thank you jay!

Left by Amy Freelunch on December 26th, 2008

When I see art that is Kitsch on Kitsch I think to myself, “ok, ha ha, I get it.”

Left by Pen Carter on December 27th, 2008

great essay.

I’d like to add to this mix the topic of actually creating objects in SL- as a media in general, the toolset lends itself to the creation of kitsch.

simplified shapes and a flat color palette (that most don’t seem to realize you *can* desaturate a bit… most of SL looks like jello fruit salad, to me…) make for a “cartoony” rendering of anything, right from the get-go.

there is no “mud”- no alchemy- no organic accidents that give a leg up to the unpracticed artist in almost any other media.

and it takes a lot of work to “fake” those accidents.

I think it’s a lot easier in SL to rely on concept and message to give a work power than to make something truly visually pleasing. To move beyond the kitsch that is inherent in the toolset is more of an investment than most artists in SL seem willing to make.

a lot of other interesting ideas on amy’s blog, too- look forward to reading more.

-lt bartlett/hollow

Left by Hollow Prim on December 27th, 2008

I too thought Amy’s essay was dead on in many ways, and I can get behind what Hollow Prim writes above. I was referring to the Kitsch that is made to parody what some might say are the “ill informed in life” . I love pushing the prims about here. Love the visual fruit salad, especially when it is not on the back of someone else.

Left by Pen Carter on December 27th, 2008

From the conversation on Amy’s blog, I guess I need to stand corrected regarding my thought on Greenberg and Kitsch. There is a ton of “kitsch-like” things that have arisen in the digital, that remind me of “kistchy” media of the early part of the 20th Century (Rockwell, Maxfield Parrish, and later Max and Kinkaide). For me, this has three components that are not necessarily linked. These are sentimentality without substance, art purely for commodity without critique/satire/irony, and amateur art without content (“exploring your creativity”).

The first of these remind me of things like Parrish (who I actually love, BTW), who made gorgeous, empty neoclassical work that reminds me of the riffs on Amsel Adams that Bryce created, the oddly Romantic & Sci-Fi/Fantasy illos that Poser created, and now avatar narcissism shown at places like Avatrait. Gorgeous work, but for the most part, eye candy, even when considered formally.

The commodity aspect is hopefully obvious, I’ll go further into it if anyone wants.

I want to preface the “amateur” argument by stating that I was a contemporary artist before I entered the academy and did so with no training except for home schooling from an artist mother and an intense curiosity. I got my MFA in 2006, long after being in several bienniales.

I am talking about the sort of milieu that I started in – things like the Compuserve GIF forum. We gained a lot of fame in the Compuserve world, but we were amateurs “exploring our creativity” to be sure. That kitsch is closer to Folk art that Greenberg states gets snapped up by mass production.

So, from a former hobbyist perspective, my bottom lines are content and commentary that contributes to a conversation, and knowing what that conversation is.

And I guess that’s what I’m frustrated with. After the Alizarin Goldflake “thumbs-up”, I became infuriated. Yes, she explores visual pleasure, explores technical form, the work’s beautiful, but it has no reflexivity at all. She does what she does, quite well, it’s beautiful, it’s honest, but it’s like eating so much eye candy, and I can’t look at it for more than about 5 minutes.

I ask, are we in an age of post-criticality? Is it enough to inspire “pleasure” without any substantive conversation? It seems that for some of us we are, but for others, like myself, not.

Also, I guess Kitsch has become a very specific thing, and I should be talking about work that has “aspects” of Kitsch, rather than Kitsch itself, as the era that Greenberg lived in and the effects that defined it for him as such seems to have passed.

Therefore, can we talk about work that merely communicates poorly, is ill informed in certain contexts, is about some conversations and not about others, and this is why it isn’t well received?

Perhaps contemporary art has become almost entirely about localized conversations and context-specific situations rather than more general pronouncements like Kitsch.

Left by patlichty on December 27th, 2008

People are raising some crucial issues and questions lately, it’s important that it continues to be discussed openly and honestly. I added my own thoughts relevant to this topic over on Amy’s blog.

Left by Arahan Claveau on December 27th, 2008

When I first came to SL and for months later I lived the life:) My first piece of clothing I bought was a white evening gown, I rented a sky pad, complete with pool and hottub. I went to most of the popular places, danced at alot of clubs, got bling,stayed up until wee hours of the morning TPing all over the place. Had a blast spending my lindens. I admit it was a total escape from my RL and could not have been happier LOL. I did think of joining a gallery early on, but, it was soo set up like RL I thought no way. But, I knew I wanted to do something creative as well as dance and listen to tunes so I thought, “hey maybe I will make little films.” It took me quite awhile to figure that one out, since before I came to SL I did not even know how to copy and paste stuff (some one spent and hour here in SL teaching me how to do that, forever in their debt). My point being, I know this place is what it is, but, I just cannot begrudge anyone for being here and doing some really vapid things. Who knows why they do what they do here:)Oh,I also rented space in Venice, had a little shop that I tried to make furniture with the shape of coffee beans in mind.

I should probably not be painting in RL so close to my computer
Pen C.

Left by Pen Carter on December 27th, 2008

Pen,

Really good point, and I don;t begrudge them either.

My point is intent. There are many who are doing illustrations and trying to sell them as if they’re the greatest works in the world. That’s just marketing.

Also, people like Alizarin are doing really popular work that is just beautiful, but it adds nothing to the RL art conversation. Again, not a problem, as long as it’s seen clearly for what it is.

I love Randy Pausch’s quote that “The gates are there for a reason…”

But aside from the gatekeeping stance, it’s still Comm 101 – content->intent->audience. That’s for the artists who are part of the Contemporary conversation, maybe not for those who are part of the Enthusiast conversation.

These “conversations” are not walled, but they do have learning curves. Remember when you were a n00b and didn’t know the SL community? I think hooking into the New Media, Contemporary, etc conversations is similar, but with different constituencies.

Left by patlichty on December 27th, 2008

No actually, the content->intent->audience model is pretty universal, i think. Not just contemporary.

For example, a DCA speaks more clearly to a SL-local audience than a Contemporary one because his work speaks more directly to the Linden PR, and the Community’s conversation regarding popular art specific to it. Alizarin speaks clearly to the “exploration of creativity” espoused by working with the tools and technology to make pleasurable things.

No problem. Simply put – it isn’t what they’re talking about in the galleries and RL art mags, and if you want to have SL art there, connections with conversations have to be made.

Left by patlichty on December 27th, 2008

This makes me wonder if you may consider that my SL art fails, however good (or bad) it maybe. My intention is for my art to be SL art, I have no need to promote it in Real Life, however I would agree that would be an interesting tangent, but logically, for me it’s not a realistic option. I am first and foremost a artist in SL.

I can see that if your occupation was a real life artist who did SL art, then it would be a challenge to promote that virtual side too.

In real life I am part ‘technical artist’ in the most general terms, among other things, I solve problems for other artists, so I do do art, it’s just not and most probably never will be in my name.

However, I would definitely promote and or defend SL art in real life for other artists. So where do I sit in your equations?

Left by Dekka Raymaker on December 27th, 2008

isn’t this the oldest question in the book?

what is “art” and what gives work merit?

some judge on the basis of the individual (i.e.- everything is art and you’re only in competition with yourself)

some on context (i.e.- “it’s good for where, when and what it is”)

and some on how it relates to art history as a whole (or their own understanding of said history…)

coming up with a consensus of what makes “art” is a near impossible task, as we all have our own processes of filtering the things we see…

and, as the likes of Thomas Kincade have taught us, popularity and public opinion aren’t much of a yardstick.

does a consensus of quality among this panel of regulars make it art?

perhaps if we crack this nut we can all quit our day jobs and become highly paid arbitrars of taste.

late-night and likely regrettable posting- LT

Left by Hollow Prim on December 27th, 2008

Just a note to say that there are those of us who think Alizarin is doing some very interesting things.

Left by beth.harris on December 28th, 2008

Well, not to be misconstrued, I’m not trying to be a “judge”, I’m merely trying to analyze where works would fit in a given context. Change the context, my opinion is totally different. There’s a problem in the web 2.0 world with yardsticks of any kind, and after the rise of Postmodernism.

I sense a lot of defensiveness here; and all I’m saying is that a lot of standards in the current scene is like a Venn Diagram with fuzzy edges. Over on Amy’s blog, Jay makes some great points about the larger picture, and he’s absolutely right. Also, I was wrong about stating that the CD-ROM would never fly because I felt no one would ever pay $150 for a peripheral.

This is why I agree with Hollow about consensus. It’s hard, and IRL is built by the scaffolding of curators, critics, fairs, collectors, writers, academics, journals, etc. It’s certainly different in SL.

But I feel one of the primary questions that I keep coming back to, and that is a foundation of BiW, is “How does this translate into JTP, or any other RL Greater NYC-area gallery?” Or, the galleries I know in the West Loop, or how this work relates to my experience as someone who started as a hobbyist nearly 20 years ago.

I just wonder, as someone who’s been in “virtual worlds” at least since 2D ones like The Palace, Superscape, ActiveWorlds, Onlive Traveller, etc. etc. etc. whether there’s a seduction factor that allows us a critical suspension of disbelief. That is, for a while, for the first year or two.

Does this have some looseness of interpretation? Absolutely. HOPEFULLY, this difference is where we can learn the most.

I love the conversation between Beth and I about Alizarin. I’m trying to learn about her sensibility, and hopefully vice versa. In addition, I love Dekka’s work; there’s a criticality and articulation that really layers content, combined with scale. In my own work I either like satire/critical, simple conceptualism/attempt at purity of gesture, formal experiments – it’s a type of exploration. Maybe Beth is interested in Alizarin’s exploration of the visual in this space, given this engine… Perfectly reasonable. From Alizarin’s discussions, I don’t find her talking about a lot of content, that’s all, and it doesn’t inspire me. I’m a/n (insert title/epithet here) that prefers historical/critical content, layering of meaning, scale with complexity, extraordinary scenes, or concise gestures. Given that I also love Eshi Otawara’s Flower Tower, I also love some large, colorful projects. It’s the structure of that piece (lots of spaces to congregate), and the reason why it was bought/relocated (social) that got me into it.

But back to beth, It isn’t that I don’t think that Alizarin isn’t doing good work, I just find it lacking in content. It’s beautiful, OK technically, and fits the SL context really well.

If aesthetics were quantitative, we’d be able to line it all up.

Arbiters of taste are rarely highly paid; I know some NYC museum curators who are paid part-time, less than $1000/mo. It’s just passion.

I hope that this (hopefully) shows that I’m trying to look at things from positions that some here may or may not be, and that’s fine.

It’s also no affront if someone doesn’t like your work – that’s art.

At some time, I’d like to dive into the “post-critical” discussion. I have found that in SL there is a (and I say this tongue-in-cheek) “will to supportiveness”. It reminds me of American corporate “positive culture”, that puts a positive image agenda above all else.

I think we need respectful criticism, and this is why I liked Dekka’s latest piece – it does that. it’s also why I merely say that I think that AG’s work is a bit one-dimensional, but it does what it does wonderfully.

Left by patlichty on December 28th, 2008

for those who did not have to read the Greenberg essay, but are interested in looking at it now, here’s the link: avant-garde and kitsch.

Left by selavy on December 28th, 2008

ah, in my fantasy we get paid fabulous money to make people look at the things we like, but I’ve several delusions along those lines…

unfortunately we’ve reached the point in the conversation where my ideas way outstrip my ability to verbalize, but I’ll do the best I can.

on the kitschiness of generic solid colors:

this may be just my warped way of seeing things, but I think people who frequent SL have become accustomed to a certain value range (just look at the sky…) and have found a sort of lazy comfort in it… this, for SL, is the ‘comfort range’- it makes me think of Ellsworth Kelly’s ‘Spectrum V’ at its least successful, and of Murakami’s candy colored work when it does succeed (like the work of Ponk Bing or Rachel Breaker), and I believe all examples to contain an element of intentional kitsch- but perhaps I’ve just trained myself to see things that way…

I also think that use of color is part of the reason one might be more attracted to Dekka’s work vs. that of Gorath Hyun- although in this case it’s through use of textures rather than SL’s color palette.

When you look at the work of someone like Dekka Raymaker or AM Radio, part of what you are responding to is technical proficiency- every prim face at every size reacts differently to the textures you lay on them, shadow and lighting have to be reinforced with subtle adjustments to every face, and most of these textures are handmade specifically for the project.

A work like Gorath’s is most likely using stock textures that are available at any number of shops or freebie vendors in SL.

I did a tutorial inworld on how the alignment and building of textures works in SL- it’s on display in the ‘basement’ across the way at Popcha, and it’s free for anyone to copy.
My version is the mathematical nitty-gritty of where your textures are going, but one look at should demonstrate the challenge involved in something as simple as turning a corner with a shadow on a vertical surface.

I can’t tell you how often I just want to reach in with a brush and dirty my corners.

and that’s not to say that really powerful work can’t be achieved with the most basic tools of SL-I think Selavy Oh is a great example of an artist making the most with the simplest components that SL has to offer (not to say the scripting is simple- I just mean visually…)

there’s obviously more than one factor at work in all this- even if there were technical mastery evident in a gazebo, it’s still a gazebo…

I like the way the dialogue has opened up to be a discussion about critique, as well- it’s a fine line to walk to create an environment that fosters creativity and experimentation without every critique becoming “yay! you made a thing!”

it has to be okay to say that something is lacking or no one will ever move forward.

I’m outta steam but still excited.

look forward to reading more.

-LT

Left by Hollow Prim on December 28th, 2008

oh, and one more thing… (sorry to be talking so much…)

every time I swing by to catch up with what’s happening in this thread I’m confronted with the header image of a naked, glowing angel reaching out her hand to a mer-man and I realize that no one has talked much about the role of figurative art in SL.

from a contemporary perspective, is figurative art “dead” and not really part of the conversation in the first place? Is it possible to make figurative art in SL that isn’t kitschy?

I understood some of jeff’s comments over on amy’s blog to mean that any sort of representational art will fall short of truly exploring what SL has to offer as a medium- and while I have a great appreciation for non-representational art, I’d hate to think of SL as a dead-end for anyone other than “contemporary” artists.

ok. now I’ll shut up.

-LT

Left by Hollow Prim on December 28th, 2008

Jay, Hollow –
GREAT points on kitsch and commercialism. No, Kinkaide isn’t just about the Benjamins, he’s much more articulate than that. It’s a well packaged fantasy that as you said, says “Christmas is just SUPER, and everything is beautiful and wonderful when christmas comes and we can all agree that everything is so beautiful and isn’t that just great?”

Yeah. Exactly. Gurnau (as the Germans say).

And within that there are three things – the “commercial”, the Positive agenda, and the fundamental linkage of SL to capitalism at its most basic structures.

The problem is that this isn’t necessarily so far removed from some aspects of the art world, and that’s a hard nut to crack. I think it’s more about mode of discussion, what’s foregrounded/prevalent, etc.

I also really, really like the discussion about Digital Folk/Naive happening here. Really smart.

Left by patlichty on December 28th, 2008

[...] intrinsically Kitsch-producing, or at least that its easier to make Kitsch toward the bottom of this earlier post on a related topic. Not sure about that part yet. Maybe the title of this post is wrong after all. [...]

Left by Brooklyn is Watching » Blog Archive » SL (and any virtual world) is not an inherently Kitschy environment on December 28th, 2008

Jay,just fyi – the Tomas Kulka book is fucking rad – one of my favorite books of all time on any subject. It’s our primary text for my history of kitsch class. For anyone interested – it is incredibly well-written and not at all “artspeak-y.”The author is Czech (thus he’s in love with Kundera, which is a little funny actually) – can’t remember if he wrote it in English or simply had the world’s best translator, but it is really a great thing to read. (Hard to find, though – I’d recommend ordering it online.)

I keep wanting to work Adorno into all this, but the thought of it gives me a stomach ache.

Left by Amy Freelunch on December 28th, 2008

Amazon have the book Amy mentioned in stock, and there are a bunch of second hand copies for sale too.

Jay, did you see the clip of Abigail’s party? Ichibot posted you a link a couple of weeks ago but I think you missed it, it is totally relevant to this conversation (and to ‘Beyond Human’). Here it is again, I recommend everyone watch it, very funny.

:: Set filters to stun! ::

Left by Arahan Claveau on December 29th, 2008

Thank you Jay for Sontag’s essay on “Camp”. I am a big fan of Camp. I think I missed my own point:P I am trying to hone my writing skills.

I did not realize the extent to which “artists” such as Corbett Howard exist here in SL. I too will never understand the appeal of such images to soo many, as in real life too, with someone like Thomas Kinkade, and the fact that they make alot of dosh.

Greenberg writes, I believe, about the rise of the middle class through Industrial Revolutions, and Scientfic Revoltions over time. With that comes more money to more people who then also have more leisure time. With that leisure time there has been a steady decline of more intellectual pursuits, I don’t know why, you would think the opposite.

Amy’s comparison to SL and Disneyland is where I too am learning alot more about the innerworkings of SL.

Watched Abigail’s party, ohhh it made me squirm LOL

Left by Pen Carter on December 29th, 2008

so… I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but I think Arahan’s comment brings something else interesting to the table with the link to Abigail’s Party- the painting in the clip is the painting that was used as the centerpiece for the “Beyond Human” installation.

I think it opens a subtopic about kitsch, pop culture, and the relative obscurity or ubiquitousness of ideas artists may choose to satirize…

I never would have got the reference, myself- and although the painting stands on its own of an example of what it is, the backstory adds a lot of extra dimension to it.

but-

are the artists assuming we ‘get’ the reference when they place it in a work, or is our responsibility as the viewer to always assume there’s research to be done about anything we may be looking at?

-LT

Left by Hollow Prim on December 29th, 2008

The hideous painting ‘Wings of Love’ was (in)famous by the time it appeared in Abigail’s Party, that’s why Mike Leigh used it. With regards to ‘Beyond Human’, even if only a few people got the reference it didn’t matter, because as Mr Prim points out it is instantly recognisable as a kitsch image anyway.

I think it’s rather fun to have these kind of references and extra layers, if someone really desires to explore something more intimately then that’s always an option.

Left by Arahan Claveau on December 29th, 2008

I’m not sure about kitsch, but Second Life does tend toward a cartoon aesthetic. In part it’s because of the look of the avatars; we’re certainly not photorealistic, even with the advances that skin and clothing makers have made over the years, and we never will be until a future version of SL brings us a more detailed avatar mesh, higher-resolution textures, and a more complex lighting model. Given that the avatars look like cartoons, builds with a cartoon look tend to fit in better than ones that try to achieve a more realistic appearance. To me the cartoon look means bright, flat colors and relatively simple shapes.

Left by Shirley Marquez on December 30th, 2008