>>art or decorative objects which are showy, having a striking appearance but being of little value<<
not a very accurate definition in my opinion. I'll break it down and try to explain why.
>>art or decorative objects << Can't novels, fonts, fashion, or advertisements be called kitsch? I think adding >>and other forms of representation<< would be a good idea.
>>showy and having a striking appearance<<
If a representation is show-offish, and there really IS something to show off content wise then it's not kitsch in my opinion. For example, extravagant, frilly italian fashion can at the same time be tasteful and pleasing to the eye.
On the other hand, something can be utterly mediocre and petty bourgeois without a trace of showyness and still make your stomach turn. Think of sentimental horse or kitten portraits done in embroidery.
>>of little value<< ambiguous. what kind of value? surely we are not talking about monetary value? should we say artistic value?
In an attempt to differentiate one's house with another similar house of the neighbours one tends to plant plastic gnomes in the garden or place Delft's pottery or fake, cheap stuff in front of the window. Especially used for Dutch interiors. The whole impression a spectator gets is of disgust.--22.214.171.124 13:20, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC). Interesting. Is Kitsch always a result of showing off, ie. exceeding one's resources?