In Clement Greenberg's discussion of the avant-garde and kitsch, he explores two drastically different styles of art that demand very different things from viewers and even readers. Avant-garde is a type of art intended for members of the upper class (bourgeois) while kitsch is a style intended for the lower working classes (the proletariat). The text states the following regarding the Avant-garde: “Trying to go beyond Alexandrianism, a part of Western bourgeois society produced something previously unheard of: avant-garde culture. This was made possible by a superior awareness of history, more precisely by the appearance of a new type of criticism of society, of historical criticism." This art style has a great deal of analysis attached to it. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay One must try to take on the artist's worldview to discover the true meaning of this unique painting. Avant-garde artists value originality and strive to create something separate from all other art forms; the artist is looking to be different. Greenberg states: “The avant-garde poet or artist seeks in effect to imitate God by creating something valid solely on his own terms, in the way that nature itself is valid, in the way that a landscape – not its image – it is aesthetically valid; something given, uncreated, independent of meanings, similar or original”. Furthermore, the recipients of this art are the bourgeoisie or upper class and the artist essentially vehemently tries to avoid being mediocre. Greenberg analyzes how the artist's goal is to give such great meaning to his work that it will never be just a surface painting. My use of the expression surface painting refers to art that does not require immense interpretation and requires a different kind of effort on the part of its viewers, if nothing else. According to Greenberg, the avant-garde generates meaning and emotional content due to its unique nature. or overall composition. The following is stated: “Picasso, Braque, Mondrian, Miro, Kandinsky, Brancusi, even Klee, Matisse and Cezanne draw their main inspiration from the medium in which they work. The excitement 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 implicated in these factors.” As a reader we can draw the following conclusion: the great effort of thought and care that the artist pours 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 viewers by watching these masterpieces. In previous lessons we talked about what a work of art requires of viewers or what certain literary works require. For example, the various literary texts we examined in class at the beginning of the semester demonstrated that some writings were easier to digest while others required more attention; the same goes for the work of art. That said, due to the elevated nature of this style that the artist put a lot of heart into, we as viewers have an experience rooted in excessive thoughtfulness as we try to associate interesting shapes and angles with the feelings and sensations of the artist. general intent of the work. Kitsch is very different from avant-garde. As we discussed in class, one should avoid looking at a painting with the mentality of “this is all there is” because there is always more. However, when you look at the art in which the artist used Kitsch, theperception is that it is not necessary to apply so much critical analysis. Greenberg says the following about Kitsch: “Kitsch is mechanical and works according to formulas. Kitsch is indirect experience and false sensations. Kitsch changes depending on the style, but always remains the same. Kitsch is the epitome of all that is spurious in the life of our times. Kitsch pretends not to expect anything from its customers other than their money or even their time.” Kitsch was a name coined by the Germans and according to Greenberg it helped form a "universal literacy". I find it really interesting how Kitsch varies from the cutting edge in its intended experience and intended audience. Kitsch was intended for the proletariat (working class) and the avant-garde was supposedly for the bourgeoisie (elite ruling class). In my opinion, this is a slight insult to the working class, who seem inadequate and do not wish to exercise their minds to the fullest. 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 struggling to make ends meet. The mother and father are both college graduates, but unfortunately they encountered some financial problems that suddenly forced them to move to a one-bedroom apartment in another area of ​​the city. In this example, this family (who may be working class) would not find satisfaction in the empty nature of kitsch art, but they are expected to. I find it stereotypical to assume that the proletariat is unable or unwilling to dedicate the necessary time to analyze a work of art. In terms of the emotional response that kitsch evokes, it is probably more of a universal but still subjective feeling. For example, take Andy Warhol's 1967 work depicting Marilyn Monroe. It might inspire admiration in some who loved Marilyn or perhaps admiration in those who are true Andy Warhol fans. However, whatever the answer, Greenberg believes it appears to be more superficial than requiring an in-depth explanation. Greenberg states: “Eventually the farmer will return to kitsch when he feels like looking at pictures, because he can enjoy kitsch effortlessly.” Greenberg's condescending tone towards kitsch in relation to the "peasant class" was most likely considered acceptable at the time. Furthermore, when all classes of people look at paintings (like the Marilyn painting), we see elements of pop culture and entertainment and we as viewers stop because we like what is depicted or who depicted it. Greenberg would stand by his claim that a piece like this is truly incapable of raising an in-depth discussion. His points present the claim that the overall experience of viewing kitsch does not require one to think hard or squint, but still has the power to bring out an emotion of some kind by causing one to think about one's opinion. . Overall, the experiences, emotions, and intended audiences of the avant-garde and kitsch are opposites from 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 cultures challenged everything Greenberg claimed. For example, the belief that high art must have a certain depth or that only art generates a significant amount of thought was proven false with Andy Warhol's masterpieces. Warhol proved that all art is art! In the same way that we all have our own worldviews and opinions, it is unreasonable to label an artist's portrait as unworthy or inferior. Yes, we can classify paintings/images based on style and techniques).