Robert Solomon concludes an article that analyzes the reasons given for condemning kitsch with this defense of the emotions associated with kitschy art: “it seems to me that the real objection to kitsch and sentimentality is the rejection (or fear) of emotions and, especially, certain kind of sentiments, variously designated as ‘tender’ or ‘sweet’ or ‘nostalgic . . . . But the rejection extends as well to the gloomier emotions, and Karsten Harries warns us: ‘how easy it is to wax lyrical over despair, to wallow in it, to enjoy it. This too is kitsch, sour kitsch.’ Mary Midgley points out that ‘thrillers’ have much in common with kitsch and sentimentality, for they too distort reality and manipulate emotion (though different emotions and to a very different end). So what emotions are legitimate, ‘true’ and undistorted? Can art evoke any ordinary human emotions without being condemned as kitsch? Is there any room left in our jaded and sophisticated lives for the enjoyment of simple innocence and ‘sweet’ affection? The trumped-up charges against kitsch and sentimentality should disturb us and make us suspicious. These attacks on the most common human sentiments-our reactions to the laughter of a child, or to the death of an infant-go far beyond the rejection of the bad art that evokes them. It is true that such matters provide a facile vehicle for second or third rate painters, but if such incidents are guaranteed to evoke emotion it is because they are indeed a virtually universal concern. The fact that we are thus ‘vulnerable’ may make for some very bad art but this should not provoke our embarrassment at experiencing these quite ‘natural’ sentiments ourselves, nor should it excuse the enormous amount of sophistry that is devoted to making fun of and undermining the legitimacy of such emotions.”