Blockage

2 Responses to Blockage

1. Thomas Nephew says:

   June 15, 2006 at 2:01 am

   Reminds me of Guy Billout, who makes illustrations kind of like these for the Atlantic Monthly a lot. I’ve seen the Gonsalves one where the kids are climbing library ladders out to new worlds, I like that one, and some of the others. I don’t think most of it rises to the level of Escher’s technical excellence, but some of it is quite good, and it’s often “about more” than Escher’s stuff.

   As to your question. Ahem – hope I won’t step on toes here, but esthetically, I think you could make a case that Escher’s stuff is kitsch, just a technically accomplished, high quality variety. I don’t care to look up definitions, but “kitsch” to me means something like “simple sentiments to the exclusion of (nearly) all else.” If you widen the definition of “sentiment” to include feelings like “hey! look at this intricate bauble I just made,” then much of Escher’s work fits the bill.
2. WorldWideWeber says:

   June 15, 2006 at 11:56 am

   Thanks for the heads-up on Billout. Definitely a resemblance.

   Interesting that you turn the “kitsch” label back onto Escher (and toes are meant to be trod on, are they not? why else do they stick out like that?). I imagine entire scholarly conferences have been devoted to the idea of kitsch—certainly there are tons of academic papers on it (like this one on Klimt, or this one that touches on Christian kitsch). I think your working definition is as good as any. The question is: why do we like kitsch? and, conversely, why do we not like it? Even when we like it, it’s expressed apologetically or embarrassedly, which is not the case with “art.” Is kitsch like punning? I happen to love puns, but some people just can’t stand them. Maybe kitsch is like excessive punning—or any sort of Johnny-One-Note performance.

   Anyway, thanks for jump-starting some neuronic activity.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.