What makes something art? That question landed—unexpectedly—when someone gave my Mum a rock and suggested she paint something on it.
I let out an audible “Eek.”
My sister Andrea raised an eyebrow. She didn’t miss a beat—and hit me with a zinger.
Pointing to two stones (the bare one and one of my wrapped ones) like we were in some sort of geological episode of Antiques Roadshow, she asked, “Why is painting a rock not art, but your beautifully wrapped rocks are?”
Oof.
Now that got me thinking, Why is one rock considered art and the other not? Is it the wrapping? The intention? It got me thinking about what makes something art vs kitsch—and how blurry that line really is.
Because here’s the thing: kitsch and art often use the same materials. Both can be made with care. Both can spark a reaction.
The art critic Clement Greenberg argued that kitsch is sentimental, mass-produced stuff designed for quick, easy consumption. It relies on formulas and popular appeal. Art (avant garde art in this context) he claimed, is the opposite—challenging, layered, even unsettling.
“Where today a political regime establishes an official cultural policy, it is for the sake of demagogy. If kitsch is the official tendency of culture in Germany, Italy, and Russia, it is not because their respective governments are not aware of the values of genuine culture, but because they are aware that a culture superior to the general mass-level is not easily manipulated. Kitsch keeps a dictator in closer contact with the ‘soul’ of the people. Should the official culture be one superior to the general mass-level, there would be a danger of isolation.”
~ Clement Greenberg, “Avant-Garde and Kitsch”, Partisan Review 6, no. 5 (Sept.–Oct. 1939), pp 34–49.
Remember that when Greenberg wrote that, Hitler was beginning his expansion into Europe. What he’s getting at is that kitsch is politically useful—it flatters the public, keeps things easy and emotional, and avoids the complexity or challenge that real art might pose. In other words, dictators liked it because it didn’t ask too many questions.
But then—what about Andy Warhol screen-printing soup cans??
Or Jeff Koons turning balloon animals into giant reflective sculptures?
They both played with the question: what makes something art? They played with art vs kitsch on purpose. Flirted with it. Blew it up and dared the art world to call it “low.” They knew the idea of what art is can be shaky—and sometimes fun to stomp on.
Then there’s Thomas Kinkade. The “Painter of Light.” Cue eye twitch. Those glowing cottages, curling paths, improbably illuminated windows…
Critics scoffed. Galleries passed. And yet? People loved them. Hung them proudly. Gifted them.
Kinkade was mocked—and made millions. (And just by the way, in contrast to the sentimentality of his best sellers, Kincade was a master of plein air painting!)
So who gets to decide?
Maybe the real question isn’t “Is it art?” but rather: Where does it fall on the spectrum of art vs kitsch?
For me, what makes something art is the intent. It asks something deeper. It aims to reveal or evoke or question. It’s about risk and courage. It’s about close observation. It combines intuition and analysis.
Kitsch? Kitsch is safe. Sentimental. Decorative. Often crowd-pleasing. And sometimes… that’s exactly the point.
The problem isn’t the rock, the fact that it’s painted, or even that it has glitter sparkling on it (and I actually kinda like glitter, if we’re being honest). The problem is assuming anything becomes art just because it’s been painted.
Art carries risk.
It usually involves skill, sure—but also soul, inquiry, and sometimes a little discomfort.
It doesn’t always sit nicely on a shelf or match the curtains or make you feel cozy.
So yes, a painted or altered rock can absolutely be art.
But, sometimes, not.
A glittery rock can be a cheap souvenir—or a tiny invitation to look again.
Kitsch can feel cloying when it’s formulaic. When it flatters instead of nudges. When it’s safe instead of curious. But sometimes, it sneaks up on us. Makes us feel. Or laugh. Or see something familiar in a new way.
And sometimes, it’s a beautifully wrapped contradiction sitting in the palm of your hand, asking awkward questions you didn’t expect.
So tell me—what makes something art, to you?
Is it the intention behind it? The skill? The feeling it leaves you with?
Where do you draw the line? Please leave a comment!!
Until next time,
~ Gail
PS. Art or Kitsch? You decide:
Mum’s Garden Rock → TBD… Could go either way 😄
Warhol’s Soup Cans → Art-ish. Bold, ironic, commercial.
Koons’ Balloon Dog → Both? Glossy, oversized, and self-aware.
Kinkade’s Cottages → Kitsch (but beloved). Sentimental and mass-produced.
My Wrapped Rock → Art! Handmade, intentional, unexpected.
22 thoughts on “What Makes Something Art—and When Is It Just Kitsch?”
There’s a new-ish documentary about Kinkade called “Art For Everybody” which reveals his secret vault of paintings, which were quite dark! One, for instance, features a nun, with a gun clasped between her praying hands, pointed at her head. He apparently had a double life of booze and strip clubs, and died from mixing pills and booze.
It came to a film festival near me recently but unfortunately I missed it, hopefully it will be available for streaming at some point. But one person in the trailer says his life was the greatest performance art piece ever.
Ohhhh Jenn, thanks for sharing this! Wow! A shocker! I will be on the lookout for it.
I remember when I visited one of his galleries (can’t recall exactly where) and I made it up to the fourth floor and there were all these energetic, loose, gorgeous plein air paintings that took my breath away by their beauty and also from the unexpectedness of finding them there. And now, we discover an even deeper side – painting his demons perhaps….
Art or not? That is a tough one. As someone who has done crafts, it’s the same question. I’ve had people sneer and say “anybody can do that!” And my thought is, ok, but can you? Will you? Or those who say only certain media count as art. But fiber and paper artists may beg to differ. Maybe it involves things that aren’t mass-produced. Maybe it has to do with when it’s more than assembly?
Thanks for your thoughts Christina. And yes, I know what you mean about crafts, or I’ll say, fine crafts. I have friends who are fibre and paper artists who create exquisite items that are definitely art. And the work of ceramic artists. And then there are printmakers. It’s a conundrum for sure!!
I’ve never heard of Kincade, but that story is so interesting- the stuff of a novel or film perhaps.
But a slightly different question- it seems that art that was once original and authentically created (and not at all kitsch) can be so easily trivialised with modern technology, by making it so popular that the image becomes cliched. Having just been to an exhibition of the French Impressionists, we had to of course, exit by the gift shop- and there were all the bags, coasters, tea towels and other flimflam featuring Monet’s waterlilies, Van Gogh’s sunflowers and so on, that people buy. They’re no doubt better than the kitschy sunsets Gail describes, but where do they belong now – not quite where they did when they were painted. Recently there was a digitalised light and sound exhibition in Melbourne of Van Gogh’s paintings-(entirely commercial- not at the gallery). I didn’t see it, and I’m not sure I would, but I can’t help but think about what is left of the artist and his intentions in something like that. I don’t have an answer. But thanks for this very thought provoking discussion, Gail, and to the other contributors.
Ahhhh Judi, thank you for bringing up the whole issue of merchandising the popular and mass-beloved images created from paintings by now well-known artists. It’s a double-edged sword! I understand that galleries use the merchandise to help financially support the shows (just as rock bands do!). However, it does water down the images so much so that we hardly recognise them as coming from an actual painting.
I went to one of those light and sound shows a couple years ago. Pretty as it was, I was underwhelmed and disappointed but I think that’s because I wanted depth and knowledge rather than an embrace of colour and light. I’m not even sure if the experience can be justified as bringing art to the masses as Van Gogh is already well known with many pieces in the public eye. So then we need to say that is a money maker and that the developers are cashing in on Van Gogh’s popularity! The same show with work of lesser known artists would broaden their appeal but because the names would be less known, the show probably wouldn’t attract the numbers that Van Gogh does. It’s a conundrum!
Good question…I don’t think everything has to be labeled. I find artistry in many ways…including the design of clothes, furniture, a well-written joke, a beautiful sunset you are forced to enjoy in the moment…it’s all in the eye of the beholder. I’m not crazy about the soup cans, but evidently it’s art to someone…is it because of the artist…or because of the art piece itself?
Hey Carolyn, thanks for adding to this discussion! Love your list of items that fall into artistry. And….great questions…
Very thought provoking. I think there is something kitsch = mass produced and an element of soullessness because of that. I do think some artists are having a laugh at the viewers expense sometimes but that IS provocative. One of my most memorable art experiences was seeing the response some art gallery visitors had when they saw the Lobster Phone (don’t know if that’s the actual title). It was lovely to see the response it provoked and therefore I realised it wasn’t just a static object. Unexpectedly delightful, art at its finest. Maybe kitsch can achieve that too?
Thanks Claire! And yes! The use of some artists to reflect back some cultural noticings – like kitsch. Thanks for sharing your experience watching others respond to the Lobster Telephone. You can really see how a piece that provokes a feeling is more than just an object. I’m not sure that pure kitsch can achieve that. Maybe a sweet awwwwwww but not much more?
For me the question “what us art?”, was answered by my Art Appreciation course teacher in college, way back once. His answer was does it create the Aesthetic experience, the “feeling”. This was many years before Marie Kondo.
This concept helped me to understand much of the non-representative works out there, but also freed me to dislike what didn’t move me. You touched on this in saying “Kitsch can feel cloying”. That’s not the feeling you get from Art.
By the way, I only got his feeling from your dressed up rock.
Hey Kyle, thanks for your addition to this discussion. Love that you shared the wisdom from your art appreciation teacher, wisdom that’s stood you in good stead especially as you navigate the world of non-objective artwork.
And thank you for your reassurance about my wrapped rock 😀
Loved reading your thoughts on this. I’ve had similar debates in my own head. Its a tough one. I think art has to speak to our hearts. In that context art can be extremely subjective. I get a twinge in me anytime someone compliments an artwork of mine and says it looks so real. It kind of bothers me because that really wasn’t my intention but if it speaks to them, isn’t that the point of art?
Ahhh MaryAnn that’s a tough one! As you say, it’s wonderful when a viewer resonates with a piece, the ultimate compliment being that they take it home. It’s interesting that you “get a twinge” and say “that really wasn’t [your] intention.” I encourage you to look at that reaction and then see what you can do to work on creating something that reflects your intention. Easy to say, I know!
This is hard one and mostly a matter of personal taste: one person’s kitsch is another person’s art. Jack Vettriano was loathed by the critics and shunned by the galleries but absolutely loved by the public, similar to Thomas Kinkade. I like Vettriano but not Kinkade.
I can’t disagree with the assessments in your post. I think Koons is absolute kitsch along with Damien Hirst and most of the Young British Artists.
I think all AI art so far is pure kitsch if it even rises to that standard. I prefer the term “AI slop”
I also like the term “crapstract” coined by Jerry Salz art critic for New York magazine: abstract paintings of random patterns from random data worth craploads of money for speculative investment and destined mostly for storage in tax-exempt freeports ready for the next auction, or where it does get displayed it “makes hedge fund managers’ living rooms all look identical” (this quote from Hito Steyerl)
Glad I got that off my chest
Thanks Brian!! Love what you’ve brought up, that you’ve offered your unvarnished opinion, and also that you’ve gotten things off your chest lol!
I too like Jack Vettriano’s work, finding his paintings imaginative and beautifully designed. And, I do appreciate many of the YBAs, particularly the evolution of Tracey Emin’s art. When I was in Britain last November, I felt fortunate to see her powerful new work at a White Cube exhibition.
Great word by Jerry Saltz! I had to smile at your share about this area of art. Thank you!!
Exploring the eternal questions. That’s the fun of it all. Why, how, maybe, good/bad/indifferent? So many words.
Life lived well is good art, regardless of the medium.
Kinkaid story blows me away. Wealth and severe pain. Am reading his partner’s book. Munch. Bauhaus. Politics and art. Music?
How deep do you want to go today?
Gigantic colors in pastels thrown at paper, or just lie next to the pool and feel the sunshine tingle?
The beautiful and the sublime? or eternal meaning and superficiality? MoMA or daytime TV shows?
You decide. But not today.
( I don’t know if tomorrow looks good yet, either. ) XO,Peter
Ahhh Peter, my grin is wide after reading your comment!! Thank you for that.
And definitely not deciding today lol.
Hi Gail, thanks for this thoughtful piece. I have no answers to when art becomes kitsch, or kitsch becomes art. But I have some thoughts.
When someone purchases a painting for their living room, often they either like it for some reason they can’t explain, or it “goes with” their décor. I think kitsch is loved for the feeling it generates when we look at it, but there’s not necessarily an appreciation of skill, thought process, or emotion of the artist.
Most people know what they like in art. They look at a painting and know right away if they would hang it on their wall. They’ll say, “I love it”, or “I don’t like it”, and if pressed to explain why they like it, it usually won’t be because of the skill or style of the artist. Usually it’s the subject matter (“it looks like the dog I had when I was a kid.”). They love the feeling they get when they look at Kinkade’s cottages. He capitalized on that. (Was his first glowing cottage his only honest cottage painting?)
When I’m drawn to a painting, it’s not only the subject matter that I’m drawn to, but the skill of the artist and the way the he/she translates his/her emotions onto the canvas or platform, etc. through composition and color. The more I know about art/artists and art history, the more nuanced is my appreciation of a painting.
Here’s a thought: Can you appreciate a work of art and not like it?
Here’s another: Why wasn’t Van Gogh appreciated in his day when he’s so widely loved today? Does Time have so much influence on art?
(The more I write abut this, the more I realize I know nothing!)
I love your blogs!
Vicky
Thank you for your thoughtful riffing on this topic Vicky!!
Love your question: Was his [Kinkade’s] first glowing cottage his only honest cottage painting?
I think you are correct regarding how the extent of art knowledge/art history/techniques/skill required (both in painting and concept)/risk-taking etc. affects the way artists view other work compared to those who don’t have that understanding and go strictly by a feeling.
And to your question regarding appreciating an artwork and not liking – speaking personally, I would answer a bit YES!!
And your Van Gogh question…it’s a conundrum for sure and one that’s chewed over by many. Evidently, the colour, mark-making, and emotional feeling that comes through was just too much for the public at the time. So I’d say yes, time plays a part. My question is: Why is work now so beloved?
A very thought provoking article, Gail, and with some (actually all of them) good comments above. It is one of those eternal philosophical questions: when is it real art, or, when is it kitsch? The question can never have a simple answer, as it always depends upon the actual circumstances – the context.
As you indicate, (‘real’) art has the qualities of being handmade (although, a AI may be able to use a 3D printer, it has no hands!), intentional, unexpected. With skills, knowledge, history, emotional impact, conceptual idea, message, care and attention, originality, also all being taken into account. And like Victoria mentioned above, we should consider ‘time taken’ to create an art piece.
The difference between us humans and AI is that AI can never experience, or express emotions, or feel pain! AI could pretend to show empathy with a human, but it would never be real; it cannot shed tears! Give me the handmade stone, any day.
(P.S. I left a tip in your tip jar; I don’t know where you find the time to answer all these (nice people’s) questions)
Ahhh thank you for your affirming and thoughtful comment Trevor! And gosh, you are so right about AI art. I hardly even considered that when I wrote the blog post. So thank you for bringing that into the conversation. I’ll take that handpainted rock too!
And thank you for the “tip” – really appreciated!! 😁