{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.05457227138643068, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.008849557522124, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Origins of Kitsch

Kitsch, literally “scraped-up rubbish from the streets” or “bad art,” implies a hierarchy of quality, in “taste,” in sensing, in art. There are many controversies over the use of the term—about elitism, snobbery/inverted snobbery, the “eye of the beholder,” “self-conscious kitsch,” and so on. These largely philosophical issues are left to arguments elsewhere. The claim here is that, by looking at kitsch's origins as a social phenomenon, these issues are (mostly) either solved by default or rendered irrelevant. The essay “accounts for taste”: kitsch is a material manifestation of class struggle. It judges its political effect and its historical agency.