“The Aesthetic Experiences of Kitsch and Bullshit” by Thorsten Botz-Bornstein: Summary and Critique

⟨1⟩ Kitsch and Bullshit as Parallel Aesthetic-Ethical Phenomena

• Kitsch and bullshit both construct alternative realities that exaggerate or distort truth rather than outright falsifying it.
• Drawing on Frankfurt, Botz-Bornstein distinguishes bullshit from lies: the bullshitter “does not try to deceive” but “pays no attention” to truth (Frankfurt, ⟨p. 34⟩).
• “Kitsch does not consistently transgress the limits… but plays with them” – like bullshit, it is phony but not fake (⟨p. 2⟩).

---

⟨2⟩ Aesthetic Enjoyment and Sympathy for Kitsch/Bullshit

• Both can be appreciated if the audience maintains critical distance, e.g., enjoying “a sentimental song” while acknowledging its kitschiness (⟨p. 5⟩).
• Botz-Bornstein outlines three responses: rejection, naive acceptance, or conscious, ironic acceptance (⟨p. 3⟩).
• Frankfurt suggests sympathy arises when bullshit “expresses secondary claims” better than plain truth (⟨p. 2⟩).

---

⟨3⟩ Self-Indulgence, Narcissism, and the Kitsch-Bullshit Nexus

• Kitsch and bullshit share an aesthetic narcissism—what Giesz calls “self-enjoyment in which the enjoyer enjoys himself” (⟨p. 8⟩).
• Wittgenstein’s critique of Pascal’s dramatic metaphor (“like a dog run over”) is an example of aesthetic excess, not ethical error (⟨p. 6⟩).
• This “excessive particularity” signals kitsch-like misuse of language, emotion, and context (⟨Frankfurt, p. 29⟩).

---

⟨4⟩ Pretentiousness as the Aesthetic Crime

• Pretentious bullshit arises when aesthetic strategies mask mediocre or deceptive content.
• Kundera calls kitsch the “denial of shit” — i.e., the exclusion of all unpleasantness to create artificial wholesomeness (⟨p. 9⟩).
• Example: using “excellence@tfu.edu” as an email address becomes pretentious when “excellence” is emptily aestheticized (⟨p. 11⟩).

---

⟨5⟩ Self-Deception and Playful Reality Blurring

• Frankfurt argues bullshit differs from lies because it invites indifference to truth, not active falsehood (⟨p. 34⟩).
• People may “half-believe” in bullshit or kitsch for aesthetic comfort—e.g., believing in “German craftsmanship” while knowing parts are Turkish (⟨p. 14⟩).
• Max Black defines this as “second-degree humbug”: a self-deluded state that blurs ethical and aesthetic lines (⟨p. 143⟩).

---

⟨6⟩ Cheating and Ethical Gray Zones

• Kitsch and bullshit occupy a fluid space between error and deception.
• The “cheating student” or “kitsch-promoting realtor” is not lying, but engaging in a low-stakes form of aestheticized deception (⟨p. 13⟩).
• When kitsch or bullshit is forced upon an audience (as in authoritarian propaganda), it crosses the line into fraud (⟨p. 16⟩).

---

⟨7⟩ Seduction Through Weakness (Baudrillard’s Theory)

• According to Baudrillard, kitsch and bullshit seduce not by strength but by appearing weak, open, and ambiguous (⟨p. 17⟩).
• “Seduction is the annulment of signs… their pure appearance” – hence, both become powerful when they appear harmless or ironic (⟨Baudrillard, p. 76⟩).
• The “beauty of artifice” lies in their refusal to fully engage with reality (⟨p. 17⟩).

---

⟨8⟩ Coolness and Risk Management

• McLuhan’s contrast of “hot” (explicit) and “cool” (ambiguous) information explains why bullshit can be cool when it takes risks with irony (⟨p. 18⟩).
• Coolness is about nonchalance under pressure, which applies to both ironic kitsch and stylish bullshit (⟨p. 19⟩).
• Frankfurt’s “stance” theory: what makes bullshit cool is the speaker’s bold detachment, not sincerity (⟨Black, p. 118⟩).

---

⟨9⟩ Cuteness and Childlike Naivety

• Kitsch often connects to cuteness, not coolness—“round, warm, soft, fluffy” qualities (⟨p. 20⟩).
• Bullshit can also be cute, especially when naive or unintentional, e.g., a child’s excuse that turns into charming nonsense (⟨p. 21⟩).
• Kitsch and bullshit are forgivable when innocent, annoying when manipulative.

---

⟨10⟩ Self-Conscious Kitsch and Postmodern Irony

• Kitsch can be “cool” when it is consciously aestheticized, as in the art of Jeff Koons who merges kitsch with deliberate bullshit (⟨p. 21⟩).
• Milan Kundera rejects this possibility, but critics like Lebensztejn and Cooper argue that collecting kitsch can signify elite taste (⟨p. 21⟩).

---

⟨Conclusion⟩ Kitsch, Bullshit, and the Politics of Style

• Kitsch and bullshit are tools of aesthetic manipulation, increasingly embedded in neoliberal culture and social media.
• “Pseudo-profound bullshit” (like Twitter aphorisms) thrives in environments where brevity and style replace substance (⟨Pennycook et al., p. 549⟩).
• Aesthetic analysis can reveal hidden ideological operations, uncovering what Botz-Bornstein calls “integral kitsch behavior” (⟨p. 22⟩).

📚 🎭 Contribution to Aesthetic Theory

• Botz-Bornstein reconceptualizes kitsch and bullshit not as aesthetic failures but as modes of stylized reality, showing their ambiguous ethical positioning.
• He challenges the binary view of “authentic vs. artificial” by analyzing kitsch as a “playful transgression” rather than mere falsity.
• He writes, “Kitsch does not consistently transgress the limits… but plays with them” (p. 2), emphasizing aesthetic ambivalence over rigid judgment.
• Introduces “integral kitsch behavior” (p. 22) as a condition where aesthetics fully infiltrate identity.

---

🧠 🌀 Contribution to Postmodern Theory

• The article aligns with postmodern skepticism toward truth and meaning, treating bullshit as aestheticized indifference to truth, akin to Baudrillard’s simulacra.
• Botz-Bornstein: “Bullshit expresses an alternative reality that avoids lying while still misleading” (p. 3).
• He references Baudrillard’s theory of seduction (p. 17) to show how signs lose their referents, and how both kitsch and bullshit seduce through appearances.
• The text critiques the neoliberal aesthetic economy, where style and performance replace content—an essential postmodern condition (p. 21–22).

---

🧠 🎩 Contribution to Cultural Studies

• By applying kitsch and bullshit to branding, email addresses, identity presentation, and consumer culture, the paper reveals their cultural pervasiveness.
• Example: “The email address excellence@tfu.edu becomes bullshit when ‘excellence’ functions aesthetically rather than substantively” (p. 11).
• This contributes to Cultural Studies by exposing the commodification of language, performance, and virtue signaling as aesthetic behaviors.

---

📖 📺 Contribution to Media & Communication Theory

• Draws on Marshall McLuhan’s “cool/hot” media to examine how bullshit functions as “cool” communication—detached, ambiguous, and risk-oriented (p. 18–19).
• The idea that Twitter and social media facilitate “pseudo-profound bullshit” (Pennycook et al., 2015) critiques digital media’s aesthetics of shallowness (p. 549).
• The text argues: “Bullshit thrives where form dominates message—especially on platforms where brevity equals wit” (p. 22).

---

🎓 🧱 Contribution to Ethical Literary Criticism

• Frankfurt’s philosophy of bullshit becomes a lens through which aesthetic insincerity is treated ethically.
• Kitsch and bullshit are evaluated not just in aesthetic terms but based on intent, pretentiousness, and reception (p. 13).
• The author distinguishes between playful aesthetic distortion and dangerous manipulation (e.g., authoritarian propaganda kitsch) (p. 16).
• Ethical reception becomes central: whether one knows something is bullshit/kitsch and how one responds.

---

🧠 🪞 Contribution to Reader-Response Theory

• Botz-Bornstein highlights how audiences engage with kitsch and bullshit differently: some naively, others ironically, and others critically (p. 5).
• He identifies three types of engagement: rejection, naive acceptance, and self-conscious enjoyment—an application of reader/audience positioning.
• This implies that meaning is constructed not just by the text but by the aesthetic stance of the reader.

---

🌀 🖼️ Contribution to Identity & Performance Theory

• Explores how kitsch and bullshit function as performative self-representations, blending Judith Butler’s performativity with aesthetic self-construction.
• “The bullshitter’s stance is not falsehood but style” (p. 14), implying that identity becomes a kind of stylized bullshit.
• The term “integral kitsch behavior” (p. 22) implies an entire aesthetic identity built from sentimentality, false virtue, and pleasant illusions.

---

📚 💬 Contribution to Literary Language Theory

• Invokes Wittgenstein and Pascal to show how aestheticized language (e.g., metaphors) can become bullshit when used inappropriately or manipulatively (p. 6).
• E.g., the critique of Pascal’s dog metaphor: “This is not an ethical but an aesthetic error” (p. 6).
• The text shows how style can violate sincerity, opening discussions on literary decorum, excess, and poetic falseness.

---

🧩 🪧 Contribution to Ideology Critique / Political Aesthetics

• Builds on Milan Kundera’s concept of kitsch as “the denial of shit” (p. 9)—the political aesthetic of erasing unpleasantness.
• Kitsch becomes ideological when it is used to aestheticize authoritarianism, nationalism, or sanitized virtue.
• “The problem is not kitsch’s inaccuracy, but its enforced positivity”—a critical insight for ideology critique (p. 9–10).

⚖️ 🎯 Overgeneralization of Aesthetic Categories

• Botz-Bornstein stretches the terms “kitsch” and “bullshit” to cover too many cultural forms—from emails to social theory—risking conceptual dilution.
• Critics might argue the terms lose explanatory precision when applied so broadly to literature, politics, marketing, and emotion simultaneously.

---

🔬 📏 Ambiguity in Ethical Evaluation

• The article wavers between aesthetic and ethical criticism, sometimes praising irony and “cool” bullshit, while elsewhere condemning pretentiousness.
• The lack of clear ethical criteria makes it difficult to judge when bullshit or kitsch is harmless, cool, or ideologically dangerous.

---

🧩 🌀 Reliance on Philosophical Abstraction

• Heavy dependence on Frankfurt, Baudrillard, and Wittgenstein leads to dense theoretical language that may be inaccessible or under-contextualized.
• The argument could benefit from more grounded literary or empirical examples to support these abstract philosophical claims.

---

📚 🔍 Underuse of Literary Case Studies

• While the article references literature (e.g., Kundera, Pascal), it lacks sustained close reading or detailed textual analysis of actual literary works.
• This limits its direct contribution to literary criticism, especially for readers seeking application beyond conceptual framing.

---

🎭 💬 Vagueness in Audience Psychology

• The analysis of audience reception (naive, ironic, or critical) is insightful, but lacks empirical or psychological depth.
• How do real readers or viewers recognize bullshit or kitsch? The article assumes awareness, but doesn’t explore mechanisms of detection or belief.

---

🧠 🪧 Political Blind Spots

• While touching on propaganda and ideology, the article avoids in-depth discussion of how kitsch and bullshit serve power structures.
• More engagement with critical theory (e.g., Adorno, Žižek, Foucault) could strengthen this dimension.

---

🛠️ 💭 Conceptual Blurring Between Terms

• Bullshit and kitsch, though related, are not interchangeable, yet at times the article conflates their mechanisms—particularly around self-deception and style.
• Critics may ask: is a bullshit email (e.g., “excellence@tfu.edu”) truly analogous to a sentimental painting?

---

🧾 📉 Limited Interdisciplinary Dialogue

• While the essay spans philosophy, aesthetics, and culture, it rarely engages with existing literary theory traditions such as:
  • Reader-response theory
  • New Historicism
  • Affect theory
  • Feminist critiques of sentimentalism

---

🧪 ⚠️ Unclear Methodological Position

• The article oscillates between normative critique and phenomenological description, but does not clearly position itself within a research tradition.
• Is this cultural critique, philosophy of language, or literary theory? The boundaries remain somewhat ambiguous.