In Clement Greenberg's discussion of the avant-garde and kitsch, he explores two radically different styles of art that demand things very different from spectators and readers. Avant-garde is a type of art aimed at members of the upper class (bourgeois), while kitsch is a style aimed at the lower working classes (the proletariat). The text states the following about the Avant-garde: “In seeking to overcome Alexandrianism, a part of Western bourgeois society produced something hitherto unheard of: avant-garde culture . A higher awareness of history – more precisely the emergence of a new type of critique of society, a historical critique – made this possible.” This style of art is associated with a lot of analysis. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay One must try to assume the artist's worldview to discover the true meaning of this unique painting. Avant-garde artists value originality and strive to create something distinct from all other forms of art; the artist is in search of being different. Greenberg states: "The avant-garde poet or artist is actually trying to imitate God by creating something valid only on his own terms, in the same way that nature itself is valid, in the same way way that a landscape – and not its image – is aesthetically valid; something given, uncreated, independent of meanings, similar or originals. Furthermore, the bourgeois or upper classes are the intended viewers of this art and the artist vehemently tries to avoid being mediocre. Greenberg analyzes how the artist's goal is to give so much meaning to his work that it will never be simply a superficial painting. My use of the term surface painting refers to art that does not require immense interpretation requiring a different type of effort from its viewers, or even requiring any effort at all. According to Greenberg, the avant-garde generates meaning and emotional content through its unique nature. or the overall composition. We can read thus: “Picasso, Braque, Mondrian, Miré, Kandinsky, Brancusi, even Klee, Matisse and Cézanne, draw their main inspiration from the medium with which they work. The enthusiasm of their art seems to lie above all in its pure concern. with the invention and arrangement of spaces, surfaces, shapes, colors, etc., to the exclusion of everything that is not necessarily involved in these factors.” As a reader, we can draw the following conclusion: the great effort of thought and care put into his masterpiece is in fact a great source of the emotional content that revolves around this style. These emotions can also be conveyed to the viewers while watching these masterpieces. In previous lessons we talked about what a work of art demands of the viewer or what certain literary works demand. For example, the various literary texts that we examined in class at the beginning of the semester proved that certain writings were easier to digest while others required more concentration; the same goes for works of art. That being said, due to the elevated nature of this style that the artist has put a lot of heart into, we, as viewers, have an experience rooted in overweighting as we attempt to associate shapes and forms. interesting angles to the feelings and sentiments of the artist. general intention of the work. Kitsch is very different from avant-garde. As we havediscussed in class, we must avoid looking at a table with the mentality of “that’s it”, because there is always more. However, when looking at the art in which the artist used kitsch, one gets the impression that there is no need to apply so much critical analysis. Greenberg says the following about kitsch: “Kitsch is mechanical and functions according to formulas. Kitsch is vicarious experience and simulated sensations. Kitsch changes depending on the style, but always remains the same. Kitsch is the incarnation of everything that is fallacious in the life of our time. Kitsch claims to demand nothing from its clients except their money, not even their time.” Kitsch was a name coined by the Germans and helped form "universal literacy" according to Greenberg. I find it really interesting how kitsch varies from avant-garde in intended experience and intended audience. Kitsch was meant for the proletariat (working class) and avant-garde was supposed to be for the bourgeoisie (elite ruling class). In my opinion, this is a slight insult to the working class, making them seem inadequate and unwilling to fully exercise their minds. A person's class distinction is not always an accurate representation of the knowledge they possess. For example, let's take a family of 4 who are struggling to make ends meet. Both mother and father graduated from college, but unfortunately, they encountered financial problems that suddenly forced them to move to a one-bedroom apartment in another location in the city. In this example, this family (who might be working class) would not find satisfaction in the hollow nature of kitsch art, but they are expected to. I find it stereotypical to assume that the proletariat cannot or will not devote the necessary time to analyzing a work of art. In terms of the emotional response that kitsch evokes, it's probably more of a universal but still subjective feeling. For example, take Andy Warhol's 1967 work depicting Marilyn Monroe. This may arouse the admiration of those who loved Marilyn or perhaps the admiration of those who are true fans of Andy Warhol. However, whatever the answer, Greenberg would feel that it appears to be more superficial than an answer that requires an in-depth explanation. Greenberg says: “Ultimately the peasant will return to kitsch when he wants to look at pictures, because he can enjoy kitsch effortlessly. Greenberg's condescending tone in reference to kitsch in relation to the "peasant class" was most likely considered acceptable at that time. Additionally, when all classes of people look at paintings (like Marilyn's), we see elements of pop culture and entertainment and we, as viewers, stop because we like what is depicted or who represented him. Greenberg would stand by his assertion that an article like this is truly incapable of sparking in-depth discussion. His arguments present the claim that the overall experience of looking at kitsch does not require serious thought or squinting, but it still has the power to elicit emotion of some sort while causing the person to think about their opinion. . Overall, the experiences, emotions, and audiences targeted by avant-garde and kitsch are polar opposites of each other. Andy Warhol was a man who truly created his own definition of what it meant to be a true artist. His use of pop and consumer culture called into question everything Greenberg claimed. For example, beliefs that higher art).