What makes something art? That question landed—unexpectedly—when someone gave my Mum a rock and suggested she paint something on it.

I let out an audible “Eek.”

My sister Andrea raised an eyebrow. She didn’t miss a beat—and hit me with a zinger.

Pointing to two stones (the bare one and one of my wrapped ones) like we were in some sort of geological episode of Antiques Roadshow, she asked, “Why is painting a rock not art, but your beautifully wrapped rocks are?”

Oof.

Now that got me thinking, Why is one rock considered art and the other not? Is it the wrapping? The intention? It got me thinking about what makes something art vs kitsch—and how blurry that line really is.

Because here’s the thing: kitsch and art often use the same materials. Both can be made with care. Both can spark a reaction.

The art critic Clement Greenberg argued that kitsch is sentimental, mass-produced stuff designed for quick, easy consumption. It relies on formulas and popular appeal. Art (avant garde art in this context) he claimed, is the opposite—challenging, layered, even unsettling. 

“Where today a political regime establishes an official cultural policy, it is for the sake of demagogy. If kitsch is the official tendency of culture in Germany, Italy, and Russia, it is not because their respective governments are not aware of the values of genuine culture, but because they are aware that a culture superior to the general mass-level is not easily manipulated. Kitsch keeps a dictator in closer contact with the ‘soul’ of the people. Should the official culture be one superior to the general mass-level, there would be a danger of isolation.”

~ Clement Greenberg, “Avant-Garde and Kitsch”, Partisan Review 6, no. 5 (Sept.–Oct. 1939), pp 34–49.

Remember that when Greenberg wrote that, Hitler was beginning his expansion into Europe. What he’s getting at is that kitsch is politically useful—it flatters the public, keeps things easy and emotional, and avoids the complexity or challenge that real art might pose. In other words, dictators liked it because it didn’t ask too many questions.

But then—what about Andy Warhol screen-printing soup cans??

Or Jeff Koons turning balloon animals into giant reflective sculptures?

They both played with the question: what makes something art? They played with art vs kitsch on purpose. Flirted with it. Blew it up and dared the art world to call it “low.” They knew the idea of what art is can be shaky—and sometimes fun to stomp on.

Then there’s Thomas Kinkade. The “Painter of Light.” Cue eye twitch. Those glowing cottages, curling paths, improbably illuminated windows…

Critics scoffed. Galleries passed. And yet? People loved them. Hung them proudly. Gifted them.
Kinkade was mocked—and made millions. (And just by the way, in contrast to the sentimentality of his best sellers, Kincade was a master of plein air painting!)

So who gets to decide?

Maybe the real question isn’t “Is it art?” but rather: Where does it fall on the spectrum of art vs kitsch?

For me, what makes something art is the intent. It asks something deeper. It aims to reveal or evoke or question. It’s about risk and courage. It’s about close observation. It combines intuition and analysis.

Kitsch? Kitsch is safe. Sentimental. Decorative. Often crowd-pleasing. And sometimes… that’s exactly the point.

The problem isn’t the rock, the fact that it’s painted, or even that it has glitter sparkling on it (and I actually kinda like glitter, if we’re being honest). The problem is assuming anything becomes art just because it’s been painted.

Art carries risk.
It usually involves skill, sure—but also soul, inquiry, and sometimes a little discomfort.
It doesn’t always sit nicely on a shelf or match the curtains or make you feel cozy.

So yes, a painted or altered rock can absolutely be art.
But, sometimes, not.

A glittery rock can be a cheap souvenir—or a tiny invitation to look again.

Kitsch can feel cloying when it’s formulaic. When it flatters instead of nudges. When it’s safe instead of curious. But sometimes, it sneaks up on us. Makes us feel. Or laugh. Or see something familiar in a new way.

And sometimes, it’s a beautifully wrapped contradiction sitting in the palm of your hand, asking awkward questions you didn’t expect.

So tell me—what makes something art, to you?
Is it the intention behind it? The skill? The feeling it leaves you with?
Where do you draw the line? Please leave a comment!!

Until next time,

~ Gail

PS. Art or Kitsch? You decide:

Mum’s Garden Rock → TBD… Could go either way 😄

Warhol’s Soup Cans → Art-ish. Bold, ironic, commercial.

Koons’ Balloon Dog → Both? Glossy, oversized, and self-aware.

Kinkade’s Cottages → Kitsch (but beloved). Sentimental and mass-produced.

My Wrapped Rock → Art! Handmade, intentional, unexpected.