Avant Garde & Kitsch
Clement Greenberg, a public seminar, 1996
In discussing an early text by Clement Greenberg, who was once described as the 'Pope of the art world', I think it's perhaps incredibly difficult to set any kind of parameters for talking about the work without actually discussing his position as some form of 'mythologized' figure. However, in terms of my own analysis of a text of his, I think it'll be particularly interesting to try and focus upon the body of the text itself of his 'Avant Garde and Kitsch', and perhaps try to polarize and extrapolate its arguments and situate them in some kind of context, rather than in the light of Greenberg's mythological legacy.
So how exactly does Greenberg go about discussing the two terms of the title? He begins by offering up a few questions as to the social implications of what he is about to discuss. What appears to be the most interesting point raised initially is the analysis of how different, as he calls them, 'strata' of culture appear to coexist within the 'same' social framework. Whether or not this is something particular to the Modernist age forms the kernel of Greenberg's discussion. I'll begin with some form of descriptive overview of what is discussed.
Both of the terms in the title are notably of a European origin, perhaps framing the discussion with the historically accepted arena of artistic practice, and in some respects in doing this it does pay homage to a previous tradition. 'Avant Garde' is taken to denote a description of so-called 'real' or 'living' culture, whereas the Germanic term Kitsch, set up in opposition to this, is seen as a means of dilution and pseudo-subversion of this 'real' culture for purely economic gain.
In describing the genesis of the Avant Garde, Greenberg describes how, in order to prevent a cultural stagnation, the Western bourgeoisie created (however consciously) a means of transcending this, as he calls it, 'Alexandrianism' and provided a platform whereupon this 'real' culture could question and criticize social history, notably from 'outside' of its society yet still tied to it by money, without having to resort to utopian 'alternatives'. This cultural activity is said by Greenberg to coincide chronologically and geographically with the initial developments of scientific revolutionary thought in Europe, although the mid-nineteenth century could be described as a period of general sociological upheaval in most respects. Anyway, because of this constant social questioning, the Avant Garde tended to disassociate itself from society and preferred to define what it was 'not'.
I'd argue that this leads Greenberg to be able to transpose these predominantly sociological issues to those of art practice, whereupon he proposes that artists of the early twentieth century were in a way, trying to imitate the work of God in producing something which existed purely on its own terms, an autonomy of some sorts perhaps. This is perhaps particularly interesting in the context of the debate as to the relevance of Theosophical beliefs at the turn of the century, and the heightened questioning of orthodox theology in general. Therefore, he goes on to say that, whereas previous art had been an art of imitation, usually containing some form of narrative or documentary style, the burgeoning growth of abstraction itself became the 'imitation' of 'imitating'. This can be taken to perhaps mean a pure preoccupation with a medium and its formal arrangement, as we've already discussed in terms of Clive Bell and his 'significant form', and it's this formalist standpoint which Greenberg 'now' tends to be associated with. He then goes on to elaborate as to the reasons why kitsch appeared at the same time as the Avant Garde.
Seen as a particular phenomenon of the industrial west, and its noticeable that the whole essay is framed in a rather Western-centric manner, kitsch also appears at the same time as the supposed 'birth' of the Avant Garde. Greenberg suggests that, as a product of the industrial revolution, there was a greater establishment of so-called 'universal literacy', which produced a need for the new, literate 'urban mass' if you like, to have some kind of consumable culture. This newer culture was subsequently produced to satisfy the needs of those who were indifferent to real culture, but still enjoyed the diversion of it. This again goes back to Bell's explorations of the merits of 'descriptive painting'. Therefore, this substitute or ersatz culture, which became mechanical and operated on the same level as the factories which produced it, demanded nothing of its consumers except their money, not even their time. According to Greenberg, what it was essentially doing, was diluting the 'fresh' ideas of the diminishing Avant Garde, converting them into an easily recognizable formula, sparing the spectator the effort of looking at art, but providing a short cut to its pleasure, and serving it up as cultural diversion.
The central thrust of what is essentially a very short piece of writing, is that kitsch, inherent in galloping consumerism, is perhaps to the detriment of a society's cultural and possibly even moralistic standpoint. In illustrating this he uses two artistic examples, the work of American cartoonist Norman Rockwell and the Soviet artist Ilya Repin. Here we have Rockwell's slightly later 'Abstract and Concrete (The Connoisseur)' from a Saturday Evening Post cover in 1962, which reduces Pollock's work to merely a series of splashes which leaves the spectator (as a symbol of the masses) cold, but not the spectator of the cartoon, and with the Repin, Greenberg argues that the masses find in here much more to identify with primarily because it deals in an easily recognizable language and perhaps because it is also allegorical and historical.
Whereas Avant Garde culture tends to imitate the processes of art itself (after the Modernist tradition), kitsch tends to imitate its effects, therefore the kitsch can easily be identified with the recognizable, in a sense, it's story telling, it's 'art for the masses'. We can see how kitsch has tended to borrow from the vocabulary of the Avant Garde by looking at someone like Mondrian and seeing how his work has been plundered for a wide range of design possibilities, indeed, everything has been diluted and reduced down to pure aesthetic effect, like Greenberg is saying, sparing the spectator the effort of having to engage with the original work itself.
Here Greenberg seems conscious to stress the discrepancy between American 'Avant Gardeness' and Soviet 'imposed' kitsch, although now I'd argue that when we think of the word kitsch, it's 'American' which springs to mind. This celebration of consumerism perhaps reaches its pinnacle in someone like Jeff Koons.
Repin seems to be singled out as an artist who typifies the very style of kitsch Greenberg is at odds with. He sees it as allegorical, and lacking in any sense of freshness, although I do feel as if there's a slight hidden agenda here in that the Marxist Greenberg is singling out Repin, who ironically was Stalin's favorite artist. In some respects, Repin becomes the embodiment of the rampant Stalinism with which Greenberg disagrees. However, he also disagrees with the rampant Capitalism in his own country, and its interesting that kitsch only 'really' survived in America. Greenberg even describes Hollywood movies as such. One seems as bad as the other, both being essentially the same in 'substance' but opposite in 'appearance'. Perhaps he's trying to rubbish the kitsch by making the links with Germany and Russia, remember that this was written in 1939, in order to promote or elevate the diminishing position of the threatened 'real' culture he initially spoke about.
So by way of a conclusion, I'd propose that Greenberg's text here essentially attempts to pinpoint the problem of a means of cultural survival, as under threat from growing sociological and Capitalist industrialization. Yet there's also the subtext of associating the kitsch, the destroyer of culture, with Nazi Germany and Russia, so in a way, Greenberg's text could perhaps be seen as being some sort of precursor to his own Cold War 'elevation' of American 'Avant Garde' art practice, perhaps making him exactly the sort of person the CIA might have been looking for as an advocate of 'living culture', and along with his own brand of distinctive formalism, this becomes superseded by the growing role of the kitsch, to the point where the Avant Garde in the form of people like Rauschenberg or Johns actually embraces it and begins to use it itself as subject matter.
So perhaps there's a sort of progressive spiraling effect going on, whereby the kitsch imitates the 'real', and then subsequently the 'real' imitates the kitsch. So I'll end with a few questions. Is the kitsch really as destructive as Greenberg suggests or just another facet of a certain culture? To what extent can art theory be transposed into sociological theory? Have the masses, which is a problematic term in itself, always been indifferent to artistic pursuit? Whether or not Greenberg would say that this embracing of kitsch was part of the Avant Garde is highly problematic, but I think that it's the kind of contradictions that you find in his writings which perhaps reflect the deeper underlying sense of cultural confusion inherent in twentieth century art practice. Although I still can't really say for certain.
