Are master's programmes becoming kitsch?

It's the pre-war era of 1939. Mass production and the benefits of the industrial revolution have given rise to “kitsch” art. Universal literacy art, destined for the masses, easily digestible, so-called snack-art. Unlike avant-garde art, which dominates museums, “kitsch” art dominates bathroom walls and Christmas decorations. Fueled by fear of fascism coopting this universal appeal, his love of avant-garde art, and, in no small part, a healthy dose of elitism, Clement Greenberg wrote his seminal essay “Avant-Garde and Kitsch.” Art should be medium-specific, he argued, a painting can't give the illusion of three dimensionality, as that is specific to sculpture, a painting can't tell a story, because that’s literature. To Greenberg, kitsch watered down a “pure” medium to make it easier to sell, whereas the avant-garde should be pure to preserve its nuance. 

As Greenberg warned, when looking for a master's programme, I noticed that most programmes adopt a blend of other disciplines, appealing to intersectionality. I am not against intersectionality, nor am I fueled by Greenberg's elitist anxiety. However, how would Greenberg view this shift? He would likely argue that intersectionality is similar to kitsch, by blending pure studies with others, a programme becomes somewhat of a commodity. It is a commodity as it mimics the effects of the individual programmes that constitute the intersectional product, without forcing a recognition of its causes. For example, an International Relations program combined with Economics studies provides a student with a combination of both already produced, bypassing the process of mastering each field individually. By separating, pure studies adhere only to what is specific to that study, a consequence of which may be a deeper level of nuance. Just as with kitsch art, forcing the incorporation of other studies, it may flatten the unique tools of the study, as it dilutes them with tools from other disciplines. 

The obvious counterpoint is that due to globalisation and an increasingly diverse society, intersectionality is necessary to understand an ever-changing world. Yet, what happens when a master painter, composer, and dramaturge comes together? Perhaps a collaborative theatre play with an exquisite set design, beautiful composition, and a well-choreographed routine. Similarly, a handful of master's programmes that produce generalist students, jacks of all trades, may not allow for the same level of collaboration as each has some knowledge of the other's discipline, and therefore have some notions or set ideas. It may be a reflection of an increasingly individualised society, as everyone becomes more self-reliant and thus less reliant on others' knowledge. This also benefits the corporations these programmes train us for, as they may hire only one generalist rather than three to four specialists. 

Although I personally champion intersectionality as a means of better understanding one another, Greenberg may still have an argument. In keeping programmes distinct, it may allow specialist individuals to sit at a table and collaborate as distinct equals

On Students' Viewpoint, UU students share their views with the rest of the university community. Connor, a Master's student in Media & Culture, is one of the columnists invited for this space. You can also read the perspectives of staff members on Staff's Viewpoint and click here to check out the columns by students and staff in Dutch.