In the Mood for Kitsch? : Linking Aesthetic Appreciation to the Dynamics of Social Motivation

Abstract

This thesis explores the aesthetic concept of kitsch from a psychological viewpoint. More specifically, it deals with a fourfold paradox: (1) Kitsch is so popular nobody likes it, (2) aesthetically it is never cutting edge but always fashionable, (3) despite its short history and poor reputation, it looks back on a long and prestigious past, and (4) although highly significant for Western popular culture and contemporary art, it is conspicuously absent in theory and practice of empirical aesthetics. The present thesis, which is mainly based on four peer-reviewed articles and five conference contributions, addresses these contradictions both theoretically and empirically. Paradox #1. Drawing on a formalized kitsch definition that unites ideas from philosophical and empirical aesthetics with concepts from art sociology, it is stated that both popular success and highbrow rejection of kitsch derive from its capacity to elicit a spontaneous, positive affective response without any intellectual effort. A comparison of implicit and explicit attitudes and a cross-cultural study underscore the inherent ambivalence of kitsch and prepare the ground for a more dynamic approach to kitsch that goes beyond a culture capital account of popular taste. Paradox #2. The Functional Model of Kitsch and Art is introduced to account for the ambivalent on-again off-again relationship with kitsch. It identifies the polar opposition of avant-garde art and kitsch with two types of aesthetic experience: A future-oriented one that promises new insights but requires expertise and cognitive elaboration (art) and a backward-oriented one that gives effortless emotional gratification but leaves us with what we already know (kitsch). Based on the Zurich Model of Social Motivation (Zürcher Modell der sozialen Motivation), it further contends that (dis)taste for the one or the other is dynamically related to conflicting needs for self-directed exploration and secure relatedness. The model's main propositions were tested in a rating study and two experiments. Paradox #3. Historically, one usually thinks of kitsch as a by-product of 19th century industrialization. Our model's psychobiological foundations, however, beg for an evolutionary explanation. Reviewing evolutionary and anthropological accounts of aesthetics and prehistoric art-making, it appears that both functionally and formally modern-day kitsch, not avant-garde art, is our missing link to the premodern arts. Moreover, since Pop Art has bridged the gap between high art and popular taste, it is also key to many contemporary artworks. Paradox #4. Despite its importance for 20th century art theory, kitsch has gone widely unnoticed by empirical aesthetics. Against Fechner's vision of an Aesthetics from Below, research in this field is mainly concerned with high art at the expense of everyday phenomena. As a result, today's paramount models of aesthetic liking are essentially models of art perception that provide little guidance with regard to popular taste. With their narrow focus on processing speed even fluency-based frameworks are deliberately excluding what makes popular aesthetics popular: Emotionally rich content that strikes a chord in the viewer. General Discussion. Finally, the kitsch criteria and the functional model are discussed in light of the cumulative results and competing theoretical approaches. At first glance, kitsch makes a textbook example of hedonic fluency. In perfect accord with Fechner's still widely unknown Principle of Help or Amplification, it illustrates how perceptual (identifiability) and conceptual fluency (conventionality) work together to enhance the emotional impact of its subject matter. Yet kitsch also reveals a strong limitation of fluency-based aesthetics. After all, it is not processing ease but emotionally rich content that separates kitsch from everyday symbols without any aesthetic pretense (e.g., traffic signs). This strong dependency of kitsch on the affective charge of certain themes and subjects directs our attention to a general deficit of today's models of aesthetic liking and a second long-forgotten principle of Fechner's Aesthetics from Below: The Aesthetic Association Principle. As a prototype of popular taste uniting immediate accessibility with primacy of content, kitsch reminds us that everyday aesthetics and avant-garde art cannot be evaluated by the same criteria and that all kitsch-related paradoxes result from the misleading attempt to do just that. To account for these differences in low- and highbrow aesthetics, our functional model goes beyond a dual-process perspective by bringing content-related stimulus information and social distance regulation into play. Due to its connection with broad social motives, it is currently the only theoretical framework that makes testable predictions about age, gender, and culture differences in aesthetic liking. Naturally, the present approach to kitsch has its limitations. So far sweet kitsch in the visual domain has been emphasized at the expense of its bittersweet, sour, literary, and musical forms. All of these varieties deserve closer examination. Currently available findings on the functional model are as yet inconclusive and certain hypotheses are still to be tested. In its present form, the model also shows several areas of conceptual improvement. Feedback loops are needed for a better compatibility with transactional models of stress and coping, while connectivity with relevant philosophical and sociological accounts calls for a consistent distinction between power, prestige, and achievement motives. Based on a revised model, effects of life events, habitual coping behavior, love styles, and basic value orientations on aesthetic preferences could be examined more systematically. Despite these limitations, both the aesthetic concept of kitsch and the functional model are of considerable heuristic value: Apart from drawing our attention to blind spots in theory and practice of empirical aesthetics, kitsch makes a promising research object for the study of art expertise, dual attitudes, and cognitive dissonance (e.g., guilty pleasure) in aesthetics. In tandem with the functional model, it may inspire a more dynamic view on aesthetics. With its assumption of an intimate relationship between aesthetic and affiliative choices the model raises many new research questions that touch upon a wide range of topics ranging from Darwinian aesthetics and anxiety-related coping styles to nostalgic consumption. Moreover, it may stimulate further cross-cultural research on prominent themes of popular culture such as romantic love and cuteness. Perhaps it can even shed light on the question why art attracts more research interest than kitsch.