ABSTRACT
The term “kitsch” comes from the nineteenth century. One of several suggested etymologies is that the word is German for “smear” or “playing with mud,” and, toying with this, we might speculate that the “mud” in question is emotion and mucking around with emotions inevitably makes a person “dirty.” The standard opinion seems to be that kitsch and immorality go together and that sentimentality is what is wrong with both of them. For example, [Karsten] Harries: “Kitsch has always been considered immoral.” Of course, one culture’s or one generation’s kitsch may be another’s avant garde, and what is obligatory as “compassion” or “sympathy” in one age may be dismissed as mere sentimentality in another. Accordingly, the sentiments that are provoked by and disdained in “sweet” kitsch may vary as well. But whatever the cause or the context, it is sentimentality of kitsch that makes kitsch, kitsch and sentimentality that makes kitsch morally suspect if not immoral. Granted, kitsch may be bad art. Granted, it may show poor taste. But my question here is why it is the sentimentality of kitsch that should be condemned, why it is thought to be an ethical defect and a danger to society. . . .
