WTF? In my future musings, I thought that I would like to become a
Starcke-like figure but ...
"limited edition gold gnome tables by philippe starck for kartell
by philippe starck for kartell. limited edition/ limited stock available. "
On 10/27/07, Anny Ballardini <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Re.: But I have left out garden gnomes.
>
> You are not up-to-date:
> http://www.unicahome.com/p4516/kartell/starck-gnomes-tables-stools-by-philippe-starck-for-kartell.html
>
> simulacra of simulacra of .. in pure plastic.
>
> Very interesting your remark on coalescing forces.
> p.s.: there is only one thing I like of Jeff Koons: Cicciolina!
> The greatest kitsch ever.
>
> On 10/27/07, Christopher Walker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > I don't think it's any truer that kitsch is the commodification of
> > high culture. [MW]
> > <snip>
> >
> > Perhaps _dominant_ would have been better, with less sense of
> > consecration:
> > kitsch as the impression of democracy without the underlying reality,
> > sneered at from the sidelines. I wouldn't underrate its dangers BTW.
> >
> > During what were (perhaps) its 19th C origins somewhere in Germany you
> > bought (having made a little money) the trappings of advancement off the
> > peg; but what you actually got were very bad paintings, almost a sort of
> > Giffen good, because you couldn't afford the good ones or couldn't tell
> > the
> > difference. And then, of course, all those miniatures of the Eiffel Tower,
> > those fake furs, faux wood, all those cocktail cabinets...
> >
> > The sneer that's often used for kitsch was also used for fish knives
> > incidentally; Cf Betjeman. Here the point was, presumably, that fish
> > knives
> > were owned only by someone who had also 'bought his own furniture'.
> >
> > But I have left out garden gnomes. Though that's maybe not their loss. Or
> > indeed yours necessarily.
> >
> > <snip>
> > Jeff Koons achieves kitsch, for instance, equally by appropriating already
> > kitsch children's toys and greek sculpture. [MW]
> > <snip>
> >
> > Just as *irony* and *sentimentality* come to blows over feigned emotion,
> > over who is swindling whom exactly, so *kitsch* and *camp* are a sort of
> > argument over subjectivity. On the one hand, the _creation_ of kitsch is
> > objectifying, commodifying and all those boo! hiss! things. Whereas, on
> > the
> > other, the _recognition_ of kitsch is (at least potentially) a form of
> > camp,
> > a sort of emperor's clothes moment which returns the subject back to the
> > thick of things, where it belongs.
> >
> > Koons (whom I also abhor) is certainly making use of *camp*, as indeed you
> > go on to suggest. However, the stuff used by the great commodity broker
> > isn't employed to promote some sort of helpful break but to _anaesthetise_
> > instead. Thus the gap between *kitsch* and *camp* becomes so narrow that
> > they almost coalesce. (The analogy might be with Warhol's *Marilyns*,
> > where
> > the gap between the set comprising these works and some notional set of
> > monetary tokens likewise reduces to zero.)
> >
> > CW
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > 'The possibility now arises that art will no longer find time to
> > adapt somehow to technological processes.'
> > (Walter Benjamin)
> >
>
--
My Stuff: http://www.badstep.net/
"In peace, sons bury their fathers. In war, fathers bury their sons."
Roman Proverb
|