Kitsch in the Work of Milan Kundera
Aaron
Beaver
The concept of kitsch has gained wide currency in the second half
of this century, but the term is broadly problematic. First of all,
the term kitsch
must be understood against the term
art
: is kitsch the opposite of art, is it bad
art,
or can it be a functional part of what is generally
accepted as high art
? Any distinctions drawn at this
(broadest) level lead quickly to a further parsing of the concept:
kitsch as a historico-sociological concept born and fostered in the
modern era (as treated in Calinescu's Five Faces of
Modernity, for example) versus kitsch as an aesthetic, and
perhaps aesthetic-ethical, concept (as treated in Tomas Kulka's
Kitsch and Art). Finally, it must be stated that kitsch
is best (or at least, better) understood in terms of the visual arts,
and in terms of music, where it has been more fully explored; however,
when it comes to literature, there seems to be no reliable, functional
means for defining and analyzing kitsch. In my paper (with regard to
the above-mentioned distinctions) I will treat kitsch, first, as a
value-judgment close to that of a standard dictionary definition: art
or literature of a cheap, garish, or sentimental nature, while
allowing that kitsch may be utilized in a work of art without having
to relegate that work to the status of bad art
or
anti-art.
Second, I will treat kitsch in its aesthetic
context only, and largely ignore the socio-historical question (with
its attendant and important questions of cultural relativism, elitism,
imperialism, etc). Finally, I will propose a definition of kitsch
specifically for the written work of art. I suggest that kitsch as a
literary device is a function of irony. Often it is sentimentalism or
mawkishness put to use by the narrator, whose ironic tone is a signal
to the reader to read this as kitsch.
In the absence of
an ironic narrator or subtext, the sentimentalism; or mawkishness (the
kitsch as such) stands. This may be called unmitigated
kitsch.
In an effort to further elaborate this kitsch-irony
interaction, I will draw on the categories of irony that Wayne Booth
sets out in his Rhetoric of Irony, namely his threefold
criteria of stable/unstable, local/universal, and overt/covert. If
kitsch and irony are as closely related as I postulate, then it will
be possible and productive to apply these categories of irony to
kitsch.
I will illustrate this basic framework for understanding kitsch by
drawing on the works of Milan Kundera, particularly his early novel
The Joke and his later novel The Unbearable
Lightness of Being. The Joke is dominated by the
narrator, Ludvík, whose voice is immediately recognizable; it
is the one ringing with irony. It comes as a great surprise when
Ludvík, at the end of The Joke, apparently comes
to a kind of redemption not un-Dostoevskian in flavor. He weeps, he
strokes the head of his suffering friend. The irony in his voice has
disappeared. Most readers are willing to take this transformation at
face value, as a genuine redemption. If so, I suggest that
Ludvík has become a participant in kitsch. This instance of
kitsch may be further analyzed as stable, covert, and local. We are
strongly tempted to conclude that it is unmitigated kitsch, unless we
ruthlessly separate narrator and author (as we should), and then we
may come to the conclusion that Kundera is deliberately ambiguous
about his stance to the final redemption scene, while Ludvík
has wholly given in to kitsch.
Kundera's later novel, The Unbearable Lightness of
Being, on the other hand, is motivated by an entirely different
relationship of irony to kitsch. The kitsch in this novel is stable,
local, and, perhaps most importantly, overt. We are never tempted to
read the kitsch as kitsch; it is necessarily read ironically. It is
mitigated kitsch. And we always know how his characters are to be
taken vis-à-vis kitsch (Franz is kitschy; Sabina is not). Here,
however, Kundera formulates the concept of kitsch (especially in Part
Six, The Grand March) in such a way as to make its
detection less problematic (it is overt), but its implications more
humanistic (kitsch is an unavoidable part of being human; its only
antidote is awareness of it—and so it is always
stable
), and its relationship to the author richer
(strongly implying that he himself, as author, cannot escape kitsch
any more than his characters can, regardless of his authorial
awareness of kitsch).
The framework of kitsch and irony that I propose forces into sharp
relief several conclusions about the work of Milan Kundera. First, it
shows Kundera's special, compassionate understanding of kitsch: no
matter how ironic one is (as author or character), kitsch inheres in
the human condition and should be accepted. To reject kitsch outright
is to be tempted to fall into kitsch (as Ludvík does); to be
aware of it (as Sabina is, and Kundera himself) is the best way to
guard against its shortcomings. Aesthetic judgment must have a
humanistic component. Second, we see more clearly the important way in
which Kundera is utilizing irony to further his novelistic agenda of
expanding the borders of the novel to include non-novelistic
genres
(such as the philosophical essay on kitsch) as well as
more problematic relationships of author to narrator. To understand
kitsch in Kundera is to understand Kundera's novelistic
process. Finally, the kitsch-irony relationship in Kundera's works has
not been fully examined and in itself shows his development, from
The Joke to The Unbearable Lightness of
Being, as an author capable of ranging over the full spectrum
from ironic distance to sentimental indulgence to complicated mixtures
of both.