Odd Nerdrum

For images, see www.nerdrum.com

Editor's note:
In the October 1999 issue of ARTnews, a multi-page advertisement published three speeches/interviews covering Norwegian painter Odd Nerdrum's views of 'kitsch'. The reader can draw his/her own conclusions about whether the writings reveal more about Nerdrum's opinions or his marketing strategy. Nerdrum is an intriguing character given the continual push-pull between representational/figurative art and abstract/non-figurative works.

Many think of the word 'kitsch' as representing cheap, commercial, and often ugly objects. According to the published pieces, Nerdrum instead considers kitsch to include the realm of the sentimental, the sensual, and the non-metaphysical: "the gypsy girl and the little boy with the tear. The grandmother with the child on her lap and the fisherman with his pipe. The two silhouettes against a sunset, and not least the moose by the lake." With kitsch, Nerdrum implies, quality comes down to execution and the viewer's empathic reaction, not analysis and ideas.

Nerdrum says that he is not an artist, but a practitioner of kitsch. When Nerdrum says 'Art', he really means modernism, and much of what he writes seems to be a defense of figurative or empathic work in the face of modernism. The writings imply that Nerdrum would not distinguish a Winslow Homer watercolor from a Field & Stream magazine illustration as 'art' versus 'kitsch', but as 'high/good kitsch' versus 'low/bad kitsch'. It is almost as if he is so tired of modernist disregard for figurative work that he wishes to shift figurative art to an entirely new battleground so quality can stand a chance of respect.

As interesting as the writings are, I admit that Nerdrum's opinions do ring of positioning. I have a hard time believing that he wholly embraces the ideas put forth. Nerdrum's works do not offer up mere surface imagery. He has his own blend of originality. Many paintings mix classical imagery and execution with irony and shock-value. While the latter elements have obviously appeared in historical paintings (Manet's Dejeuner), these strike me as modern traits. Nerdrum cannot escape his context -- he is a modern artist. Simply because non-figurative and metaphysical work has been embraced by critic/curator circles for so long does not mean that we should abdicate the definition of 'art' to a narrow subset and seek new semantic lands under the heading of 'kitsch'. But enough of my words, on to Nerdrum. {Comments? Mail theeditor -at- constable.net}

Excerpts from an advertisement published in ARTnews, October 1999

"A work of kitsch is either good or bad, and good kitsch must not be classified as art. This would be an error of judgement. Kitsch is not modern art. Kitsch refers to the sensual and the timeless."

"Innovation is of no importance, nor is originality. Going in depth and becoming engrossed is the goal, for in the depiction of nature itself lies the individual expression."

"Because modernism has conquered art, kitsch is the savior of talent and devotion."

From 'Kitsch -- The Superstructure of Sensuality', Nedrum's speech at the Haugar Art Museum in Tonsberg, Norway, 19 June 1999

"But let us for a minute look at what is lacking contemporary art. What do we miss? I see four things: 1. The open, trustful face, 2. The sensual skin, 3. Golden sunsets, and 4. The longing for eternity. Taken together, these values add up to kitsch -- whether we like it or not.
      The concept of Kitsch, in the derogatory sense of cheap decoration, came into use a hundred years ago when the new Modernism clashed with the old European culture -- the stagnant and regressive world. Most people in the art world seem to believe that if 17th-century Rembrandt had lived today, he would have been a Jackson Pollock or a conceptual artist. I don't. People develop according to their own needs. I don't believe that all talented people bow to their times and follow the Zeitgeist. Rembrandt was dictated by his gift for drawing, just as Puccini was dictated by his melodic repository. A modern atonal composer is a completely different person. He is not as strongly controlled by his own destiny, and is free enough to experiment. Rembrandt would hardly have painted his 17th-centry Dutch interiors today, but the same eyes would have been there, the same darkness and the same sensual skin. As strange as his heartfeltness and entire being was to his own times, so it would seem to us. Even his most timeless pictures would be considered kitsch if they had been painted today.
...
Today, the solid superstructure Art has become an overwhelming force, unparalleled in history. It protects all kinds of intellectual scribble, while a beautifully drawn nude can be criticized to pieces, because a work like this lacks a respectful superstructure.
...
The great misconception of the modernists is that they have demanded everything that a classical figurative painter can not give them -- constant renewal, exciting experiments and compliance with contemporary styles, etc. A painter using the old master style is sensual. His aim is to become engrossed in his work and skillfully render life's eternal moments without prejudice. But in doing this, he is not protected by his time. He has to compete with the best ever created in all times. This is a heavy burden to bear, which becomes heavier when his striving is ignored or een laughed at. When additionally he claims to be an artist, he is of course placed at the bottom of the hierarchy. Because he is in a false situation, all he does is wrong.
...
Kitsch must be separated from art. A kitsch painter works toward different goals than the artist. I know that kitsch is a difficult word, but being strictly pragmatic, it is the only thing which can give the sensual form of expression a superstructure of its own, something which can in its turn restore the shine to a beautiful work. Maybe then can the others -- the modernists -- gain respect for such a work, when it honestly presents itself for what it is, and does not come disguised as art."

From Nerdrum's speech at the Astrup Fearnley Museum of Modern Art in Oslo, 24 September 1998

[editor's note: on how he came to the decision that he was not about art, but kitsch:]

"My path to this insight ran through art history and the story of the great Cezanne breakthrough at the beginning of the century -- how art became the metaphysical applause for the new sciences, and how it got its meaning and substance by being the expression for a certain truth. It could be the truth about man as a social being, as a rational or irrational being, or the truth about the agonized or ironic relationship between the artist and reality. From that time on, art received its justification for existence from the rebellion against tradition, history and power in all forms. Subsequently, it became a characteristic trait with the new art to seek innovation instead of tradition, and legitimize itself by something outside the work of art."

"Kitsch is about the eternal human questions, the pathetic, whatever its form, about what we call the human. The task of kitsch is to create a seriousness in life, at its best so sublime it will bring the laughter to a quiet."

From 'Nerdrum on Kitsch', cover story in Morgenbladet, Oslo, 23 October, 1998, interviewed by Sindre Mekjan

Mekjan: What is beauty?
Nerdrum: "The presence of substance, the sublime presence of matter when light hits it in the dark. When the light tears the darkness off the naked bodies, this beautiful expression originates."

Mekjan: Much of the criticism against kitsch and bad art is ethical.
Nerdrum: "Yes, because kitsch somehow wants to be left alone with its beauty and drama. I believe I am a genuine kitsch personality. I have no ideology, and have never had. I have no religion, but I know a madonna can be badly painted and become a mockery to religion. Well painted, it can surpass religion -- that is what is so amazing about kitsch. On its highest level it transcends truth. At its lowest, truth laughs at it. Kitsch is the credo of aesthetics. It is an experience of life at its most wonderful, without involving morality. If you do involve morality, it's no longer kitsch, its art - religion. Aesthetics is and will be a problem for all of us, because it is all we are left with at the end of the line. We are kitsch on our deathbeds."