Talk:Kitsch/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Racist ashtray?

How is the ashtray racist? Does it depict slave garb, or a stereotyped "silly" black person? I'm guessing the latter, but I'm honestly curious how this ashtray ended up getting labelled as racist. - Connelly 09:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

See this site [1], in particular this page [2] Pathlessdesert 12:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The reference provided is an excellent one. Within American history this style of caricature has been considered racist, (with social outcry to match), for over 50 years. For a well-documented incident involving Jim-Crow style caricatures of blacks, see the 1950's-era response to the Amos 'n Andy television show Amos_and_Andy#Television. It is difficult to argue that society has not staked out a position on these caricatures, in use from the days of slavery through Jim Crow, thus justifying the description in the article.

It is critical to understand the caricature's significance in the context of both the time period within which such caricatures were created and their purposes in the society at large at the time. They were not simply "stereotyped" or "in slave garb" (which, incidentally, wouldn't be racist simply to reproduce in a figurine-- so-called slave garb is historically relevant if it was actually worn). Rather, they depicted the subject using exaggerated and animal-like features and behaviors, to in turn depict his/her race as subhuman and inferior. Through wide distribution these caricatures were used to still further reinforce the race inferiority idea in society at large. The tie of this kind of figurine to race and promotion of ideas of racial superiority/inferiority is, again, well-documented. It is not a subjective "label." 67.191.158.98 05:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I would also submit that the word 'slightly' attatched to the description is of questionable accuracy and merit, and should be removed. The ashtray is either visually and temporally Jim Crow memorabilia, or it is not. The business of "slightly" is a POV/subjective spin on severity which, while observed often in discussions of race between disagreeing parties these days, has no cited reference in the article. 67.191.158.98 05:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. It actually reminded me of the tar baby in the Brer Rabbit stories that I grew up reading. But it looks like those Jim Crow items, so I asked the photographer User:KF whether it is temporally a Jim Crow item as well as visually so we can have a more informative tag than "slightly rascist." P.S.: I get your point that it is visually Jim Crow memorabilia didn't mean to offend. - Connelly 04:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Changed to "A kitschy ashtray, of a style common [3] in the Jim Crow and segregation era, and thus showing the historical face of racism." Awkward but oh well. - Connelly 12:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Other comments

Spinoza1111 07:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Edward G. Nilges: changed picture caption of cute bunny from "art in questionable taste..." to "example of kitsch": it is frivolous to write about aesthetics while assuming that the reader's aesthetics are so formed that she already knows what is and is not "questionable". The caption essentially said "Kitsch is kitsch". This drives art readers crazy because they read about art to learn. I have changed the caption for this reason.

In actuality, the cute bunny, if intended and presented as a satire on bourgeois love of cute bunnies and as a morally serious comment on the contradiction between the domestic sphere, with its false consciousness that "small and defenseless things will in fact be protected and not, as actually happens, as we know happens, forced to the wall by capitalist relations", and the base of economic relations, would NOT be kitsch. That is, the quote operator is the negation of kitsch.

However, a picture caption is no place to discuss such possibilities. To do so would in fact be either insincere or neo-kitsch.

This seems like more of a dictionary entry than an encyclopedia article, and I can't see how it can develop into a good one. --Robert Merkel 13:12 Oct 2, 2002 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, Robert. I'm pretty sure Kitsch becomes a lengthy article, since #no decent dictionary definition can give anyone a clue what it is #without plenty of examples, it's meaningless, #it's a cultural/artistic phenomenon, not just a word.

When this becomes a full-size article, it should include:

Types of Kitsch

...

Examples

...

Kitsch Cultural Phenomena (by country)

...

Links to Kitsch Art, Commentary, and Fan Clubs

...

Also, For those trying to do a better job on defining Kitsch, (or myself when I have some time) I've found some good thoughts here at http://clover.slavic.pitt.edu/~djb/aatseel/1999/abstract-28.html

My excerpt:

(kitsch is) art or literature of a cheap, garish, or sentimental

nature, while allowing that kitsch may be utilized in a work of art without having to relegate that work to the status of "bad art" or "anti-art."

Second, I will treat kitsch in its aesthetic context only, and

largely ignore the socio-historical question (with its attendant and important questions of cultural relativism, elitism, imperialism, etc). Finally, I will propose a definition of kitsch specifically for the written work of art. I suggest that kitsch as a literary device is a function of irony. Often it is sentimentalism or mawkishness put to use by the narrator, whose ironic tone is a signal to the reader to "read this as kitsch." In the absence of an ironic narrator or subtext, the sentimentalism; or mawkishness (the kitsch as such) stands. This may be called "unmitigated kitsch." In an effort to further elaborate this kitsch-irony interaction, I will draw on the categories of irony that Wayne Booth sets out in his Rhetoric of Irony, namely his threefold criteria of stable/unstable, local/universal, and overt/covert. If kitsch and irony are as closely related as I postulate, then it will be possible and productive to apply these categories of irony to kitsch.

I promise, if nobody else does, to use this stuff and more to make a worthy article out of Kitsch. Steve Rapaport

I just want to make the following comment that has something to do with cultural relativism. Kitsch is originally a german word and concept evidently not easily translatable to english. Well, curiously enough in spanish there is a word that translates very well the kitsch concept that may be older than kitsch. This word is "cursi" and would be interesting to look into its origin. But this word has been used in spanish for a long time, and is also a debated term, being very hard to agree in what is cursi or not. Gerardo Llamas

OK, I'm glad you intend to turn this into a decent article. A couple of points:

Wikipedia isn't the place for original research (so if you are

presenting your own new theories of kitsch, this isn't the place to introduce the world to them).

Can you achieve a neutral point of view discussion of kitsch?

I've no doubt you can, but I think these are important things to keep in mind as you write the article. --Robert Merkel

Excellent points, I shall use them for guidance and I hope others do too. I believe we agree on the basic idea. Thanks again. --Steverapaport

I just completed a major update and expansion of this article. Brianshapiro Dec 3, 2003

I'm very glad to say that I have been proven completely wrong and the article is now very informative! I will try to tweak a little of the writing soon. --Robert Merkel 04:35, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The article seems to be entirely about art, from the perspective of the serious art world. I think there's another (if closely related) meaning. I rememeber once seeing a 1930s Nazi propaganda poster that railed against Nazi-themed "kitsch" like cheap toys bearing swastikas. From what I can remember, the things it objected to weren't art or even pseudo-art, but just cheap commercialization of the Party image. So in that context, kitsch meant "cheap commercialization" without quite the same artistic overtones. Is there a way to work that kind of meaning into the article (preferably not with the Nazis as an example... does anyone have a similar one?) Isomorphic 21:29, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

This text was originally on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates:

Kitsch

A fine example of an article that was once little more than a dictionary stub, and has been turned into an interesting and in-depth article. Smerdis of Tlön 01:05, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Support: Very lovely page with lots of interesting information. I was going to object... but instead I'll tentatively support but would hope the people most involved in the page would give it two or three pictures to illustrate. --LordSuryaofShropshire 03:22, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
Support. Kingturtle 06:57, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Support.--TheEvilLibrarian 11:48, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Captions

I'd like to write good captions for kitsch, but I don't understand the relevance of September Morn to the article. Is it kitsch art? What makes it so?

It's a very widely reproduced, somewhat academic and somewhat allegorized representational nude that appeared during the turn of the century period. (Most of the pictures at academic art were a bit too good, or at least compositionally striking, to be examples of kitsch. Smerdis of Tlön 19:08, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I took a shot at the caption. Please feel free to edit as necessary. -- ke4roh 03:03, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

Wrong spelling

It's kitsch, not kitch (found several times in the article)

Thanks, --217.93.140.121 18:32, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

german source

> German term etwas verkitschen (which has a similar meaning to "knock off" in English)

are you sure about this? i have never heard the word "verkitschen". and in the german wikipedia it says, the origin of the word kitsch is unknown. Elvis 17:18, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ahem! If one cares to 'Google' verkitshen, one will find that on the basis of the results, there is certainly such a word:

Results 1 - 10 of about 647 for verkitschen. (0.16 seconds)

Example:

"Menschenfresser und barbusige Mädchen: Ein ZDF-Film und ein Buch verkitschen und verharmlosen den deutschen Kolonialismus in skandalöser Weise."

Hope that clears that issue up nicely.

verkitschen does exist, but it is derived from Kitsch and just means to "make kitsch out of something" (where something is the topic or theme, not the physical material). verkitschen definitely does not have the meaning of to "knock off" or to "make cheap". --Arn7 13:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The Duden gives the derivation of "Kitsch" as: Kitsch, der; -[e]s [wohl zu mundartl. veraltend kitschen = schmieren, eigtl. = Geschmiertes]. That is, "probably from a dialect archaic verb that meant to smear (or grease). Actually something Greased" Danwaggoner (talk) 18:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Original research/analysis in latest addition?

Re: the addition of a long paragraph by 203.124.2.8 on 16 September 2005 (which I won't quote here due to length).

I feel that this *may* be skirting the border of personal analysis (i.e. original research) and (possibly) POV. It doesn't appear to be backed up by anyone else's work; that is, there is nothing to indicate that the analysis belongs to anyone other than the author of the paragraph.

I'd propose this for removal on that basis, but would also like to hear others opinion (including the original author, who unfortunately doesn't have their own account and connected via a shared IP, so is (a) anonymous, and (b) harder to communicate with).

Any thoughts?

Fourohfour 16:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete, the remark about kisch having haved to be popular is untrue, please delete whole contribution--Jahsonic 17:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey...

Hey, the bunny rabbit is cute. Couldn't you find a Hello Kitty vibrator, or a bear wearing a ballet outfit, or something else truly god awful to illustrate this page with? Dragons flight 05:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually I came to comment just to remark how PERFECT and appropriate the image was. Failing that, I vote for a [Precious Moments] figurine to accompany the article. http://www.roadsideamerica.com/attract/MOCARprecious.html explains so well the creepiness of dead baby angels. Noirdame 10:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

explanation for consecutive reversions @ 2:13 and 2:14 (14 March 2006)

I just wanted to leave a comment here explaining my edits/reversions to this page. I noticed a vandalism and hastily edited the page instead of reverting it (see version dated 01:47, 14 March 2006, edited as IP 24.16.110.135). Having done this, I had to revert this page twice in order to recover the desired version; this is the reason for my two consecutive edits (at 02:13, 14 March 2006 and 02:12, 14 March 2006).

I had to revert the page twice because, it seems, wikipedia was not allowing me to revert directly from the 01:47, 14 March 2006 version (my initial edit) to the original version (04:43, 13 March 2006). I believe this is because the edit I made resulted in the "new" page being identical to the original, and wikipedia probably doesn't allow reversions that produce no change in the text of the article. Anyway, I'm not sure if the current situation (an edit plus two reversions) is any better than the previous situation (an edit that should have been a reversion), but that's how it all happened.

Ewoo251 02:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC) (new wikipedian)

Concept of the "kitsch-man"

The article as it stands has a section entitled "The concept of the "kitsch-man." This section seems to me to be unsuitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. I started to be bold and just go ahead and delete it, but I decided to see if, perhaps, I might be missing something. The section reads, to me, like it was written by someone who had an axe to grind. Perhaps the author had in mind a specific individual of his own acquaintance. The writing is a bit opaque and the whole thing is difficult for me to apply to any cultural phenomenon I know of. I expected it to refer to the cultural phenomenon I percieve around me here in Seattle, wherein some individuals collect kitsch out of a sense of irony, but that doesn't seem to be what the section is talking about. I'm going to wait a couple of days and see if anyone can convince me that I'm missing something. If not, I'm going to delete it from the article and put it here on the discussion page. —CKA3KA (Skazka) 16:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It was I! It is a well-established concept in writings on kitsch. For example, there is a chapter devoted to the concept in Dorfles, Gillo (1969, translated from the 1968 Italian version, Il Kitsch). Kitsch: The world of Bad Taste, Universe Books, and The Unbearable Lightness of Being includes an account of a senator who transforms the experience of watching children playing in the grass into a kitsch experience. I have no axe to grind, but with all due respect, the article should deal with published writings on the phenomenon (as opposed to your personal experiences of kitsch in Seattle). The section could be misplaced, or overlong, and if anybody can figure out how to better integrate this into the article I would have no objections. Pathlessdesert 09:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The writing in this section should be cleaned up. While it may warrant inclusion from covering a well-established concept, it is written in a heavily POV way. 131.194.224.26 (talk) 05:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

etymology

Isn't this word of Yiddish origin? I thought I recalled reading that somewhere ... I will see what I can find out, but if someone out there knows if that is correct or not, please edit appropriately. Also, shouldn't this article have the link for 'kitsch' in the Wiki Dictionary? - IstvanWolf 18:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Milan Kundera says its German. Evrenosogullari 14:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

According to the Columbia Guide to Standard English, quoted at http://www.bartleby.com/68/24/3524.html the English word probably comes from the Yiddish usage. Night1stalker 17:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The Duden gives the derivation of "Kitsch" as: Kitsch, der; -[e]s [wohl zu mundartl. veraltend kitschen = schmieren, eigtl. = Geschmiertes]. That is, "probably from a dialect archaic verb that meant to smear (or grease). Actually something Greased" Danwaggoner (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Personal essay

This isn't an encyclopedia article, it's a highly opinionated personal essay. I was especially tickled by the following statement:

The musicians whose work may be considered kitsch are Stockholm Syndrome, Nickelback, Modern Error, and Telekinesis for Cats.

What, only those four? :-) 217.155.20.163 20:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, especially citing prominent comic book illustrators like Alex Ross or even Frank Frazetta as "kitsch". These artists are *illustrators*, they don't claim to be fine artists, and they and their illustrations are definitely not well-known by the average person. It seems the author confuses "kitsch" with "fantasy" (fantasy as a genre) in this instance.

Kirby & Ross

This has been bugging me for a long time, but now that I'm more comfortable with wikipedia, I'm going to bring it up.

I love the works of Fazetta, and don't think of them as kitsch, but I've seen them referred to as kitsch in places. But Jack Kirby and Alex Ross? I've never heard them called that anywhere but this article. There are plenty of comic book artists who's work could conceivably be called kitsch, but to single out and list the father of modern comic art and the man who's arguably the best painter working in comics today is both illogical and insulting to the medium as a whole. If no one can provide sources for that classification, I'm going to delete them. Night1stalker 21:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Bravo!Dailycyclist 04:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Seeing how it's been a month, and the only response I've gotten is encouragement, I'm going to go ahead and remove the inappropriate mentions. Night1stalker 01:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

How does one pronounce kitsch? Does it rhyme with "witch" or "dish"? I know, I know, I really need to learn how to read IPA... :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.81.132.252 (talk) 07:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It rhymes with "witch." See [[4]]. For other pronunciations, see [[5]]. Bry9000 (talk) 07:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Pictures... pictures? pictures!?

Just in case it didn't come across: this article needs pictures, lots and lots of pictures. Please add some pictures before adding any more text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.28.234 (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I've just had another look at this page, after several months, and I'm surprised to see that purists (or fearful people, or both) have succeeded in eliminating all the images there were in the article, including a kitschy ashtray I once uploaded, in the latter case because the designer of the ashtray could not be identified—despite all my assertions that that was completely irrelevant (bordering on the nonsensical), virtually impossible and certainly no infringement of any law, whether national or international. What I'm getting at is that there's absolutely no point in uploading any new pictures as they will always have their way and always remove them again. This, I'm afraid, is not the way of the world but it is the way of Wikipedia, and we'll have to live with the fact that in this respect Wikipedia is, at best, a second-rate reference work. <K F> 14:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Awful lot of POV going on

There is a lot of opinion being offered here as to who is kitschy and who isn't. Can we get rid of all this? Mangoe (talk) 02:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This seems awfully POV, "Kitsch appealed to the crass tastes of the newly moneyed Munich bourgeoisie..." The word "crass" is certainly a value statement. At least there should be contemporary references to their motivations preferably written by some crass bourgeoisie talking about how much they want to ape their cultural betters. Possibly something by their cultural betters complaining about how these crass bourgeoisie are aping them, or even something by the noble proletariat making fun of the crass bourgeoisie aping the cultural elites. (65.124.143.3 (talk) 15:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC))

Milan Kundera and Kitsch

In his book The Unbearable Lightness of Being Milan Kundera dwells on a notion of kitsch that has to do with the body of the overly sentimental and maudlin that ultimately comes across as fake. His notion was not restricted to art but also encompassed behavior and the entire feel-good mentality. If I recall correctly Kundera acknowledged later that his definition seemed to differ from the more conventional definition of kitsch as cheap and gaudy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.223.69 (talk) 09:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Images

Here are some Commons images that would be relevant to the article:

Does anyone have opinions on which ones are placed where? Obviously multiple pictures of the same object are redundant, but should there be an actual gallery in the article for some images? I'll add a few in the meantime. hmwith τ 18:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you might have missed a word or two under the caption for Bilbao.Koons02.jpg. Should it read "This piece of art would be as appealing to kitsch-man as is the Mona Lisa."? The only one I would question is the Kitsch at Asakusa Tokyo.JPG. Because it's not Western culture I find it hard to tell if it's kitsch or not. Does Japanese culture see those as ktisch or just modern reproductions of traditional garments? By the way please don't add the porn image. It looks way worse as a thumb than in full size. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem with including images, unless we have a source specifically describing the object in question as kitsch. That clashes with NPOV, because it means we are deciding what is kitsch (OR), and not reporting what reliable sources say. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

These are simply images that I found in other kitsch articles on the non-English Wikipedias. Feel free to shoot me down, I just felt like the reader was left without a full understanding of what is kitch. I think images (if only one or two) can truly educate the reader in this article, if we can move beyond any issues with them. I was simply being bold, if they're not fitting, the captions don't sound right, or there are simply too many images, please makes the changes! =) Also, CambridgeBayWeather, what porn image? hmwith τ 01:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Gartenzwerg Laibaroes.jpg, in the large image it's quite obvious that the gnome is sitting on the pig but in the thumbnail, well it's not quite so clear and that revolting little grin. But then I have a nasty mind. For the others as long as there was some way to show that they were considered kitsch then it should be fine. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 02:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Taylor Kitsch

He's been added a number of times to this article. He's already on the disambiguation page (linked at the top of the article) though, so please revert any mentions of him which are added to the main Kitsch article. —Notyourbroom (talk) 23:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

POV - whether Art

-"thus, it is uncreative and unoriginal; it is not Art" --- The definition of Art in this sense is a point of view and is unnecessarily contentious. The extreme viewpoint of what Art does not even help further understanding about Kitsch-ness. --Elindstr (talk) 04:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

whats up with the last paragraph on this article? I thought I was on the page for kitsch, not some random guys biography and warring viewpoints by his supporters/detractors (or more likely, himself). Details like the pricing on his statues, why does that matter in this article?

Why is the comment above not identified? 24.118.213.3 shows in the history, but is not identified by a bot. It is a single contribution by the editor. ----83d40m (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking too. Is there any reason why the entire last section isn't just moved to Seward Johnson's page? 151.207.240.4 (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed section merge

I agree with the above comments. The section on Unconditional Surrender constitutes more than a quarter of the article's total length and gives its subject undue weight in the context of what is supposed to be a general article on kitsch. Also, it devolves into a discussion of secondary issues such as the statue's alleged copyright infringement that have no direct connection to the topic of kitsch (or at least none that is explained or justified in the article). This material cites several reliable sources and describes a notable subject, but it belongs in a separate article about the statue it describes, not here.

Please comment if you agree or disagree. InnocuousPseudonym (talk) 01:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Decline proposal to merge to new article

Please use consistent directions, this is copied here from the discussion page stipulated for it in the text:

This section is germane to the article and has been a portion of the article for a long time. This article deals with Kitsch and the section is a long standing portion of it.

As a new editor and one not having the advantage of having participated in the development of this article, you created a new article entitled Unconditional Surrender (statue) and moved this section to it. I returned the copy and restored the article, giving my opinion in the revision.

The new article seems redundant and created simply for this relocation because it has nothing to do with all of the other versions of the statue. It is inadequate for the topic at the same time because it is so limited in its discussion. Extensive coverage of reactions to the statues exists for most of the locations hosting them. There are many articles discussing the statues built under this name and the issues surrounding them. An image has been used that is unrelated to existing copy and without explanation -- leaving our readers without an encyclopedic discussion of the subject.

The issues are fully discussed along with other statues by Johnson at his own page where all of his other statues are listed. He is not a well respected sculptor, most of his works are not even considered original, and extensive discussion of this one that is likely to be the subject of legal action upon sale seems pointless. They all may have to be destroyed, depending upon the legal decision.

If you wish to create an article on these statues alone, there being an entire series of them, it needs to be more extensive and thoroughly documented. I'll watch what you build if you decide to proceed with it, but have no interest in participation -- save critical assessment. ----83d40m (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure I am seeing all the parts of the debate, but the section about "Unconditional Surrender" is unquestionably too long. Here it is just an example, and should consist at most of a couple of sentences. If the statue, or statues, are noteworthy, they may of course deserve an article in themselves, but in the article about Kitsch, which embraces a subject spanning decades and continents, this section is by far overlong. Goochelaar (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Why did you remove the tag? There have been exactly two opinions, yours and mine. So we have not exactly reached a consensus. I'd suggest to either reinstate the tag, or remove (or reduce to a few sentences) the section. Goochelaar (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind answering about this issue, before enlarging even further the controversial section? If I do not hear from you in the next few day, I shall trim it. Goochelaar (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry -- no notice of your objection arrived until today. I removed the tag because it was stale, having stood without comment from any other editors all this time. That implies to me that you have gained no decisive support for your view in a debate of its merits. If you insist upon reinsertion of the tag -- that is your option. I reassert, however, that this case is extremely relevant to the article on kitsch precisely because of much said about the nature of kitsch previously in the article. Many sections are lengthy because of the need to document the details. The details to which you object, flesh out the issues for our readers. I shall continue to document the progress of this heated contemporary debate about kitsch that likely will progress to a lawsuit, because it explores an aspect of kitsch that should be available to readers interested in the topic. I see no justification for your stated intentions and would consider that to be needless warring that may be reversed without qualms. ----83d40m (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not see any warring. Do you? What I see is, we are two editors, you have one opinion, I have another. Before considering your scenario of "needless warring that may be reversed without qualms", let us try to discuss our opinions in a civil way.

Your opinion is that this issue is germane to the article up to the point of taking about one quarter of it in length, while mine is that it is given undue weight in the general context of this article. I'd rather see an article all of its own, and just a quick mention here (if it deserves an article: I am not giving a judgement for or against it, for now). My impression is that the large space given to it is as if in an article about USA, a quarter of it were about, say, Boston. While Boston is an important city, which deserves (and has) articles and books and whatnot written about it, in the larger context of an article about USA it could be just mentioned quickly. And the same, I feel, holds for one particular event in the history of kitsch. Don't you think so? Goochelaar (talk) 08:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

People's perceptions may differ. I see your intention to alter an article to which you have not contributed as odd when the areas you wish to delete are germane. Stating that you intend to trim it because of its length, to a mathematical proportion, implies to me that you have not read the entire article and do not understand the nature of the topic. This is a philosophical topic about art, kitsch being the focus. It is a detailed history of kitsch. There is no current issue about kitsch that is more focused on the nature of kitsch, its appeal to the numb audiences being satisfied by the kitsch, the motivations of the creators of the kitsch, and opposition resounding from the professional and critical art arenas -- than this case. It is of more import than that of the Jeff Koons "Puppies" debacle because a wealthy man who wants desperately to be considered a serious artist, Johnson, has financed placement of versions of this statue in multiple venues from coast to coast -- dragging it around to find a place where it would be accepted for permanent placement. His wealth enables the placement at his own venues. They have been placed temporarily as novelties, but permanent acceptance at unrelated venues has failed him until this elderly "donor" (who thinks that this perfect example of kitsch is romantic and patriotic) has been used by Johnson and many sycophants to assure that the twenty-five-feet-tall example of quintessential kitsch be placed at the most public place in a city that is noted for its cultural values and appreciation of fine art. The city is a target for the creator and he is willing to discount the purchase price (that is why the original prices are important) to achieve the objective. Now that the copyright issue is looming, he even is willing to forgo the lowered purchase price in order to pay legal fees incurred for his usurpation of the work of a very respected artist. Essentially he is giving it away so that he can deny that his work is kitsch as it has been labeled since the 1980s. This is a highly visible case representing the epitome of the kitsch-is-the-antithesis-of-art philosophical discussion that is fundamental to this article. All of the details are essential to understand the implications. This has become my personal point of view, which is not expressed in the article, however, the factual details that allow our readers to determine for themselves are important to the article and should be retained. We are here to provide such information. Interpretation of warring follows from your assertion that it would be as you see fit, period, and seemingly that I had no right to take a stale tag off because you put it there. I do not consider your motivation as concern for the content of the article. I do not see you wanting to "trim" the logical precursors to this portion that forecast the importance of the Sarasota dilemma. If you have a right to put a tag on, I have a right to take it off especially if, after months, it has failed to attract further discussion. I waited to see whether discussion materialized, which did not. I clearly identified that I was removing it in my summary and gave the reason, yet you challenge me about my already-well-described motivation and assert that you will begin trimming as you see fit. Perhaps you do not read the summaries, as I do not read the discussions because editing articles is my preference. I presume good faith on that. If having the stale tag on, is important to you, please exercise you right to replace it. Drawing you to explicate each "trim" you intend to make may become tedious, but essential to retain the continuity of the article, so I shall keep with that even though it may absorb many hours. I believe that the caliber of the discussion in the article is worth it.----83d40m (talk) 11:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

May I remark that I am not the editor who put the tag? So there is at the very least one other editor in whose opinion this article should be reorganized. In any case, the last thing I want is to impose my opinion on anybody, so I am asking for a third opinion. Happy editing, Goochelaar (talk) 15:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Goochelaar, your note stated, There have been exactly two opinions, yours and mine. So I took it at face value. Editors have been known to use more than one id for various reasons. Will respond to the third opinion below. ----83d40m (talk) 11:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe my non-native English is the cause of misunderstandings like this one. (And I need not say that it is not nice to make insinuations as yours. But this gives me the idea of asking what User:InnocuousPseudonym thinks about the present state of the article.) Moreover (again, my imperfect English is probably to blame), I had suggested the creation of a separate article in the first place: one more time (hoping to overcome linguistic barriers), I have nothing against this topic, and I personally find it very interesting. The only thing I objected to was the proportion between the space given to it and the rest of the article. I am glad we are converging toward some of a solution we all agree about. Goochelaar (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if you considered my discussion as critical of you, it was not intended for more than to explain my understanding and reaction to what you said. I think it is difficult enough to communicate with other native speakers and admire your abilities -- I certainly could not fare well in your native language! Please inquire if you would like advice on my language, If desired, I would be glad to assist with suggestions when you are uncertain of use. Please examine the new article and the trimmed version of this that I have created. Make any contribution you feel is warranted. I also am glad that we have reached an agreement for a solution so quickly. Many differences of opinion at Wikipedia become tedious rather than working toward a solution. I only am concerned that it remain a discussion of the philosophy of aesthetics focusing on kitsch, as I noted previously and below under a second article is a good idea -- it was. ----83d40m (talk) 20:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion

I came in response to the request for a Third Opinion. After reading the section in question (21st century kitsch issue involves copyright infringement), there seems to me to be little doubt that the section is WP:UNDUE. This section covers a single artist and a series of events that surrounded a debate about the relationship between kitsch and art. This is certainly a good example of the more general concepts surrounding kitsch, and, as such, seems to deserve mention in this article. However, as written now, a general reader without prior knowledge of the subject would necessarily conclude that this particular artist/event is a key part of the central subject of kitsch, simply because it occupies so much article space. Thus, this section needs to be significantly trimmed to avoid this problem. Given the complexity of the Johnson sculptures, and the large number of citations, it looks this could easily be transferred into an article of its own, or merged with the existing article as previously tagged. The present article could quite comfortably have a 1-2 paragraph summary of that with a link to the "Main" article. This allows all of the notable information to be kept while avoiding WP:UNDUE. If you would like, I would be happy to true writing such a summary--I may not know much about kitsch, but I do have much experience with summarizing and condensing information in a way that maintains everything critical. I'll post something to this talk page once I have a chance.

As a side note, I want to add that this article has quite a number of questionable phrasings, in particular a lot of POV phrases that are not properly attributed, as well as a large number of Weasel Words. If I have a chance, I'm going to come back in the next few days and see if I can do a clean-up on these issues. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

separate article is a good idea

That is a reasonable alternative. I objected to the proposal that these details be cut and also believed that they should not be placed in an article on the photograph or the artist because I consider it a discussion about kitsch. I have the time today to set up a new article, transfer the extensive text for a first edit, and will make an initial trim here when that is completed, hoping to meet expectations for reduction in this article that still will encourage readers to pursue the topic in another article. The new article should grow as the expected legal issues unfold, which would require additional length as well. ----83d40m (talk) 11:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I have created the initial article, Kitsch controversy in Sarasota, Florida, and trimmed the section in this article. Please let me know whether you wish to discuss it further. I did remove a tag that seemed to be computer generated at the new article and at another article, an orphan article on one version of the statue, because of concern that the tags would attract input that would be outside the intention for the new article to be on the philosophical aspect of aesthetics via kitsch, using the statues only because of the controversy they elicited -- as intended. Hoping thereby, to prevent some careless cowboy from coming along and adding something disjointed to it because an inappropriate tag directed him there. ----83d40m (talk) 20:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC) ----83d40m (talk) 20:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I just went in and trimmed down the section a lot more. All of the details about the legal issues, etc., were removed, as those are adequately represented at the new page. This page should focus, as much as possible, on how this statue and the issues around it are related to kitsch. If anyone wants to know the details, that's why we have the link to the full article. I removed some POV problems; in particular, the title of the section was very POV as it essentially assumed that there is copyright infringement (something which the sources do not yet agree on, nor has the issue been litigated yet). I think I kept all of the references, just reorganizing them. One thing I don't like in my new version is the last sentence, because it's not clear who the "committee" and the "supervisors" are; I'll try to figure that out from the sources later, although it might be easier for you to add that 83d40m, since you're closer to the original material. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I provided the information you were seeking and changed the title again to something related to kitsch. Perhaps you were unaware that there are several statues involved, so I tried to clarify that without expanding very much. That confusion exists among many, even some involved closely with the matter, so it is worthy of note. I also inserted the important qualifier of the funds for any legal expenses that were pivotal to the agreement. I do not like articles that require jumping around to provide an understanding of a topic because it promotes superficial knowledge among most readers. I think it has been trimmed too much, but as long as the other article remains complete, I will tolerate the radical trim. ----83d40m (talk) 02:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Your edits almost all seem very clear and help fix some of the problems I had. Can I ask, though, why you're removing the name of the work (or the series) itself? It seems like that's a pretty fundamental fact surrounding this issue; you even name the allegedly copied work, but not the one that this whole section is about. I mean, yes, this section is about a contemporary of the ongoing debate about kitsch; but it still seems necessary to provide the name of the work causing the debate. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I went back and removed the title to the Eisenstaedt photograph as well, for balance, as you pointed out. These works are featured prominently at the articles for both artists and are available readily to readers who are interested in more details. This keeps the emphasis on this kitsch discussion without the notoriety of those works drawing readers who are seeking the popular topics about them rather than a philosophical discussion using them as an example. I left the title for the Koons work earlier in the article because it is not featured at the Koons article. A confusion currently exits with articles about the Johnson works and I prefer to avoid that by getting readers to his page for the best discussion of them. Since the title currently has become a lightening rod, I believe it would invite inappropriate edits in this article that would be a constant issue for correction. I do not think that is the case for the new article, because of the greater detail. Creating a balance for the photograph here is a simpler solution as it is the lead image for Eisenstaedt, being the image for which he is most famous (although he wrote that he felt it was not his best work). ----83d40m (talk) 09:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no, the works aren't "readily available to readers." Why would you necessarily assume that a reader will know the name of either work and be able to readily look them up? In fact, assume I know nothing about the topic (in fact, I don't). If I were reading this for the first time, in order for me to find more information about the Johnson work (which I might reasonably want to do), I'm going to have to go to one of the other articles, and search through the entire thing just to find the name. The same is true for the Eisenstaedt photograph as well. To me, it's like you're writing about a major sporting event but refusing to use the names of the teams involved. Isn't the whole point of having a hyperlinked encyclopedia is that it's easy to get information? In fact, I think the middle part of the paragraph points to your real concern--you're afraid that if the title is there, editors are going to question whether this info belongs here or only in the other article (or in an article about the piece itself). It feels to me like you're trying to hide this necessary information just to avoid having to discuss the problem. If this section were discussing overall the link between Johnson and kitsch, I could see leaving out naming specific works; but you're talking about a specific statue in a specific, named series (whose name appears in every source in this section). I'd like to get your consensus before reinserting it, but I really think this information is 100% necessary to this article. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

My perception differs from yours. The image is clearly present in the article and allows readers to understand why it is labeled as kitsch. A simple click on the names of Johnson and Eisenstaedt takes the reader directly to pages where the image also exists, while clearly providing much greater detail. Furthermore, the article identified now as the "main article" on the topic, also is one click away and it displays an image of both the photograph and one version of the statues in close proximity, which clearly allows comparison of the similarities that are the basis for the copyright infringement allegation.

You have cut so much that I believe readers need to go to them anyway to have any real understanding of the complex issue. Multiple versions of Johnson's series were present in displays from Sand Diego, Key West, Sarasota, Manhattan, and other venues -- not only differing in materials, but in details as well -- yet the Johnson works may be grouped as the "Johnson statues" and retain a continuity in a discussion of a contemporary kitsch controversy in this article, which is not about the works per se. I think there are six or seven to date. There is only one published photograph that was copied, although there were four exposures from different positions of the photographer that differ in details as well.

I suggest leaving this alone unless you want me to expand the discussion again to make the clarifications that will be necessary to make readers understand the complexity of the statue versions -- where and when -- in this article. That runs counter to your stated objective to severely trim the article. If you recall, that was not my preference. I trimmed the article as I believed was adequate to meet your preference while retaining as much as I felt made it clear, but you have insisted on a much greater trim and even became confused about details as you made that edit. It can not be both ways, both comprehensive and a brief summary. I certainly do not want to invest time now in having to go back to reconstruct details that you have cut for extreme brevity. Let it be and see what the responses are. ----83d40m (talk) 02:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I can see your argument for not including the work names. I'm not 100% convinced, but you present a reasonable argument; as long as other editors don't pop up objecting, I think it will be fine without the titles. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed then, we can let it gel and keep a watch out for problems, dealing with them if they arise. ----83d40m (talk) 11:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

kitsch controversy in Sarasota, Florida

Here is a copy of a note placed at talk as well. A group of editors has changed many aspects of the article crated from Kitsch. No effort was made to contact me as the primary editor. Was any attempt made to contact you regarding our reasons for creating the separate article? No understanding of the topic is evident in their actions. ----83d40m (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I assuming you're talking about the merger into Unconditional Surrender. I'll reply over there. If you meant something else, let me know. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Lead Sources

The sources in the lead don't appear to meet the rules for WP::RS at all. The first two link to user made pages art-term dictionaries which have no reliability; the third is a dead link, but appears to be the same sort of page. We need reliable sources defining kitsch, such as from a reliable art textbook. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

History Sources

Most of this section is missing sources. At the moment, it almost all appears to be WP:OR. Except for the end of "Relationship to aesthetics debated" and the final section, there are no listed sources. Where did this information come from? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, looking again, it appears that a lot of the information came from the sources in the "Further Reading" section. If the editor who originally worked on those sections and the Further Reading is still around, it would be very helpful to move that information into the References section. Assuming that editor isn't still here...hmmm... Qwyrxian (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

So....

I imagine you must have been expecting me to come back here at some point....I'm just wondering the same thing I was wondering over at the other article...do you have any sources pointing out that the debate about the artwork was one about "kitsch?" If not, the majority of that section is probably WP:OR. We definitely have sources that identify Johnson as kitsch. We probably have sources that say the didn't like that particular statue because it's kitsch. But all of the sources I remember that talk about the big argument revolved around things like copyright. Let me know...as I don't want to upset you by just jumping in and editing, I'm giving you the opportunity to point explicitly what in the sources makes this not OR. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to stir up a fight, but I do want you to add the references I assume you have that clearly indicate this was a controversy about kitsch. So I added the Original Research tag to indicate that such references are needed. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The tag is extremely justified on the grounds that none of your sources establish that this is a kitsch controversy. The establish that Johnson is a kitsch artist. Separately, the establish that there was a controversy about those works. None of the sources establish that this was a "kitsch controversy." I can change it to a SYNTH tag if you prefer. Do you understand what my concern is? If I were to strictly follow policy, I'd take out everything in the entire section, except perhaps to put a line somewhere in the article identifying Johnson as a kitsch artist. I'm not doing so, because I'm trying to assume good faith, that there really is evidence that this is a "kitsch controversy." I'd appreciate it if you explain here exactly which source uses the term kitsch controversy, or otherwise explicitly and clearly shows that the debate about this work was primarily or at least substantially about kitsch. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not the title that is the problem. It is your attempt to claim that this is a controversy about kitsch, when, in fact, your sources don't support that. At best, this is WP:SYNTH; at worst it's WP:OR. The only reason I haven't gutted that section is that I have enough other pages to keep me occupied. I was hoping that you would actually talk about this and try to explain, rather than just leaving cryptic messages in your edit summaries. If I get the time, I'll go back through all of the sources and see what parts can be kept per the rules of WP:OR. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm for removing the section completely if none of the sources specifically mention "kitsch" or something close enough where we're not violating WP:OR. --Ronz (talk) 03:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Some of the references mention kitsch, and Johnson is definitely known as a kitsch artist--that much is verified by the sources. However, my claim is that the sources do not claim that the reason for the controversy in Sarasota was a "kitsch vs. art" debate. I do need to go back and read the references; it's been a month or more since I last checked them. But what I remember is that they refer pretty clearly to worries about lawsuits, a little about patriotism, and fleetingly to kitsch.Qwyrxian (talk) 03:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like we're violating OR then. Looking over the section again, I don't see why it belongs in this article at all. he's a kitsch artist, but the controversy isn't related to the art being kitsch. Am I overlooking something? --Ronz (talk) 04:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

As I have already had occasion of saying here, in past discussions about the section, I wholeheartedly agree that the Sarasota episode, whatever its interest, has a by far undue space in this article, which spans (or should span) more than two centuries and several countries. So I believe it does not deserve a section of its own, but at the very most a mention in a list of kitsch artists/works/events. Goochelaar (talk) 11:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The size is fine as an example of a contemporary public discussion of kitsch, if that discussion actually happened. I will try to find the time today to review all of the sources and see how much they actually talk about kitsch. Maybe there's something I missed....Qwyrxian (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I worked my way through about half of that section, changing as I went. I think all of the changes were explained in the edit summaries, but please ask here if something was unclear. I don't, at the moment, have time to listen to an hour long radio interview, so I'll have to come back to this another time. So far, very little supports this section having so much weight. Again, Johnson is definitely kitsch. One article has a quote, which I think should be introduced somewhere, that says something like "this piece is so bad, it doesn't even qualify as kitsch." But so far I'm seeing a debate about symbolism (whether or not this statue has anything to do with Sarasota), about uniqueness (there's 8 of these statues), about gender (the issue of the woman being forced), etc. I'm still not seeing a "kitsch controversy." Instead, I'm seeing a kitsch artist who got caught up in a different kind of controversy. For the same reason that we wouldn't include on the baseball page a long (or any) discussion of a baseball player who got involved in a political scandal, I'm thinking this doesn't deserve so much weight here. But, I do still have more listening and reading to do, so no firm judgments yet. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Video

No, you don't understand--this is unbreakable policy. The video you linked to was hosted on YouTube. Nothing on that page indicated that the person who posted it owned the copyright. Thus, there may have been copyright infringement. Linking to a copyrighted site may be considered contributory copyright infringement. It is strict policy (see WP:COPYVIO and WP:EL) that editors must delete copyright violations upon finding them.

Furthermore, because there is no editorial control on YouTube, there is no way for us to know if the video presented is authentic (i.e., that it hasn't been altered). As such, it's not a reliable source.

Please stop demeaning my changes to this article, acting like my only goal is to tear down some great work you've created. If you really want, I'll start "contributing" to the article. I don't think you actually want that, because I'm fairly sure my contribution is, as I state above, to significantly gut that section because it's pretty close to being against policy. I'm really trying, out of deference to your work here (deference I give only out of civility, and don't have to give at all) to let you make the changes that you need to make. If you don't understand what I mean about OR and SYNTH, please talk about it here. I am happy to explain, and to try to help draw the limits around what can and can't be said about the Johnson sculpture controversy. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"A notable issue"?

A notable issue regarding kitsch and copyright laws arose early in the twenty-first century. Sounds promising, but The issue raging in the community was even noted by the Tampa region public broadcasting stations. If it's as notable as it's painted to be, shouldn't it have also appeared in the national press? Nothing in art magazines, the New Yorker, etc? -- Hoary (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I was bold and removed it completely. (Maybe not so bold judging by the comments above.) It's relationship to kitsch is very slight, not enough to be addressed in this article. --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The art critic for a San Diego newspaper has attacked the opuscule as kitsch, and some others have joined in. So it might merit a place within a list, as Goochelaar recommends several centimetres above. -- Hoary (talk) 23:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Joe Kitsch

Before this becomes a slow moving edit war, I'd like to discuss here. User:Cosmicgirl816 inserted a paragraph about Joe Kitsch, who does some art that raises kitsch/art issues. User:Galassi has removed that paragraph. First, let me address a misconception Galassi appears to have--twice s/he has removed this material because artist is "non-notable" or "notability has to be established." Perhaps Galassi is using the word in a more general meaning, but WP:Notability only applies to articles, not to parts within articles. So we don't actually need to determine whether or not Joe Kitsch is notable enough for inclusion in WP. We do have to be careful that we're not giving undue weight to this artist, but that's more an issue of length of the section compared to the overall article (basically, part of the concern being raised above about the Sarasota Incident). So I don't think we can keep this out on those grounds. However, I am concerned by the source. The journal "New Scientist" I believe qualifies as reliable, but I'm not sure about this particular article. This article is explicitly labelled as being in the "blog" section of the magazine. WP:RS discusses this issue, pointing out that what a magazine or journal calls a blog can be considered a reliable source, depending on how blogs work on that publication. The real question is if the "blog" is really a personal blog where the author can write anything they want (in which case, it's a self-published source and not reliable) or if the publication just calls it a blog to make it sound modern and interactive while still maintaining editorial control (in which case, it is a reliable source). I can't tell from looking at this page or journal which of the two categories this fits into. Cosmicgirl816, do you know? Qwyrxian (talk) 22:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Notability applies not only to articles main subjects, but also to illustrative examples. Anyone can use kitsch to whatever ends, but it has to be notable to be relevant here. I've looked at Joe's CV on his site and it has some shows listed at unknown regional galleries. His presence in this article looks like outright spam.-Galassi (talk) 00:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The article is about kitsch. The repeated additions of information about this single artist appears to be more promotional than anything, in violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:SOAP. I also agree with Qwyrxian that the source is not reliable for such information, especially in the context of the article's topic. --Ronz (talk) 00:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I just want to point out where you're wrong, Galassi. WP:N explicitly states, "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons." Having said that, I think Ronz's use of WP:UNDUE is appropriate. It does not appear that Joe Kitsch has received enough coverage, nor is important enough to the overall field of kitsch, to warrant inclusion here, especially not as a full paragraph. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Etymology, simple correction?

I'm not well-versed (or concerned) enough in this to risk making a change that's perhaps not for the better. But in the paragraph below, there are these two phrasings: "describing cheap, popular, and marketable pictures and sketches[4]" followed by "saying that kitsch art pictures were well-executed, finished paintings rather than sketches." To my thinking, there's a clear, direct contradiction there. An easy fix would be to just delete "and sketches" in the first sentence, leaving it just at "pictures", which could cover all types.

Etymology

The etymology is uncertain. As a descriptive term, kitsch originated in the art markets of Munich in the 1860s and the 1870s, describing cheap, popular, and marketable pictures and sketches[4] In Das Buch vom Kitsch (The Book of Kitsch), Hans Reimann defines it as a professional expression “born in a painter's studio”. Writer Edward Koelwel rejects the suggestion that kitsch derives from the English word sketch, noting how the sketch was not then in vogue, and saying that kitsch art pictures were well-executed, finished paintings rather than sketches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.30.64.14 (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Quiche

Really, would anyone confuse this word with quiche? I'm strongly inclined to delete the hatnote. Anyone disagree? Robina Fox (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly: it looks more like a joke than a serious note. Goochelaar (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Picture of "The Widow"

Pic of the kitch cat should be Public Domain, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mieliestronk (talk • contribs) 13:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

An extraordinary gap in the English language?

"There is no adequate English word with which to translate the term kitsch."

Well well. May I, Professor Gonen, suggest the English word kitsch? -- Hoary (talk) 03:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Good point. But the English word has an apparently Germanic origin, and perhaps no second English word can even remotely substitute for it. Bus stop (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The English word "kitsch" comes from German. However, although Gonen italicizes it as if to emphasize its foreignness, and although it has an un-English spelling, yes, it is now an English word. And it was one when Gonen wrote, too.

Gonen may be on to something here. He cites somebody called Friedländer saying something that might be relevant to this and also interesting, but the snippetization of Google's view cuts it off.

Let's be charitable for a moment and assume that the context, which we can't see, makes Gonen's sentence make sense. Well, we should see the context and derive something worthwhile from that.
Let's instead be uncharitable for a moment and assume that no, Gonen believes that if the start of use within one language of a "foreign" word has only occurred within the last few decades (or whatever), the word does not belong to that language. An interesting notion. Does any lexicographer agree with it? I think not, and suggest that Gonen doesn't know what he's talking about.

Yes, a retired professor verifiably wrote this in a book published by a university press. By WP's standards, it's "reliably sourced". But rather obviously, it's silly (at least as it stands). We shouldn't use our brains for "original research" or "original synthesis", but we should use them to winnow what's "reliably sourced" to exclude what's silly. And therefore if this new addition can't be carefully qualified, it should be reverted. -- Hoary (talk) 04:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I think Gonen makes a good observation that perhaps others have failed to make. In English we have "parroting" and related terms in Dictionary dot com's Thesaurus which I've linked to. "Ape" comes close. Several other words convey similar meaning. But "kitsch" has a specifically aesthetic meaning. Bus stop (talk) 11:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

English has a very promising candidate, namely "kitsch". Just how does Gonen say, or how does any other authority say, that this is inadequate for expressing the meaning of the German word kitsch? -- Hoary (talk) 13:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Should any mention be made that aside from the German-borrowed word that there probably is not an English-equivalent word? Bus stop (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

So is it worth saying that English doesn't have any other word that neatly duplicates its word "kitsch"? No it isn't. After all, there's no obvious alternative to "coffee", for example, yet the article "Coffee" doesn't tell its readers that aside from the Italian-borrowed word "coffee", English has no simple alternative for this material. It's entirely normal for there to be no simple alternative in language X to the word Y, which was imported from language Z. (Were there an alternative, the likelihood of importing Y would be lower.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Coffee is just a simple entity. It is not difficult to understand what coffee is. Coffee is not a concept. This concept—of kitsch—is difficult to understand. This concept first had a word put to it in the German language. The English language had no alternative but to import the German word because it had no already-existing word for the concept being referred to. It is not always easy to know what is kitsch and what is not. Identifying what is kitsch from what is not kitsch had its origins in a culture that spoke the German language. Distinguishing that which is kitsch from that which is not kitsch is no less difficult now than when the word first took on its present meaning in the German language. Those who speak the German language are no more skilled in making the differentiation between kitsch and non-kitsch, in the present day, than those who speak the English language. But perhaps it is important to note that the problem was first identified by speakers of German. Yes, you can say that this is already noted in the article. If that is sufficient, then you can remove the explicit articulation to this effect made by Gonen. But the fact that we have a source in Gonen saying this gives us liberty to repeat that assertion. The reader is thus alerted to this word of Germanic origin being also an idea of German origin. The idea (of kitsch) has substance, though its proper applicability is not clear. That English has no comparable word would tend to suggest that the English-speaking world may not have even thought of the concept that "kitsch" represents. Gonen only made a simple statement: "There is no adequate English word with which to translate the term kitsch." Had Gonen gone into depth as we are here, I think he would concede that indeed the word kitsch is now an English word. But I think his point is not one concerning only words. The implication is that the notion of distinguishing non-kitsch art from kitsch art is a notion that has its origin in German circles, with its concomitant use of the German language. Bus stop (talk) 15:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't suggest that the English-speaking world never thought of this concept. We have the term "mannerism" which I think refers to a related concept. And perhaps there are other terms describing the same sense of the not quite authentic or the mere mindless knockoff. Bus stop (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Consider anomie (subject of a confused article). I don't have access to the OED right now, but I'd guess that even if anomie or anomy existed in English before Durkheim was discussed in or translated into English, Durkheim would have prompted a revival of the term (cf Colbert and truthiness). A literal translation into English might be normlessness, which (as -less and -ness are both productive) could have been constructed very easily even if its use happened not already to have been attested. However (as I vaguely and perhaps inaccuratedly recall my long-ago reading of Durkheim and those affected by him) anomie suggests a perceived as well as, or rather than, an actual absence of norms. (And, irrelevantly to meaning: to my ear, normlessness sounds not only ugly but also [with its echo of gormlessness] funny; additionally, social scientists are fond of words constructed from Greek morphemes.) If all this were not merely off the top of my head but instead actually researched by a professor and published in a "RS", I'd think it rather trivial. If some social scientist simply wrote (even in a book published by a university press) that there was no other English word to express the meaning of anomie, I'd find that banal; if he instead wrote that there was [now] no English word to express the meaning of Durkheim's anomie, I'd think "Wrong, there's the English word anomie", and pass over this particular assertion of his in polite silence rather than presenting it in a WP article. -- Hoary (talk) 11:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the sentence. It's no big deal, and maybe you're right. Bus stop (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)