Gilles Lipovetsky. “There is something kitsch in all of us.”

Philosopher Gilles Lipowecki, attentive to the metamorphoses of hypermodernity since the 1980s, defines our time as a “civilization of excess,” with both a dominant aesthetic form and a thing-oriented form of existence attached to it. Originally marked by an overload of junk, the bourgeois kitsch of the 19^e century today has become hyper kitsch, invading all areas of creativity and life, from art to design, from fashion to architecture, from TV series to video games; a sign of expanding consumer capitalism. study back The new era of kitsch. Essay on Civilization of ExcessA book written jointly with Jean Cerro.

In the video, barbiethe teaser

“Civilization of excess”.

Madame Figaro . – “Little, the world is kitsch,” you said in an older essay about the aestheticization of the world. Today, according to you, we have passed an age “neokich”. In other words.
Gilles Lipovetsky. – The kitsch universe has changed over time. In particular, the kitsch born between 1860 and 1880 marks a major rupture with the rise of mass consumption society during the Trente Glorieuses. It is this upheaval that made the sociologist Abraham Moles speak, first, in the early 1970s, about neokitsch. Our book is on this wave, asserting the new tendencies that accompany modern consumer capitalism. We often think that kitsch is an essence, an aesthetic, a style, an unchanging way of thinking. However, tectonic changes mark its history. Modern hyperkitsch is neokitsch, which forms in the extreme what we call, with Jean Serreau, the “civilization of excess.”

Let’s go back to the definition of the word, quite plastic. Several reasons are attached to it, often negative: copying, waste, dispersion, overload… What structural feature can synthesize all these faces?
All these characteristics are bad taste, junk, tinsel, sentimentality, too much — which defines the adjunct. Originally, kitsch meant shoddy objects, copies, a world of industrial reproduction that made intellectuals and artists vomit. This kitsch style was used especially in bourgeois interiors. a striking style marked by the proliferation of signs, carpets, hangings, pendants, furniture from all eras that coexist without unity. Everything is an excess, a demonstration. However, the logic of this “too much” will acquire new areas from consumer society and overconsumption. What was originally limited to the “bourgeois home” becomes an invasive aesthetic form, penetrating more and more areas of society: shopping carts loaded with everything, avant-garde art, fashion shows, videos, TV series, luxury brands, modern design . and architecture, but also references, reality TV, cooking, tattoos, roundabouts and even philosophy. We live in a time of extreme and multiplying kitsch, expansive and excessive, and at the same time presumptuous and dignified. It is the spectacular reversal of its value and its social status that has revived the question of kitsch in our societies. Kitsch ain’t what it used to be. He, so long and unanimously cursed, joined the walls of art; Jeff Koons, the world’s most expensive living artist, is on display at Versailles. What was it about? cheap now sells for millions of dollars.

Kitsch ain’t what it used to be. He, so long and unanimously cursed, joined the walls of art

Gilles Lipovetsky

But is a shiny object, exaggerated text, eccentric clothing necessarily kitsch? Doesn’t the aesthetics of overload have its own autonomy, cut off from the contiguous, humiliating, mocking word?
The great traditions of India and China are characterized by extreme ostentatious colors and are socially dignified and valued. Bright colors were valued in Greek culture and the Middle Ages. The profusion of forms is transhistorical, but not everywhere assimilated to vulgar taste; therefore, in our tradition, the Baroque and the 18th century^e century, rococo. We are not yet talking about kitsch, which is directly related to the industrial reproducibility of the bourgeois era. It is a recent historical social invention, but it can be considered as a form of a universal trend that has been going on for centuries, Eugenio d’Ors’ “permanent baroque”. It is the poor, degraded cousin of the Baroque.

“The idea that kitsch is idyllic is out of date”

Do you share Milan Kundera’s definition of kitsch, either “the desire to decorate and flatter things” or “total conformity”?
This definition has its share of truth that needs to be nuanced. Sulpic images, totalitarian ideologies, soothing images of consumerism are well suited to this approach. “Only happiness”, as we say today. Kitsch, condemned by Kundera, is nothing more than a “mirror of decorative lies.” He is right, but he did not perceive the modern metamorphoses of the phenomenon. Today, kitsch artists as diverse as Gilbert and George, Pedro Almodovar, David LaChapelle, Damien Hirst, Wim Delvoye, Paul McCarthy do not in any way hide the tragic dimension of existence or its terrifying aspects. The idea that kitsch is idyllic is no longer relevant to the times. And Kundera’s definition fails to take into account what can be second-rate irony in hyperkitsch, but also creative, unique, innovative; see Jean Paul Gaultier, Quentin Tarantino, Joana Vasconcelos, Maurizio Cattelan.

You talk about “XXL kitsch” with its impressive effects in all areas of life…
At first, Kitz was associated with small objects, the Eiffel Tower in a snow globe. From now on it is on a completely different scale: in China’s giant pastiche urbanisms, mega malls, huge leisure parks, tourist development, bling cities (like Dubai) where kitsch spreads. Hyperkitsch is a multiplying, inflationary, hypertrophic order; Bollywood, India’s Hollywood, produces 1,200 movies a year. The flood of sentimentality on Netflix is ​​dizzying. Kitsch wins on a mega scale.

So we would all become “Homo kitchicus”.
Kitsch is as much an attitude, a way of being oriented towards “things”, an ethos focused on consumer happiness. In this respect, there is something kitsch in all of us, yes. Because we have all become hyper-consumers.

Kitsch is as much an attitude, a way of being oriented towards “things”, an ethos based on consumerist happiness.

Gilles Lipovetsky

Is the now vaunted sobriety the symmetrical shape of an ultralight?
Today we don’t vomit, we fear it because it is part of the carbon industry that is leading to planetary disaster. We are no longer in a cultural critique, we are in a planetary existential fear. Too many objects, too much antiquity, too much disposable… Sobriety movements are calling for an end to consumerist hyperkits as a death machine.

“Kitsch gives lightness, allows an easy form of escape”

“There is a kitsch that happily poeticizes the world”, you still write.
Few have the virtue of being understood and loved because it gives relief, allows an easy form of escape. I don’t think kitsch should be lit. Just do this little thought experiment. Is it desirable that the world be cleansed of kitsch? I do not believe that. There is a charm of abundance, exaggeration, stereotypes, almonds, glitter. Who hasn’t enjoyed buying a crazy gadget, watching variety shows on TV, dancing to a slow summer song, listening to dirty songs? What we suffer from is too much attachment, not attachment itself. Removing kitsch is a moral attitude. it’s not mine There is no civilization without light forms. Moreover, all kitsch is not zero. there is even a brilliant one, for example, in Victor Hugo, Wagner, Mahler, Fellini. If there were only functional, rational, minimalist art forms, how boring.

Since the early 1980s, your work has shed light on the structural motifs of our hypermodernity: void, authenticity, light, aesthetic… Do you see continuity between these themes?
The expansion of consumer capitalism and the dynamics of extreme individualization seem to me to be at the heart of the cultural metamorphoses of hypermodernity. The great social upheaval of our time is the hyper-individualization of lifestyles, attitudes, and aspirations in all groups of society.

What do you think is missing in our time?
It is not the absence of principles, values ​​or even orientation, but their effective implementation. We see it in the climate crisis. We know what the imperative will do, but we are far from reaching the goal set by the Paris Agreement. We have a considerable amount of research on the desired reforms in the field of business administration; however, in the end, dissatisfaction grows, the quality of work is far from satisfactory. The civilization of excess is also stress, lack of quality of life, lack of meaning and recognition.

Where does the flavor of “less” civilization come from, as opposed to too much?
I don’t believe in reduction, voluntary simplicity, happy frugality. Personally, I’m pretty well versed in the ethics of sobriety, except that it’s delusional to believe it’s the solution to the climate crisis. There is kitsch in all of us, and no doubt it will become more and more. Go talk to the Chinese and Indians about voluntary simplicity and you’ll see… Nothing decisive will happen without a massive industrial decarbonisation project. It is not “less” that will save us, but the ever-increasing investment in creative intelligence and imagination, scientific and technical innovation. I don’t believe in “less”, but more in schooling and cultural education to make subjects other than fashion and brands desirable and achieve more beauty and quality of life.