Does kitsch discard the “interesting”?

George Gessert describes ornamental plants as a form of domestication. Under that framing, Gessert argues, humans have actually domesticated more species for aesthetic purposes than we have for eating… and “interesting” has been just as common an aesthetic aim as “beautiful” has been. I have a hunch: kitsch discards “the interesting” as a desirable aesthetic quality in favor of more traditional beauty and legible sentiments. Annie Schultz describes kitsch as art or media that’s “low quality, overly sentimental, and lacking in artistic merit.” Tomas Kulka (as quoted by Cy Canterel) defines kitsch around the objects and themes in a work: “highly charged with stock emotions”, “instantly and effortlessly identifiable”, adding nothing to the conversation. Cy Canterel writes, “Think of kitsch as an anxiety management technology: it rejects ambiguity, nuance, and difference.” Is the “interesting” by its nature unexpected? (Though unexpected is not sufficient to make something interesting.)…