Replies

You wrote, "And to say someone is tasteless because they like that kind of decoration in their lives is unfair and elitist."

I don't think it is either unfair or elitist to objectively compare two different art objects and conclude that one has lasting merit and one is kitschy crap, or to draw conclusions about the taste of the person who prefers the kitsch. There is, for example, a vast qualitative distinction between, say, a Cezanne landscape and anything by Kincaid.

As I see it, the problem is one of arts education. We don't give our kids the basis upon which to make sound aesthetic judgments. If this country was doing right by its children, giving art the place it deserves in most grammar and high school curricula, con-men like Kincaid wouldn't have a chance.

I don't think it is either unfair or elitist to objectively compare two different art objects and conclude that one has lasting merit and one is kitschy crap, or to draw conclusions about the taste of the person who prefers the kitsch. There is, for example, a vast qualitative distinction between, say, a Cezanne landscape and anything by Kincaid.

Remove the word crap from that paragraph and the phrase about conclusions about taste and I agree with you completely.

We don't give our kids the basis upon which to make sound aesthetic judgments.

This may also be true, although I stick to my elitist argument. Who is the arbiter of aesthetics? There are an enormous amount of personal and cultural extenuating circumstances, although there are certainly some basic standards.

I will use myself as an example. I LOVE kitschy television. Sitcoms, soap operas, vapid detective shows. They make me laugh, I don't have to think...and they bring joy into my life. I even designate them kitschy crap.

But I will tell you this...I would rather spend two hours watching that kind of thing, than to sit through the excruciatingReds again or be entirely bored out of my skull watching, say, Annie Hall. Or be forced to consume the artistic, but morally bereft American Beauty.

Now, I can most certainly tell you why, artistically, those films are a cut above. My education has given me the opportunity to analyze exactly why they are fantastic. They were critically acclaimed. I can appreciate them for the amazing "Art" that they are...but they bring me absolutely no joy. I can play the game. I know what "taste" is. Instead, for my life I choose joy and fun. Perhaps I'm simply lazy. Or perhaps I don't want to waste my life surrounding myself with things that speak to my impeccable taste, rather than my joyful soul.

On the other hand, The Bob Newhart Show, The Dick Van Dyke Show, General Hospital, Monk, Magnum PI, Simon and Simon all make me happy and give me the opportunity to laugh and enjoy life. So, like Kinkade appreciators, I surround myself with "kitschy crap."

While I understand what you are trying to get at, I don't think you quite understand just how elitist your thinking is. If an owner of a Kinkade painting LOVES it no matter the cost...he has not been ripped off. However, if an owner of a Rembrandt hated it...he exchanged part of his life only to prove his credentials and he has been ripped off.

BTW, I love Rembrandt and admire and respect him, although I have much kitschier (sans Kinkade) stuff in my own home. I can't afford the taste that a painting of his would require in my decorating scheme. LOL.