Unconditional Surrender (sculpture)

For history of kitsch vs. art, see Kitsch.

A notable Kitsch controversy arose in the early part of the twenty-first century in Sarasota, Florida. It is a significant example of the philosophical nature of kitsch, its typical polarization of the public, and its rejection by philosophers debating aesthetics, totalitarianism, and academic art as well as by art critics and fine art enthusiasts. The art controversy is complicated further by assertions of copyright infringement and has the potential to continue to evolve as that moral rights issue is played out.

Background

In 2005 a painted styrofoam statue, one of several copies produced by the staff of Seward Johnson, that measures almost twenty-five feet was placed on temporary exhibit among a display of fine art in Sarasota at its bay front. Sarasota is the location of the internationally known John and Mable Ringling Museum of Art that has been designated as the state museum of art and the community prides itself on its fine arts cultural identity.

As early as 1984 Johnson's work was labeled as "kitsch" by an art professor and critic at Princeton University, who explained its rejection as he was commenting on a controversy raging about the work in New Haven, Connecticut. When the newer statue arrived in Sarasota decades later, instantly a debate flared up over the presence of the Johnson work because his work is panned by art critics and this huge version was seen as similar to roadside attraction kitsch by many in the community. Its immense size and kitschy sentimental appeal attracted great numbers to the venue that became a curiosity for people without concern for fine art. Popular appeal is a frequent aspect of kitsch, just because of the sentimental aspect of much of it. Letters to the editor flamed back and forth in a protracted debate. The statue was scheduled to move on after the show and those who opposed it as kitsch, waited for its departure.

Without a doubt the image is of a popular cultural icon and the profound appreciation that exists for the original is not the issue of the debate that followed not only in Florida, but in Manhattan and California as well. The issue demonstrated again the historical criticism of kitsch, noted in detail at the main article on the subject, and concerns about commercial manipulation of such images in such a tawdry fashion that it diminishes the artistic value of the original subjects or artwork from which it is derived. This is another legal concern that is protected among VARA rights for artists.

File:Vj day kiss.jpg

The famous Eisenstaedt photograph that is the center of the copyright issue

One of a series in different mediums and sizes, the statue is copy of an iconic photograph by Alfred Eisenstaedt, that was published in Life magazine in 1945 and is protected by copyright. Johnson first built a life-size bronze precursor to the huge statues, reportedly using computer technology rather than artistic modeling. He is criticized widely by art critics because of using direct modeling of subjects, to create molds used for body parts and features, and for imitations of the original works of other artists.

Issues of copyright infringement arose and Johnson claimed to have used another source found through research at the national archives, that was in the public domain. Certain details of the statue, however, are present only in the Eisenstaedt photograph, supporting the infringement claim. Johnson also joked, saying that he "got a kick" out of being able to get around the people who "keep art for themselves." Yet, ironically, he placed his copyright claims on these statues. As evidenced in contract proposals that have become public documents presented in a long negotiation at Sarasota, he closely monitors placement of these works at venues other than his own and he asserted VARA rights repeatedly, until some of them were waived at a last resort in order to consummate the agreement.

Expansion of the series

File:US Navy 070210-N-7643B-079 The statue ^ldquo,Unconditional Surrender,^rdquo, which represents a famous photo taken by Alfred Eisenstaedt of a Sailor kissing a nurse in Time Square, New York City 1945, was dedicated to the city .jpg

A version of the Johnson statue that is labeled kitsch and cited as an unauthorized derivative of a photograph by Alfred Eisenstaedt by its copyright holder - on temporary display in San Diego

Johnson proceeded with the manufacture of more copies of the twenty-five-feet-tall version, turning them out by computer in aluminum and marketing them through a foundation he created. Johnson offered copies ranging from $542,500 for styrofoam, $980,000 for aluminum, and $1,140,000 for bronze,

Johnson is a very wealthy man who has made contributions to the appreciation of art by way of providing venues for art and supporting technical facilities that could help other artists learn techniques he applied to build some of his own statues. The foundry he established provides professional service to others as well as for his own works. Although they are pointedly self-serving, most of the facilities and venues Johnson founded now have become identified as nonprofit facilities, organizations, and foundations.

Frequently Johnson funds completely the exhibits of his work. He often donates his statues to contribute to fund raising efforts by worthy charities, but his own statues have never received acceptance by professional art critics. An exhibit of his work at a reputable museum in Washington, D.C. garnered professional criticism describing the works as a "travesty in three dimensions" and calling the museum to task, and finding few critics who would attempt justification for the exhibit at a major museum devoted to fine art. Reacting to the professional criticism, the museum then changed its policies regarding the type of exhibitions it would host.

Marketing through other venues

The availability of metal versions of the huge statue created an impetus to find locations for them, using one of the foundations established by Johnson. The next venue to exhibit one was by the Port of San Diego in a downtown park at G Street and the authority won a local anti-kitsch battle over the statue, installing one temporarily in 2007.

Offered as a gift to Sarasota

Interest in a revisit to Sarasota in 2009 was cultivated by a director of a bay front biannual show and an aluminum copy was placed at the bay front, again, on a temporary basis. Serious efforts were made to convince city officials to accept placement of this copy that would become city property—permanently from a "donor who wished to remain anonymous." The director is quoted that she anticipates the statue becoming an Eiffel Tower in the city, and was said to be negotiating with Johnson about a delayed payment after having been advised that he is eager to see his statues placed. An outdoor exhibit which would last for the entire tourist season then was planned as well that would be composed solely of works from collections owned by Johnson.

The municipal public art committee unanimously rejected permanent placement of the work on the bay front of the city and recommended declining the offer as a gift. Citing that the work failed to qualify as fine art, they reluctantly offered an alternative location on a barrier island in a park near a boating facility for a temporary location with the statue being placed on loan to the city for a given period of time. Pressure was put on city commissioners to make a commitment to the rejected proposal. Pulling of political stings, accusations of objections as "unpatriotic" being leveled, and attempts at circumvention of the normal review process ensued. Aside from the kitsch issue, the copyright issue struck at its lack of originality, however, which remained a most important objection to placement of the statue in Sarasota, which calls for original, fine art in its displays.

Public debate resumed

Public debate ensued as a serious possibility of permanent placement in the community became feasible. The commissioners sent the new initiative supporter back to the review board for public art. Discussion of the controversy resumed, becoming a hot topic in the press and on media outlets. It survived the initial process and moved back to a decision by the elected officials, a highly visible and audible debate of the value of kitsch occurred that might further define current views in the art-or-kitsch dichotomy.

The great controversy being created to define the statue as "patriotic" in order to politicize the issue and attempt to marginalize its detractors was fueled further. The donor revealed himself and set additional conditions prohibiting the municipal government from exercise of control over the location of the statue. The purchase funds of the donor were dedicated to pay fines levied in a copyright suit if necessary, a concept advanced by Johnson as he eagerly sought the first purchase and permanent placement of one of his controversial series after five years of expensive marketing. Essentially, the already-discounted purchase price (to half of the advertised price), would be used to protect the municipal government from damages. The statue likely would have to be removed and, possibly destroyed, depending upon the results of a lawsuit if the copyright holder of the Eisenstaedt photograph, Time-Life sues. The four original photographs of the unidentified subjects taken in 1945 are marketed through Getty Images.

Attorney cites infringement worries

As the day that the convoluted and multi-document agreement for its purchase, the copyright defense funding, and acceptance as a gift to the profoundly divided city arrived, the city attorney voiced his concerns about a copyright suit that he thought had merit. At public meetings, one of the two commissioners opposing the acceptance of the gift had cautioned that a similar case against an artist who copied a photograph created by another artist in a similar manner, resulted in the loss of millions of dollars paid to the copyright holder. Members of the community also testified their objections on the legal grounds as well, stating that agreeing to accept ownership of the statue risked a financial loss that would become the burden of the taxpayers.

The attorney for the municipal government acknowledged, however, that the attorneys for Johnson and the donor had fulfilled the requirements set by the majority (3-2) vote of the city commission, so he would have to approve the language in the agreement that the city manager had been directed to sign upon receipt of the executed documents.

See Also

• Fine art
• Popular culture/popular culture studies
• Rogers v. Koons
• Schlock

Further reading

• Adorno, Theodor (2001). The Culture Industry. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-25380-2
• Braungart, Wolfgang (2002). ”Kitsch. Faszination und Herausforderung des Banalen und Trivialen”. Max Niemeyer Verlag. ISBN 3-484-32112-1/0083-4564.
• Broch, Hermann (2003). Geist and Zeitgeist: The Spirit in an Unspiritual Age. Counterpoint Press. ISBN 1-58243-168-X
• Cheetham, Mark A (2001). ”Kant, Art and Art History: moments of discipline”. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-80018-8.
• Dorfles, Gillo (1969, translated from the 1968 Italian version, Il Kitsch). Kitsch: The World of Bad Taste, Universe Books. LCCN 78-93950
• Elias, Norbert. (1998[1935]) “The Kitsch Style and the Age of Kitsch,” in J. Goudsblom and S. Mennell (eds) The Norbert Elias Reader. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Gelfert, Hans-Dieter (2000). ”Was ist Kitsch?”. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht in Göttingen. ISBN 3-525-34024-9.
• Giesz, Ludwig (1971). Phänomenologie des Kitsches. 2. vermehrte und verbesserte Auflage München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag. [Partially translated into English in Dorfles (1969)]. Reprint (1994): Ungekürzte Ausgabe. Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer Verlag. ISBN 3596120349 / ISBN 9783596120345.
• Greenberg, Clement (1978). Art and Culture. Beacon Press. ISBN 0-8070-6681-8
• Karpfen, Fritz (1925). ”Kitsch. Eine Studie über die Entartung der Kunst”. Weltbund-Verlag, Hamburg.
• Kristeller, Paul Oskar (1990). ”The Modern System of the Arts” (In ”Renaissance Thought and the Arts”). Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-02010-1. (pbk.) / 0-691-07253-1.
• Kulka, Tomas (1996). Kitsch and Art. Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN 0-271-01594-2
• Moles, Abraham (nouvelle édition 1977). Psychologie du Kitsch: L’art du Bonheur, Denoël-Gonthier
• Nerdrum, Odd (Editor) (2001). On Kitsch. Distributed Art Publishers. ISBN 82-489-0123-8
• Olalquiaga, Celeste (2002). The Artificial Kingdom: On the Kitsch Experience. University of Minnesota ISBN 0-8166-4117-X
• Reimann, Hans (1936). ”Das Buch vom Kitsch”. Piper Verlag, München.
• Richter, Gerd, (1972). Kitsch-Lexicon, Bertelsmann. ISBN 3-570-03148-9
• Shiner, Larry (2001). ”The Invention of Art”. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-75342-5.
• Thuller, Gabrielle (2006 and 2007). "Kunst und Kitsch. Wie erkenne ich?", ISBN 3-7630-2463-8. "Kitsch. Balsam für Herz und Seele", ISBN 978-3-7630-2493-3. (Both on Belser-Verlag, Stuttgart.)
• Ward, Peter (1994). Kitsch in Sync: A Consumer’s Guide to Bad Taste, Plexus Publishing. ISBN 0-85965-152-5
• "Kitsch. Texte und Theorien", (2007). Reclam. ISBN 978-3-15-018476-9. (Includes classic texts of kitsch criticism from authors such as Theodor Adorno, Ferdinand Avenarius, Edward Koelwel, Walter Benjamin, Ernst Bloch, Hermann Broch, and Richard Egenter).

External links

• Avant-Garde and Kitsch—essay by Clement Greenberg
• On Kitsch—selections from Odd Nerdrum’s manifesto
• Kitsch and the Modern Predicament—essay by Roger Scruton
• Museum of Bad Art
• World Of Kitsch
• The Allee Willis Museum of Kitsch
• Kitsch or Not?—like Hot or Not, but for kitsch.
• world wide kitsch—kitsch painters and writers
• Why Dictators Love Kitsch by Eric Gibson, The Wall Street Journal, August 10, 2009
• Fulford, Robert (2009-04-28). "Finding kitsch's inner beauty". ISSN 1486-8008. Retrieved 2009-05-04.