pouët.net

One of the best recent scene examples of true art has to be TM2: Attack of the Ego Bots. Whether the authors are aware of it or not. Whether they acknowledge it or not. Whether the irony of the craft “quality” is deliberate or not. It’s like with Ed Wood’s films.

tomkh: You turned it upside-down. "Kitsch" was initially used by avant-gardists who were critical towards bourgeoisie. Their purpose was to use non-conventional art as means to challenge the power of prevailing classes.

4gentE:


If you think that it's a clear cut issue that demoscene products are not art, then it's _you_ who has not bothered to think of meanings. The answer depends on which definition of the art we use.



Another multifaceted issue and you just claim that particular stance is true without giving justifications.

--

It seems this discussion requires more effort than what you are ready to invest in.

la_mettrie: point taken. I was referring more to vernacular art vs high art, so I stand corrected. This is not synonymous with kitsch, although vernacular art tend to have elements of kitsch.

I also understand better that you are not really judging, but you rather want to put demoscene art into a broader context. IMHO demoscene art surely has reminescenes of kitsch and even vernacular/folk as let's be honest, it's mostly craft of self-taught hobbyist without solid artistic education. But that might be the beauty of it - there is more honesty and freedom in expression.

True. It wasn’t meant as some absolute truth. It was more like a direct answer to this:
Like, how can I know what artist thinks, all I can observe is that the output looks kitsch to me. But kitsch can turn into art in a second if some previously obscured context is provided, so…


In my last post I gave an example of what I consider art/not kitsch. That thing is too ugly, too poorly crafted (not talking about code here) in almost every aspect that it just cannot be called kitsch.

I don't think I follow. Isn't kitsch usually poorly crafted too?

Or to be precise, isn't it independent - I'm sure you may have a more subtle "piece" let's say in a "good taste" (if it's anyhow objective) that you wouldn't call kitsch, but also poorly crafted.

You think Vallejo pieces are poorly crafted? In my experience kitsch is usually solidly, sometimes even expertly crafted. “Kitsch” does not mean “utter crap”. The way I see it, “utter crap” more easily steps into “art” territory because it oftentimes intensifies communication, it raises questions, makes people think, jumpstarts discussions etc. Kitsch never does any of that, it’s mere passive decor. And it’s deliberately designed to pet the intended audience. And that’s why it has to exhibit a certain level (sometimes that level is quite high) of good, solid craftmanship.

I think I clearly said it is "usually" poorly crafted, but otherwise, kitsch vs no kitsch is independent of other qualities.

Vallejo might be kitsch to you, but to others it might be the best art there is, at least better than Picasso or Dali (IMHO pure kitsch).

I actually also sense you use the word "kitsch" as something negative, isn't it? To me it's just an artistic choice.

No, I don’t deliberately use “kitsch” as something negative, perhaps it sounds/feels that way, or it’s some kind of subconscious slip.

This is what I meant: kitsch has to express a certain level of craftmanship in order to appeal to the target audience. The garden dwarf cannot be sculpted by a 5 year old with his left hand. The bouncing cube has to have “sinusy” animation keyframe interpolation. Craft. I don’t think art has a stiff price of entry like that. Art can (and often is) be blessed with great craftmanship. But it doesn’t really need to.
But I can see these things are way more subjective than I thought (Picasso kitsch? Noooo! Vallejo kitsch? Yes! Dali kitsch? Hell yes!). Like, to me personally putting Picasso and Dali in the same sentence with an “or” inbetween hurts, so I think I’ll stop here.

I see, but you know this quite recent trend of self-aware kitsch. That actually applies to some "true demo art" and many references to it in more elaborate productions.

This may have been said in here before, but in my book...

Freshness is what divides art from kitsch.

Once something however new, creative and exciting that may have been art at the time of creation is replicated and repeated, it becomes kitsch.

When taking the time of creation out of the picture, even the originally fresh piece becomes kitsch retroactively.
Art remains art only for a limited period of time, and is bound to become kitsch.

Maybe it's a matter of fuzzy terminology, that is, I suppose, typical for artistic and humanistic circles, e.g., everything is a bit open to interpretation, unlike in math/engineering.

So I think we can argue forever where to put the line between naive art, poorly crafted "art", imitation "art" and "pure" kitsch.

IMHO I would stick to original meaning as studied by Reimann, Walter Benjamin, Tomàš Kulka etc... (and let's pretend we know their works ;))