The author argues how art and literature in avant-garde and kitsch are fundamentally different and explains how kitsch is in no way original or genuine but more so synthetic and imitative while the avant-garde imitates the process of art with the purpose of keeping the culture moving and with the intention of creating art purely as art, kitsch is simply an invention and tool to imitate the effect of original and cultivated art. Its‘ purpose is to satisfy the ‘‘poor masses‘‘ - or people that are simply not part of the bourgeois society- who do not have the time and energy to engage with more valuable art. The author deems certain art as much more valuable because it needs to be reflected upon in order to be understood by the audience. Art that does not need to be reflected upon is not nearly as valuable, it is kitsch. While I agree that the survival and progress of genuine art is in great danger, I think it needs to be added in the cultural context of its‘ Zeitgeist. It is inevitable that art transforms into a more synthetic origin as every other cultural and societal aspect is doing. I‘m not sure whether this necessarily means that the art is immediatly less valuable or not.