One of the ways in which the theorists of kitsch have erred is to consider it an inevitable consequence of using mass production techniques. The theory was that everything would be dumbed down, to profit by selling the greatest number of units, and that designs meant to be mass produced by machines could never match hand--craftsmanship. The theory was wrong on two counts. First, it failed to appreciate the importance of niche marketing. Most profit taking is not through brute competition for the mass consumer, but by identifying narrower target markets. Second, some objects, like books, have a content that is not easily affected by method of re-production. But more importantly, there was a failure to anticipate the sophistication and precision that could be achieved in the mass production of objects, especially with the introduction of the computer. Thus, instead of having kitsch drive out art, what one had instead was a full menu of items for every taste. By the reduction of production and shipping costs, it was possible to find a national or international audience of limited means, where once one might have been confined to local production for the wealthy patron. Thus, the Modern Library, cinema houses for art films, and record labels like Angel were all able to flourish without subsidy.
The third error in theorizing about kitsch was derived from Marxist revisionists, such as Antonio Gramsci. The basic idea was that the "corporate ideology" would be promoted through kitsch, by "naturalizing" the socially constructed, and creating an easily digestible iconography. It failed to see the extent to which the reduction of production costs would encourage diversity of cultural products, allowing people of varying motivations and allegiances to participate. It also failed to see the extent that the corporations would themselves be happy to profit from controversial themes. Of course, this became known as the "commodification of dissent", but the fact is, it provided well- funded forums for controversial voices.
The real problem with kitsch is not that it exists, which is largely a function of consumer sovereignty, because, like Twinkies, a lot of the public likes it. It is that the misapplication of the principle of democracy makes it a threat. When one either seriously thinks that the most popular "art" is necessarily the best, or that there is no standard worth arguing for, because everyone has a right to his own opinion, it becomes much more difficult to sustain a climate that supports fine art.......... |
