What is the relationship of what is called by high culture (for instance fine art, ballet etc.) and what is (sometimes called dismissively) mass/low culture (pop culture)? Of course those terms do not limit their application only to fine art, but today I will discuss the relationship of the above in fine art only.
Now, what is avant-garde? Avant-garde is a modernist concept of pioneering. The term is now widely used in popular culture and is no longer solely used in the fine art environment. Being avant-garde pushes into the idea of being experimental; radical almost becomes the fetish for an artist- they should always be different, always radical. This must leads to new directions and ultimately to the experiment for experiment’s sake. Socially motivated design often dominates, content over style too (do something serious).
Marcel Duchamp can be quoted as a typical avant-garde artist- he was shocking, radical, sensational, and upset the order of things. Watch the video below, where Duchamp is talking about his work and its philosophy:
Now let’s take a quick glance at the very short lived movement (1900-1910) named fauvism with Matisse as one of the leaders (French les Fauves- ‘the wild beasts’)In the fauvist art their avant-gardism lies not only in being experimental but it is an attack in the establishment, aggression towards the aesthetics of the painting. Their approach underlines that there is politics to the term avant-garde.
Henry Matisse, Woman with a Hat, 1905
Simultaneously at the beginning of XX century two main currents of avant-garde were developing- the right wing (tortured romantic geniuses, ‘too ahead of their time’ to be understood by the society) and the left wing (who aimed to change politics of the society). It is important to underline how Kant’s philosophy influenced the view and in some degree the perception of beauty.
The problem with avant-gardism is that the idea of challenging conventions becomes the convention. Ripping the boundaries becomes the norm and the avant-garde loses it’s essence.
My point point is that the idea of art was never really about being creative and expressive in the first place. In XVI to XVIII centuries art education was formalised and artists were never really given the freedom to follow their genius or the opportunity to develop their own style. Their studies were based on copying the style of a master, as the main market for fine art was church (wanting fine art depicting saints etc) and aristocracy (who demanded mainly their own portraits) leaving very little room for being experimental or innovative.
Putting constant pressure on being avant-garde resulted in the type of art that is not possible of being understood by anyone but the artist and the critic, not the public, it leads to development of art for art’s sake- it has no politics and no engagement with the world- it is the approach that dominated thinking and practice in XX century art.
When the avant-garde starts to consider itself special, the real divide between the artists and the society becomes apparent and the idea of the art critic is born- they interpret the works of art to make it understandable to the society, which completly defies the original idea of art and its aesthetics, often resulting in art being admired not for its beauty but for the message of its price (Shrigley).
Lets take a look at a critic Clive Bell, to whom the idea of art for art’s sake appealed significantly. Bell states that through the narrative quality of art comes in the way of true understanding it- ‘the relations and combinations of lines and colours which when organised give the power to move someone aesthetically’.
A major problem for the avant-garde is that it seems to necessitate elitism so for those members of the left wing (interested in social change) there was the tendency to have to rely on academic techniques in order to appeal to the public.
Damien Hirst, the Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living
Is Hirst’s piece only an attempt to call an object a fancy name to make it seem more intellectual? Is a fancy title making a commodity for people who have no idea what Hirst was trying to say when he decided to make the piece (which was made and assembled in various countries and Hirst barely even laid his finger on)? Hirst states art is about expression, which, when we look at it, is really quite a problematic concept.
It is time to ask the question- is it possible to create something socially commited and comprehensible by the public that is still avant-garde? Is it actually possible to be avant-garde? Is anything new actually new?
———————————————————————————————–
Now what is kitsch? According to Greenberg kitsch is ‘everything that’s not avant-garde’ implying whatever is not avant-garde is insignificant. Sociologists defined kitsch as ‘something that seeks to have the qualities of true art but for various reasons it’s failed’ which offers a definition which isn’t as pretentious as that of Greenberg.
Vintage ceramic poodle pitcher bank- a classic example of kitsch
If we accept Greenberg’s explanation, we must answer the following- if the public want this kind of art, shouldn’t it be classified as good art? Are conceptual artists not relevant then? Did they experiment themselves into obscurity? If most of avant-garde work needs a critic to translate it, if people have to be told by someone else how to feel and react to a certain piece, who is it really created for, what is it created for? Can popular art ever be highly acclaimed?
Let me paraphrase a qote by a great film director Krzysztof Zanussi- step by step artists have forgotten who they create for.
TheExperimentumCrucis 