/atheories/3.1.html accessed 26.02.08

Levine, S, (1980-85) ‘Five Comments’ in Stile= s, K & Selz, P (1996) Theories and Documents = of Contemporary Art: A Sourcebook of Artists’ Writings Los Angeles: Univ= ersity of California Press=

Londos, E. ‘Kitsch is Dead- Lon= g Live Garden Gnomes’ in (2006) Home Cultures, vol3 issue 3, pp 283-3= 06: Berg

O’Doherty, B. (1986) Inside the White= Cube: The Ideology of the Gallery Space Los Angeles: University of California Press=

Rosenberg, J. (1967) On Quality in Art London: Phaidon

Ross, A. (1989) No Respect: Intellectuals and Popular Culture New York: Routledge

Russell, V. (2004) Gnomes Li= ncoln: Frances

Thompson, H. (1998) Biography of Peter Cook London<= /st1:City>: Hodder & Stoughton

Wallis, B. ‘We Don’t Need Another Hero: Aspec= ts of the Critical Reception of the Work of Jeff Koons’ in Koons, J. (1992) Jeff Koons San Francisco: San Francisco Museum of Modern Art

Ward, G. (1997) Postmodernism London: Hodder

Ward, P. (1991) Kitsch in Sync: a Consumer’s Gui= de to Bad Taste London: Plexus Publishing

Personal Conversati= ons

Throughout September 2007, I recorded personal conversations on the subject of each interviewee&= #8217;s responses to reproductions of the paintings of Rubens. John Glanville, Dan = Dunstan, Selina Taylor, D= an Sidey, Emma Bryant, Tim Hopkin, = Christer Petley (MA)