2.

So long as there were closed cultural circles and so long
as such still exist, it was or is quite idle to deduce
valuations from a theory. Every one knew what was beauti-
ful: namely, what gave pleasure to himself and his com-
patriots or compeers; the unfamiliar was rejected without
much effort of thought. With the Renaissance began the
process of linking up the various nations; owing to the
new means of production the closed cultural circles were
more or less thoroughly broken up, deprived of their insular
character and dissolved into the general human mass. And
here begins the necessity and at the same time the problem
of aesthetic valuations. (This is, of course, only a frac-
tion of the total development, which operated similarly in
the domains of religion, ethics and social questions.) The
capacity for aesthetic experience is incomparably wider in
the modern man than at any earlier epoch. He is sensible
of the beauty of the sea and of wild, lofty mountains, which
was imperceptible to antiquity; he feels the charm of the
machine with its power and purposefulness, which was denied
by the romantics; he is able to appreciate deeply and sym-
pathetically both Greek statues and negro masks, both the
Gothic and the East Asiatic. This abundance necessarily
produces some confusion, and the multitudinous diversity

3

engenders a superficiality which prevents anything from
panetrating very deeply; thence a lack of judgment and, as
a protection against the perpetual readiness to succumb to
an impression, a craving for a fixed theoretical criterion
of value. As, at the same time, artistic, like every other,
output has, as a result of the new technical resources, assumed
a hitherto undreamed of scope and character, our age is
confronted with a new problem, which had scarcely any importance
for the men of the closed cultural circles - with the
question: "Do I really like what I like? Or is my dislike
the proof of a new and stronger quality which I am not yet
able to appreciate? Is it, _that is to say_, really the herald
of a more profound liking?" In other words: "What is
Kitsch?"

to our subject

Having forced our way/through the crowded and terrible
straits of argumentation, we may now repeat the question as
to the sphere of validity of psycho-analysis. Kitsch is
not one of the eternal problems; it is sprung mainly from
the peculiarity or, if you like, the lack of peculiarity
of the aesthetic culture of our age. The determination
what is Kitsch and what is not cannot, therefore, be deduced
from the fundamental laws of psychic processes which psycho-
analysis is investigating. From one point of view, however,

4

psycho-analysis can contribute something towards the solution. Associated with Kitsch is a quite special form of mass reaction, and what psycho-analysis teaches about these things and about the emotional bases of mass formation is the more applicable since a number of connections with the problem of art have already been established here.

We shall have to disregard the need for a definition of what constitutes "Kitsch". Its main characteristics are usually thought to be sugary sentimentality and omission of the painful and disgusting sides of reality, but this does not by any means exhaust the whole conception, for in addition to rose-coloured Kitsch, there is a brutal, brutal as well as an and bloody "originality Kitsch" and also a "nobility Kitsch", which seems to satisfy all the higher claims. Nor is it helpful to refer to lack of true originality as the distinctive feature, for that is only substituting one ignorance for another. Judged by present-day notions of intellectual property Shakespeare would rank as the most shameless propagandist.

Moreover, analysis of the contents which lie at the base of a work - daydreams or unconscious fantasies - can not offer the blightest clue; they are far too typical in character to afford any criterion. The talentless product of

5

a puberty conflict is just as much built up on the Oedipus complex as Hamlet, and the story of the foundling who is ultimately restored to his parents has given rise to just as many magnificent myths as it has Kitsch films. The difference lies not in the subject but in the manner in which it is treated: the work of art creates new, hitherto unknown possibilities of experience, new approaches to the unconscious base; Kitsch relies on safe and long familiar effects. A tree in blossom under a spring sky is beautiful, the death of a child is touching - that we have long known and no new feature is added to this knowledge. But perhaps a little bit of known fact may be inserted here. The artist, so much we believe ourselves to know, is impelled to creative activity by the sense of guilt attached to his daydreams. Any one who produces Kitsch obviously has no such sense of guilt to contend with, he is freer in relation to the fantasy contents of his production: that is to say, he is bound to it by far less inward sympathy. One might - with some exaggeration but with essential justice - hazard the formula: Kitsch is the exploitation of daydreams by those who have

Consequently, a work of art which in itself can only be accounted Kitsch may produce on one person or another a very

6

deep impression such as is generally only produced by a
genuine work of art - if, that is to say, the daydreams and
with them the "complexes" of the person receiving the impress-
ion are so disposed that they happen to coincide exactly with
what is offered by the work in question. I once observed
an effect of this nature during an analysis where I was quite
able to understand it. The person I was analysing had been
deeply and lastingly stirred by the film, "The Fiddler of
Florence," which, despite the acting and some interesting
details, must certainly be ranked as Kitsch. The film
described, in fact, almost the whole evolution of her suppress-
ed childhood; it dealt with and solved her unconscious con-
flicts: the craving for sole possession of the widowed
his
father, the fear of losing him by/second marriage, the
attempted flight into masculinity in order to escape dis-
appointment, and the final reunion with a rejuvenated father
and discarding of the masculine disguise.

The remoteness of Kitsch from the unconscious and the
daydreams of its author may therefore be non-existent for
the person succumbing to its influence; such a case is,
however, an exception, and the question is: what is the rule?
Can we make any pronouncement as to the way in which Kitsch

9

stainless virtue, who are at first loaded with presents and elegant toilettes and are finally led to the altar by some heroic soul?

To such questions we may reply first of all from the sociological point of view, namely, that the lower, suppressed classes, in so far as they are not educated to independent class-consciousness, accept and firmly adhere to the ideals of the higher class which governs them. This sociological fact has a very obvious psychological background which appertains to our theme. Undoubtedly, where alien ideals are borrowed and imitated the possibility of Kitsch is particularly imminent. It would be interesting, however, to find out something more about the mechanisms by which, whatever the situation - and it is certainly not exclusively a matter of the borrowed class ideal - the fantasy emotional response or, in other words, the satisfaction of aesthetic needs is, as a mass phenomenon, most readily accomplished by way of Kitsch.

If a man wants to fall in love or become a hero or be otherwise impressive and interesting in accordance with the ideals of a way of life that is alien to him, he will undoubtedly find this more difficult than if he were moving

10

in his own familiar, everyday sphere. A crowd composed of
such individuals needs, therefore, a larger measure of help,
and will be grateful if the course of its emotional response
is plainly indicated. The tendency to win this special
kind of gratitude from the public is the infallible road
to Kitsch, although, of course, it may be realized by very
various means - more subtle or more gross as the case may be.
It is always a matter of introducing unmistakably clear
indications, plainly legible signposts, as it were, which
are scattered through the whole work from beginning to end.
and steer the possibilities of emotional response along
definite channels. For instance, the public can only be
successfully identified with definite figures and from a
definite point of view - but with these it can be identified
with the greatest ease. Who or what is good and beautiful
or ugly and reprehensible, who is suffering in an enviable
way and who in only a comical way must be made so emphatic-
ally obvious as to be comprehensible to the dullest intell-
gence. Obviously well-tried methods and familiar standards
therefore,
lend themselves best to this purpose. For the ends of Kitsch,
anything new or bound up with the spiritual experience of
the author is not only superfluous, as has already been shown,

11

but absolutely prejudicial; he must not merely be content
not to seek it, but must take pains to avoid it at any cost.
There must be no hint of the diverse possibilities of psychic
decisions, through which in a work of art first the creator
and then - in a less degree - the person responding to the
work must force his way; there must be no mention of doubt
or of the awful question: "Soul, whither hast thou led me -
what has become of me?" Or, should it, none the less, be
voiced, the reassuring answer must follow promptly and plain-
ly: "Among good people."

For all this, we must not overestimate the importance
of obvious "signpost" technique as an objective aid towards
classification as Kitsch. The boundaries separating the
artistic urge towards clarity and form from the signpost
methods proper to Kitsch are very often debatable in the
individual case. Perhaps it may help us to arrive at the
determining characteristics if we consider the effect pro-
duced in one or another case on an eagerly receptive crowd.

From the point of view of the public, Kitsch has the
advantage that it renders their enjoyment as effortless as
possible and guards them against uncertainty and allusions
to unpleasant recollections. It is no wonder if most prefer
it unreservedly - yet certain limitations and weaknesses
are inseparably bound up with this advantage.

12

Owing to the skill with which the distribution of emotions is anticipated, the public are indeed saved a good deal of worry, including that of choice, but at the same time the free development of their emotions is restricted; the possibility of lifting them by degrees out of the unconscious and letting them have free play is done away with. The process must involve the minimum of psychic activity and must never be arrested. Hence it is that Kitsch, which mainly relies on the old and well-tried, cannot dispense with the attraction of the new or ultra-new: one popular song succeeds another, each season brings its operettas and revues; in one's recollection they all seem indistinguishably alike. But the film-producers, if they are ambitious, search for an original milieu."

The action of Kitsch on an eagerly receptive public is, therefore, easily characterized: it begins promptly and it is soon over. The emotions released are so universal and superficial as to be independent of the individual work. It is applauded and forgotten, like its predecessors, and its successor has a like fate: indeed all of them taken together have only the emotional value of a single work. The influence of a work of art need not necessarily operate slowly, but it may do so, and where it has once been achiev-

13

ed it is indestructible. Nothing less than a total trans-
formation of the personality - apart from variations of
intensity - is required in order to extinguish the impress-
ion left by a work of art; the changes it has wrought are
too considerable for it ever again to become a matter of
indifference. It may be added that this fact, as is
common knowledge, is reflected in the larger dimensions of
historical happenings. The appreciation accorded to a work
of art and the capacity to respond to it emotionally are not
diminished by the passing of the centuries. Kitsch no more
finds a permanent resting-place in its age than it does in
the soul of the individual.

Hanns Sachs