JE sends me this delightful 1950’s ceramic dachshund, which she received as a gift. She asked me what it actually represents in the history of American TASTE. Because I am a lover of this breed and have adopted a series of dachshund dogs in my life, I want to reflect upon the cultural uses of a such a figure.
This figure unmistakably came from the 1950’s. It possesses a few aesthetic properties typical of middle ‘lowbrow art’ of the mid 1950’s:
- Whimsy
- Innocence
- A cartoonish quality
- An element of kitsch, and amusing on a childlike level
- Designed to appeal to the lady of the house
- And as pristine in its sentimentality as it’s lacking in fine art.
Because this article reflects on American taste and culture, I refer you to a book, Russell Lynes‘ The Tastemakers: The Shaping of American Popular Taste. My copy, published in 1954, came out about the date of JE’s little dog figure. This author says something very definite about the levels of taste and what distinguishes each level. Perhaps if Mr. Lynes commented on this figure in the era he wrote his book, he too might call it “lower middlebrow.”
What distinguished this classification?
Think of the figure when you read this passage from Mr. Lynes wonderful book:
“The middle lowbrows” are “the heroes of advertisers,”….as they are ”envisioned as the typical American Family- happy little women, happy little children”…in ”a world pictured without tragedy, a world of new two door sedans, Bendix washers”…in a “world that smells of soap” and “of ambition as well, the constant striving for a better way of life – better furniture, bigger refrigerators, more books in the bookcase and more evenings at the movies.” In short, an idealized world fueled by consumerism….
Does a dog offer anything, besides its shape, that encourages a ceramic artist to make this trinket holder? The answer lies in a certain historically based approach of decorative art produced to make MONEY. Art, of course, with a small ‘a,’ the creation of such Lynes writes about as “lower middlebrowism.” And it fits. He wrote, “to the (makers of more and more things), the advertisers, this (lowermiddlebrowism) is Americanism; to the highbrows this is the dead weight around the neck of progress, the gag in the mouth of art.”
This might seem rather too much analysis for JE’s poor little ceramic trinket holder, but objects reflect “class.” This especially shows in the kitsch art of the mid 1950’s. Lynes suggests the era’s highbrows might support production of “serious” art, and anything not ‘seriously art’ devalues the idea of the creative process. But who decides? In this era, we have the pronouncement of the tastemakers.
Nobody tells YOU what good taste actually is
Here we have a prime example of the uses of kitsch art in the shape of my favorite breed of dog. Exactly at this era (mid 1950’s) when we see the polarization of TASTE. Is there a right way to envision a tasteful decorative scheme for one’s home? Is there a wrong way? At this critical juncture (think of the sophisticated development of advertising exploited so perfectly in Mad Men) in America, (mid 1950’s) TASTE became big business. The explosion of the market for novelty kitsch is an expression of the “lower” end of that market.
Or is it? Is the human being of higher taste qualified to judge a fellow human regarding aesthetics? A great retailer of this era, Richard Gump, head of San Francisco Gump’s, wrote a book called Good Taste Costs No More. He says anyone can have good taste for the same price as bad taste.
1950’s Ceramic Nostalgia
We have this as the nostalgia of TODAY. The piece owned by JE, which was once an emblem of lower middlebrowism, is today accroaching a higher level of taste, because in it we see a reflection of CULTURE based on history. And that somehow adds meaning – and value- to the little ceramic dog.
So now that I discussed WHY this piece will sell for $70, I leave it to you to think WHY there should be a dollar figure on TASTE, whether it may have been purchased in 1954 or in 2020.