The pile-on on Thomas Kinkaide - it's not about the art -

[hedgehog]

it's about his behavior. Compare people's reaction to Bob Ross, the "happy little trees" guy. Both men made money, but they treated people very differently.

[Confusious]

1. Was he an asshole?

Didn't really pay attention. Had no idea who he was until a couple years ago.

I think someone said he was to art what ford was to cars. Something like that. Not meant to be nice.

[Syrinx]

2. art vs. cars

I don't grok the comparison.

I guess it's about "the masses."

I think Ford was about making transportation available for the masses, while paying decent wages doing it.

People on DU have long hated on Kinkaide, but I'm not sure why. He painted pretty pictures that people liked. I wish I could do that.

And I really hate the subset that celebrate deaths.

[Demit]

4. It's more like that he 'painted' pictures that were to art like candy is to food.

People like to look at pictures of elves, and unicorns, and rainbows, but it's not art.

He said things like 'God is my agent" and used his religiosity to get rich. He was a flim-flam man. I don't know if being glad that someone is gone & can't do any more mischief is the same thing as celebrating death, but I am glad he is gone. People will find his 'paintings' (they were actually high quality prints done on canvas) will be looked at the same way that paintings of Elvis on velvet are. Schlock.

[Snake Alchemist]

5. Why are elves, and unicorns, and rainbows not art? nt

[CTyankee]

11. OK, I'll tell you what...

I don't know about elves, but why don't you Google "The Lady and the Unicorn Tapestries" of the late 15th century and any of a number of paintings where rainbows are prominently featured by J.M.W. Turner, a Romantic artist of the 19th century. Take a look and then go back and look at Kinkade's treatment of same. I'd like to know what you think. What makes these works, which the art world considers at the highest level of art, superior (or not superior if you want to argue that side) to Kinkade's?

I'm serious here because I really would like to have that discussion with you. It's a good question, actually: what makes one painting art and another painting of the same general subject trash?

[Snake Alchemist]

14. I'm more into steampunk. Never really liked many paintings except for Monet regardless of the

subject.

[klook]

15. "Steampunk Elves"

would be an excellent name for a rock band.

[Snake Alchemist]

17. That is so awesome. nt

[CTyankee]

24. Well, you can compare Monet's treatment of the little footbridge in his Giverny garden painting

with Kinkade's treatment of a footbridge. My guess is that Kinkade was "trading" on Monet's popularity with the American public, particularly with the footbridge scene, to create the illusion that he was doing what Monet did. Not that imitation, in some fashion, wasn't done by the great masters. It most certainly was! Rembrandt copied Rubens (see both artists' Descent from the Cross to see how much alike the configuration of Christ was) but Rubens also copied Titian in other poses. But in those instances, different interpretations/styles/brushstrokes emerge.

I just learned recently that Andrew Wyeth's famous "Christina's World" copied Christina's interesting positioning from a work by Eakins entitled "The Arcadian."
[IMG][/IMG]

[Snake Alchemist]

29. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be realizing from their treatment of footbridges. nt

[CTyankee]

62. I don't think there is anything you are "supposed" to be realizing, except what

matters to you when you look at a painting. You can be stunned by art because it touches something at your core. For some people, for instance, Rothko's empty frames are heartbreaking and some people break down in sobs when they view them (I don't but they don't affect me in the same way). It really goes to what moves you. I have both laughed in delight at works (Joan Miro's "Still Life with and Old Shoe" at MoMA) and I have cried before paintings (one of Van Gogh's wheatfields works at the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam). I sometimes feel as if I am swept away, desert island style, by a work for its sheer power ("View of Delft" seen in person in The Hague, quite a bit different from reproductions seen in art books...it is said that Salvador Dali sank to his knees upon seeing it). All of this is highly subjective, I realize...

[mimitabby]

32. you think so?

if you take a look at the pathos in "Christina's world" you will see a far different story. Christina's world isn't a painting of a serene demi-goddess, it's a painting of a badly crippled woman dragging herself across the field...

[CTyankee]

52. Of course. You are right about Christina. But I do think that Wyeth was aware of Eakins works.

I don't know what Wyeth's motivation was. Perhaps it was an "homage" to Eakins but it could be that the pose intrigued him and fit in with his interpretation of Christina's handicap and her aspiration and determination. That is my guess...

[starroute]

63. Wyeth certainly did value Eakins

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/may/16/entertainment/et-eakins16/2

Dark study of Thomas Eakins
A book by art historian Henry Adams says the American master was driven by a disturbed, abusive sexuality.
May 16, 2005

Perhaps to counter the avalanche of criticism, Adams' publisher, Oxford University Press, has released raves about the book from two contemporary American realist painters with strong ties to the Philadelphia region. Andrew Wyeth calls "Eakins Revealed" "the most extraordinary biography I have ever read on an artist." Reading it, he says, "was like following Eakins' footprints in the snow as he walked down a back street in Philadelphia."

His son, Jamie Wyeth, expresses similar sentiments. "At last a biography that brings fully to life the creator of American art's most astonishing works," he says. "Until this point the Thomas Eakins iconography has been staid and housebroken. Henry Adams' book breaks from that tradition brilliantly."

[edhopper]

45. Not what I have read

"Anna Christina Olson (1893-1968) was a lifelong resident of the Cushing, Maine farm pictured in Christina's World. She had a degenerative muscular disorder (undiagnosed, but sometimes identified as polio) that took away her ability to walk by the late 1920s. Eschewing a wheelchair, she crawled around the house and grounds.

Wyeth, who had summered in Maine for many years, met the spinster Olson and her bachelor brother, Alvaro, in 1939. The three were introduced by Wyeth's future wife, Betsy James (b. 1922), another long-term summer resident. It's hard to say what fired the young artist's imagination more: the Olson siblings or their residence. "

http://arthistory.about.com/od/famous_paintings/ss/andrew_wyeth_christinas_world.htm

[CTyankee]

54. Yes. Correct. Don't get me wrong here. The pose is what I am talking about.

Wyeth might have thought that it served his artistic vision of Christina's struggle. I am just struck by the similarity and my belief that Wyeth knew of Eakins' oeuvre (probably better than we do today) and admired him.

[edhopper]

68. Could well be

artist often take inspiration from other painters.

[BiggJawn]

35. Art is largely a matter of haircut.

A quote of Elbert Hubbard's attributed to his handyman "Ali Baba".

"Art" is subjective. What you like might make me laugh, what makes me go all misty-eyed might make you want to throw up. It's why I don't pay much attention to "Art Critics".

[CTyankee]

55. It is certainly an argument that has gone on throughout time, I agree.

A perennial subject of discussion!

[Atman]

10. "It's not art" is a ridiculous statement.

Kinkade's work most certainly is "art." I find myself in the odd position of defending the guy, as he was a shitheel of a person and a scam artist in his business practices. And his paintings aren't anything I would ever want in my home. But, he was a very talented painter with considerable skill. I think his work is schlock, but who are you to proclaim it isn't "art?" It's just art you don't like.

[edhopper]

22. No he wasn't very talented.

He had journeyman skills. His paintings were adequately painted at best. And he used this skill to paint saccharine, unrealistic paintings that mixed a bunch of mismatched light effects to compensate for no depth or veracity. They were art with a small "a", but they were bad art.
That people liked it was meaningless. People stream to McDonald's, it doesn't make the food any less crap.

[Snake Alchemist]

31. Much like Picasso. nt

[edhopper]

39. Please don't show your ignorance.

As an art student Picasso already showed his talent. Reinventing art in the 20th century is not a demonstration of the lack of talent.

[Snake Alchemist]

40. Why should I consider a stray eyeball art? nt

[edhopper]

43. Because you don't understand what he was doing

or refuse to try to understand it (if you have no interested, why should you) you shouldn't state your opinion based on that ignorance, it only serves to make you look all the more ignorant.

[Snake Alchemist]

44. Maybe you don't understand what other artists are doing? nt

[edhopper]

46. If you are referring to Kinkade

Hardly. I understand exactly what he was doing.

[Snake Alchemist]

47. That is quite an ability.

I could never fathom why artists are often labeled pretentious or snobbish.

[edhopper]

67. His art isn't hard to fathom.

I have no more ability than anyone with a bit of education in art and art history.

Calling someone with some knowledge in a field snobbish is just anti-intellectualism.

[Snake Alchemist]

73. I have never been intellectual enough to tell people what qualifies as art and what does not. nt

[edhopper]

92. Glad you admit your ignorance.

But do you also belittle scientist who know more than you, or historians, or Doctors because their educated and knowledgeable statements don't agree with what you think?

[Snake Alchemist]

93. Now art is a science? Reminds me of parents telling their kids "that's not real music" througout

the ages.

[edhopper]

94. It's about

your anti-intellectualism.

[Snake Alchemist]

95. "In my day we knew what real music was" nt

[edhopper]

98. You speak as if I am condemning modern art

when what I am saying is Elvis painted on Velvet is schlock.

[KamaAina]

89. It took me a while to get cubism

The basic problem with all painting and drawing is the same: How to place a chunk of the three-dimensional world on a two-dimensional canvas. One major advance was the development of perspective during the Renaissance.

Cubism was another. What it is, basically, is a projection of the 3D world onto the faces of a cube, much like maps use cylindrical projections and the like. The cube is then tilted off its axis and placed on the 2D canvas. Hence, the "stray eyeball".

[CTyankee]

60. And besides, Picasso was, with his Analytic Cubism, carrying Cezanne's vision (see his Bibemus

Quarry works, which quite clearly progress cubistically) to its natural conclusion. Which Picasso admits when he said "Cezanne was my master. My only master." Cezanne died before getting there, but it wasn't long after his death that "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon" was painted...

[edhopper]

71. Exactly!

[Atman]

36. You totally made my point for me...a Big Mac is still "food."

You may hate it and refuse to eat it, but it is still "food."

I reiterate that Kinkade was talented. And to say his paintings lacked depth or veracity -- whatever it take for a painting to have veracity, or what that is important -- is just nonsense. Although I'm assuming you are speaking about their creative and emotional depth, as opposed to the pictures themselves showing physical depth. In regard to physical depth, he was actually quite good, and demonstrating a keen understanding of perspective. He was quite adept in his use of color, even though you may hate the palette he liked to use. Your preference doesn't make him any less skillful in the way he was able to execute his craft.

Time for another disclaimer, just so everyone is clear: I can't stand his work. I find to be the ultimate in tacky schlock, just behind big-eyed puppies and velvet Elvisi.

So, we get back to his talent, his skill, and "what is art." His composition, his use of color, his ability to appeal to viewers -- the latter clearly a niche market, but a large one -- really, imho, shouldn't even be open for discussion. It brings to mind a painter I used to have my studio next to. Her style leaned toward impressionist and abstracts. She has become quite popular, and has gallery deals and poster contracts with several major players in the art "industry." I'm sure she is make a healthy six-figure income now. But she paints lilly pads at Giverny, and fields of Texas wildflowers. Many of her paintings she takes straight out of Time-Life nature books and the like. But her originals command thousands of dollars, and she is in several private collections. And also in hospital lobbies all over America. That is the kind of art she does.

I was working with her when she got one of her first offers from a poster/print company like Art.com or Deck The Walls. They offered her insane money, but she really was torn because she thought it would mean she was "selling out." I counseled her, basically, so what is it about becoming popular that means you've "sold out." If you're doing the same paintings people like, but more people get to see them and own them, and you make money off it, what is the problem? You get to pay your mortgage without worry and you get to put your kid through a good college. I'm not crazy about her art, although it is nowhere near Kinkade's on the Schlock-O-Meter, but the big difference is that she is genuine and is not out making fake prints, using factory painters, and calling them "originals."

I don't ever want a picture of lilly pads at Giverny (unless it's an original Monet), but apparently lots of people like her stuff. It is no less "art" than Kinkade's. Again, why most people with any real understanding of what he does truly despise Kinkade is because he was a scammer and a rip-off artist. But I still contend that it is just plain ridiculous to say that he had no talent and that his paintings, no matter how much you despise them, are not "art."

[edhopper]

42. As I said, it's art

just bad art. Like McD's is food, but bad food.
If you are in the art field, you should see that he had serviceable talent at best, but not exceptional skill.
He painted light effects from different times day all on one canvas using colors that do not appear in the real world. that is were his paintings lacked veracity or depth. It was all a calculated dazzle, painted with adequate skill.
There are many painters I may not like but can appreciate what they are doing. His stuff was just not good.

[Atman]

48. I agree with pretty much everything you said.

My points were different, though I still agree that his stuff is horrible. But you know what, I went to see a Gauguin exhibit at the Boston Museum of Fine Art a few years ago. It was the first time I've seen most of his works full-scale. That is, they were not shrunk down to fit in a text book, postcard or poster. Any artist knows that when you reduce a work down like that, and color correct it, the work "tightens up," and often times looks much better than the original. Many of these originals were huge, and benefited greatly from the sizing to veritable miniatures. I have to say, I was shocked at how dull, lifeless, and downright BAD I found many of Gauguin's works, and if I hadn't know who I was viewing, I'd have thought many were downright amateurish.

Of course, there are other parallels between Kinkade and Gauguin, in that they both were pretty much shitty people. At least Gauguin had the benefit of syphilis for his excuses!

[bongbong]

69. art

> say, I was shocked at how dull, lifeless,

Old varnish has that effect.

> and downright BAD I found many of Gauguin's works,

That is a matter of opinion. Some people like him, some people don't. And not all his paintings - or anyone's - is all the same quality. If a museum gets a sub-par work by a major artist donated to them, they will hang it if they have reasons to. Having an exhibit dedicated to one person in particular is one of the more common of those reasons.

[edhopper]

70. I actually agree with your assessment of Gauguin

I appreciate what he was trying to do, but his work often does not impress me. I think his early more straight forward impressionistic work was better than his Tahiti stuff. And he was a giant dick.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

23. That's exactly

what I told another person here earlier about this. No one gets to dictate to anyone else what is or is not art. To each his/her own. Some people think Damien Hirst's cadavers floating in formeldahyde is "art" and I don't. But I can't dictate to them that his work isn't art, if they think it is - then to them, it is. Art is a different thing to each person. No one gets to dictate to anyone else, even though they keep trying.

EDIT: damn typo

[Demit]

66. Skill doesn't make something art. Viewers liking something doesn't make it art, either.

[HiPointDem]

82. What makes it "art" is being collected by rich people. That's the sum & total of it.

Historically and in the present day.

[OriginalGeek]

99. one of my favorite Monty Python bits

Monty Python: Michelangelo and the Pope



Renaissance Choir: [Gregorian Chant]

Servant: A Michelangelo to see you, your Holiness.

Pope: Who?

Servant: Michelangelo, the famous renaissance artist whose best known works include the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, and the celebrated statue of David.

Pope: Ah. Very well...

Servant: In 1514 he returned to Florence and de...

Pope: All right, that's enough, that's enough, they've got it now!

Servant: Oh.

Michelangelo: Good evening, your Holiness.

Pope: Evening, Michelangelo. I want to have a word with you about this painting of yours, "The Last Supper."

Michelangelo: Oh, yeah?

Pope: I'm not happy about it.

Michelangelo: Oh, dear. It took me hours.

Pope: Not happy at all.

Michelangelo: Is it the jello you don't like?

Pope: No.

Michelangelo: Ah, no, I know, they do have a bit of colour, don't they? Oh, I know, you don't like the kangaroo?

Pope: What kangaroo?

Michelangelo: No problem, I'll paint him out.

Pope: I never saw a kangaroo!

Michelangelo: Uuh...he's right in the back. I'll paint him out! No sweat, I'll make him into a disciple.

Pope: Aah.

Michelangelo: All right?

Pope: That's the problem.

Michelangelo: What is?

Pope: The disciples.

Michelangelo: Are they too Jewish? I made Judas the most Jewish.

Pope: No, it's just that there are twenty-eight of them.

Michelangelo: Oh, well, another one will never matter, I'll make the kangaroo into another one.

Pope: No, that's not the point.

Michelangelo: All right. Well, I'll lose the kangaroo. Be honest, I wasn't perfectly happy with it.

Pope: That's not the point. There are twenty-eight disciples!

Michelangelo: Too many?

Pope: Well, of course it's too many!

Michelangelo: Yeah, I know that, but I wanted to give the impression of a real last supper. You know, not just any old last supper. Not like a last meal or a final snack. But you know, I wanted to give the impression of a real mother of a blow-out, you know?

Pope: There were only twelve disciples at the last supper.

Michelangelo: Well, maybe some of the others ones came along afterw...

Pope: There were only twelve altogether.

Michelangelo: Well, maybe some of their friends came by, you know?

Pope: Look! There were just twelve disciples and our Lord at the last supper. The Bible clearly says so.

Michelangelo: No friends?

Pope: No friends.

Michelangelo: Waiters?

Pope: No.

Michelangelo: Cabaret?

Pope: No!

Michelangelo: You see, I like them, they help to flesh out the scene, I could lose a few, you know I could...

Pope: Look! There were only twelve disciples at...

Michelangelo: I've got it! I've got it! We'll call it "The Last But One Supper"!

Pope: What?

Michelangelo: Well there must have been one, if there was a last supper there must have been a one before that, so this, is the "Penultimate Supper"! The Bible doesn't say how many people were there now, does it?

Pope: No, but...

Michelangelo: Well there you are, then!

Pope: Look! The last supper is a significant event in the life of our Lord, the penultimate supper was not! Even if they had a conjurer and a mariachi band. Now, a last supper I commissioned from you, and a last supper I want! With twelve disciples and one Christ!

Michelangelo: One?!

Pope: Yes one! Now will you please tell me what in God's name possessed you to paint this with three Christs in it?

Michelangelo: It works, mate!

Pope: Works?

Michelangelo: Yeah! It looks great! The fat one balances the two skinny ones.

Pope: There was only one Redeemer!

Michelangelo: Ah, I know that, we all know that, what about a bit of artistic license?

Pope: Well one Messiah is what I want!

Michelangelo: I'll tell you what you want, mate! You want a bloody photographer! That's you want. Not a bloody creative artist to crease you up...

Pope: I'll tell you what I want! I want a last supper with one Christ, twelve disciples, no kangaroos, no trampoline acts, by Thursday lunch, or you don't get paid!

Michelangelo: Bloody fascist!

Pope: Look! I'm the bloody pope, I am! May not know much about art, but I know what I like!

[CTyankee]

108. hysterical!

Thank you for my belly laugh of the day!

[Atman]

12. BTW, "high quality prints on canvas."

That is a very, very common way to sell prints and editions. But to make the print you must start with a painting. Kinkade still painted the original pictures; it matters not what method he used to reproduced them for sale. What matters is if he tried to pass those prints off as originals, which apparently he did. THAT is why he sucks, not simply because he made prints of his work (which most artists do, including me).

[edhopper]

25. You are right on this.

It is worse. One can sell lithographs or serigraphs and original prints because of the finite number made in the process. The limited editions are truly that by the nature of the printmaking. But limited edition computer printed giclees pure bullshit, the limitation is arbitrary. He is using the language of real art for a fake product.

[AtheistCrusader]

61. Which often prices people like me out of the market entirely.

I love going to art galleries, but it always saddens me, because I can't afford any of the things I really love.

I may not have liked much of Kinkaid's shit, but it was affordable, which made it approachable to a lot of people.

I happen to like Robert Deyber, and Tim Wistrom, and can actually get decently affordable prints for both. A lot of people will dismiss their work as 'schlocky' as well.

[edhopper]

65. There is nothing wrong with artists

selling affordable prints of their work so more people can enjoy it. It is in calling these prints "originals" and suggesting they have investment value where Kinkade became a huckster.

[AtheistCrusader]

86. I will agree, that is pretty lame.

I am actually not even sure what is entailed in making a litho...

[edhopper]

87. This is simplified but, a lithograph is when

an artist actually draws on a flat stone (or these days plastic) and then the image is transferred to paper by pressing it against the stone. You can only get so many pressings from the drawing before there isn't enough of the litho pencil left. Hence the limited edition.
A Giclee is just a glorified inkjet print. It is high quality and often looks great, but you can print as many as you like.

[marions ghost]

110. You say the prints you buy are affordable--not quite sure what you mean

since your affordable might not be mine, but most people on an average income would not find Kinkade's gallery stuff "affordable." It was marketed as art for those who want to become a "collector" and get in on the ground floor of a rising art star. And it was based on the lie that it was original and painted by Kinkade himself. Obviously this marketing was targeted at novices in art buying. You are smarter about art but most people aren't. America does not really support or promote visual artists.

OK so some of the Kinkade stuff sold on the shopping channel, and the myriad products with images stamped on them might be considered "affordable" -- but we're not really talking about mug buyers. We're talking about how Kinkade made the first part of his fortune on the vanity gallery franchises--and for that he belongs in the special section of hell reserved for scam artists.

[AtheistCrusader]

112. I'm not really sure what an 'average' piece by Kinkaide went for.

Possible it's quite a lot more than what might be 'affordable' to me. And as you and another poster pointed out, he was marketing copies as something other than a copy, which seems highly immoral to me. Almost seems like that would be actionable in court...

[marions ghost]

114. It should be actionable in court...

however, if you've been following these threads about Kinkade, how much would a jury be sympathetic?--not much if even a lot of people on DU don't get it. There is no consumer protection in this country, and when people are scammed they just tend to hide it rather than fighting it because you can't win in court against a rich businessperson with lots of ability to thwart any legal challenge. Even if you can afford to spend the money and ridiculous amount of time it would take, there is shame involved when "buyer beware" righteousness rules. Some gallery owners did win a case against him but God help the consumer.

------------------------------

Here's a recent article that has more info for you:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/04/09/BUNK1O0VFQ.DTL

"Kinkade Works Selling Briskly since Artist's Death"
--is the title but some dealers disagree:


"...Michaan would not be surprised to see Kinkade's originals, which are rarely on the market, appreciate but says, "I don't think there is any lasting value" in his reproductions. "A rule of thumb: Anything that is manufactured and marketed as a collectible really isn't."

Kinkades start at $750 for a 12-by-18, standard-edition, signed (by auto-pen) and numbered canvas reproduction and go up from there, with a bewildering array of options. *

Each image has several editions - such as standard, artist proof, gallery proof, publisher proof, Renaissance, studio proof and master. Each edition has a successively smaller number of prints and a higher price tag. Higher-end versions also have a hand signature instead of a machine-generated one and additional highlighting (applied by trained artists) that add texture and depth.

(snip)

Although Perata cautions customers against buying Kinkades as an investment, she says that some reproductions that sell out do appreciate. " 'Snow White' was released three years ago in August" at a price of $995 for an 18-by-27. Before Kinkade's death, it was selling for more than $3,000, "if you could find it," she says. But one Kinkade dealer, who didn't want to be named because he doesn't want to hurt sales, says the secondary market is very thin. "In the good days, people said they could list one piece of Kinkade on eBay and get 20 or 30 bids. Today - excluding the last three days - you could list 20 or 30 items and you wouldn't get one bid. There is just so much of the art." ...

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/04/09/BUNK1O0VFQ.DTL#ixzz1rfmgsRTt


* (This is an outrageous price for that size reproduction--way out of my price range--I could get original art for that especially if I went directly to the artist--mg)

[Demit]

77. He stood there next to a stack of printed canvases, dabbed on a highlight, signed the canvas, and

his assistant whisked it away so he could do the same thing to the next canvas. I watched him do this. Please don't preach to me. I understand prints. I also understand the concept of make once, sell many times. And oh boy, so did Kinkade. But he was pretending that these canvases were originals. He was leading people to think they were original in some way. He was pandering to them, by relentlessly pushing on the idea that they were buying "art." Moreover, he was using the borrowed interest of spirituality & religion to push people's buttons. God is my agent, indeed.

He was a deeply cynical man, with no more than the same kind of hand skill that painters of Elvis on velvet have. He deserves all the opprobrium he is getting now, for pretending he was more and then capitalizing on it to the hilt, with his imprinted wastebaskets & lightswitches & hand & body lotion sets.

[Atman]

96. Chill. I'm not only NOT preaching to you, I wasn't even addressing you!

I'm an "artist." I make a living off of various forms of visual arts, from commercial illustration to painting. I've had a few gallery exhibitions, and I've been a "featured artist" on one of those PBS fund raising auctions -- in a metro area, with my work featured in the fancy printed program, and someone bought it for MORE than the listed price. I've sold several paintings, though I don't make my living off of them. I'm framing a signed print this week to ship out to a buyer in Florida. So in terms of who is preaching to whom, give me a freakin' break!

How many times do I have to point out that I consider Kinkade a scam artist? But don't you understand that that is not at all the same as saying prints or giclees are "scams." The scam comes from the dark soul of the artist who rips people off. Here is a great example...I have a beautiful print hanging in my house, the original work done by a largely unknown artist named Mark Perrin. He is a god, in my opinion. If you're lucky enough to find examples of his work online, maybe you'll agree. One of the best dry-brush watercolorists I've ever seen, with a crazy Hieronymous Bosch-esque sensibility, but updated to more modern times (especially tropical and water scenes). Anyway, the print I have is "signed" by Mark. It is a photographic print, as giclees and modern repro techniques weren't invented when I acquired it. It is one of my favorite pieces of art.

So, several years later, I find out the signed print I own was actually signed by his wife, who wound up with a few of them during an ugly divorce battle. My signed print is an actual print approved by the artist (and he was meticulous about color-matching; the photographer/print maker was a photographer for National Geographic), but signed by his ex-wife to make a few bucks to pay for the divorce. Ironic, eh?

Here's the deal, based upon your what you say about "prints" being bad things...this print is one of Mark's actual prints. He approved it, it was created in a limited edition. But his wife gave it as a gift, representing it as a signed limited edition. Does it make the "art" any less beautiful? No, but it can be argues that it harms the VALUE of all of his prints (unless you can verify edition numbers). Yet, it is still one of my favorite paintings ever. Maybe this ancient scandal will make it worth more, probably not. Mark has been dead for a decade, and his actual originals are sadly now out of my price range. But this print brings me happiness, because I like the art, it makes me think of Mark, and his wife (who I actually rented gallery space from), and it brightens my home.

The point being, after this long diatribe...why is the print, which you so disparage, any less than art if the people who own it enjoy it? Is your definition of art based solely upon the possession of an original canvas, otherwise it's dreck? Kinkade's stuff is dreck anyway, imho, but it is still art that makes some people happy. This is why, totally separate from the discussion of the nature/subject matter of his work, I refuse to jump on the Kinkade-Is-Not-Art bandwagon. His art is pure schlock. It is bad art. It is art you personally don't like, nor do I. But it is art, nonetheless. YOU don't get to decide what is art, unless it going to hang on YOUR wall. But if you want, you can piss on it, put it a jar, and call it your own art.

Rant off.

.

[Demit]

107. Of course you were addressing me. You hit Reply to my post, and you were quoting my words.

Now, if you would reread the post that this one of yours is in reply to, you will have to admit that I don't disparage prints qua prints; that I didn't say that prints or giclees are in themselves scams; and that I didn't say prints are bad things. And no, my definition of art is not based solely on having an original canvas.

You & I disagree on Kinkade's stuff being art. Of course I get to decide what is art. And so do you. Either that, or neither of us do (in that case, you wouldn't have the right to declare to me that Kinkade's stuff "is art, nonetheless&quot . That's why the question 'What is Art?' is always hotly debated and has never been resolved.

You are not the only artist in the room.

[Atman]

109. First of all, sorry for the disconnect in the thread...

I was looking at the thread tree and didn't see your name. Yes, of course I was addressing you...I just didn't realize I was addressing you. All that nonsense out of the way, your post did in fact seem to be disparaging prints. Prints and specifically giclees. Any print must be limited to an edition, or labeled as an open edition. You and I apparently know that, and the ignorance of this is what Kinkade preyed upon. People who thought they were getting "original" art just because he spewed some DNA into his oils, or touched up the highlights on the giclee with some fresh paint.

These days you upload any photo or painting on your computer to Cafe Press and they'll print it on a wood-framed stretched canvas. On one had, this is AWESOME, because it allows less-reknowned artists to make prints of their work and sell them, just like the big players. But it all gets back to the soul, the integrity of the artist. If you say it's an edition of 25, then dammit, you'd better not print more than 25; and if you sell those 25, you'd damn well better not just print more of them. You close the edition. It is DONE. That is why Kinkade is total bullshit. He was like an artist playing Wall Street games, inventing ways of re-selling shit that had already been sold. That is why I can't stand him. That, and his stupid paintings.

So, what it boils down to is that we just disagree one what can be called "art." I'm pretty much open to anything...I have a set of postage stamps from St. Lucia hanging on my wall. Each tiny stamp mounted and matted in a nice 5x7 wooden frame all its own. Is it art? Maybe they're just postage stamps. But the art on the stamps (indigenous flowers of St. Lucia) is beautiful, and again, gives me pleasure. Kinkade gives me gas. But I still refuse to say that means his crap is not art, anymore than my postage stamps -- which someone talented artist painted in earnest -- are not art.

I guess I just can't understand why people can't admit that art they don't like can still be "art." After all, lima beans and Brussels sprouts are still considered food, but I hate them both. It doesn't mean I don't accept that they're food.

[Demit]

115. "Did in fact seem to"? Fact is one thing, what seems to be is another thing.

The only way people can get to anything close to the truth is to talk about what is true, Atman. That's where we start.

[AtheistCrusader]

19. Let's just be honest and say 'if I don't like it, it's not art'.

Because all of the things you listed can be and are, art.

Was it high quality shit? I wouldn't say so, I certainly would never expect to see any of it in the Louvre, but it is clearly art, nevertheless. You sound like the sort of person that would dismiss 'overproduced' pop music as 'not music'. Nice of you to say so, but that doesn't make it not art.



That looks like art to me. Not technically difficult, or groundbreaking in any way, but still art.

[joeybee12]

30. IMHO, art HAS to be groundbreaking; if not, it's just craft...

That's what Kincaide's stuff is...

[AtheistCrusader]

57. I think the two categories overlap considerably

I would also call it 'craft'. Good point.

[mimitabby]

33. I agree with you

The guy was an artist. Many people love his stuff.

[DCBob]

37. I thnk the analogy is more like McDonalds to fine French cuisine.

Its all food, just some better than others... and it depends on the person which is better.

[Ecumenist]

3. Seems, he was somewhat of a vicious hypocrite with socoipathic tendencies....wow.

Not to mention and conman of the highest order and was sued for defrauding people using Christianity as the hook. Groped women in public, WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION...he was a mess.

[TalkingDog]

7. YES! No time to go into details, but he was unethical and treated people badly.

n/t

[Starry Messenger]

8. Not Ford, more like Amway.

He was found to be a scammer who employed fraudulent techniques to get people to go into business to sell his product line.

[grantcart]

74. Apparently he was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kinkade

Former gallery dealers also charged that Kinkade uses Christianity as a tool to take advantage of people. "They really knew how to bait the hook," said one ex-dealer who spoke on condition of anonymity. "They certainly used the Christian hook."[27] One former dealer's lawyer stated "Most of my clients got involved with Kinkade because it was presented as a religious opportunity. Being defrauded is awful enough, but doing it in the name of God is really despicable."[28] On June 2, 2010, Pacific Metro, the artist's production company, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, one day after defaulting on a $1 million court imposed payment to the aforementioned Karen Hazlewood and Jeffrey Spinello.[24] A $500,000 payment had previously been disbursed.

People criticized him for his plastic approach to art but in real life he was something of a naturalist;

The Los Angeles Times has reported that some of Kinkade's former colleagues, employees, and even collectors of his work say that he has a long history of cursing and heckling other artists and performers. The Times further reported that he openly groped a woman's breasts at a South Bend, Indiana sales event, and mentioned his proclivity for ritual territory marking through urination, once relieving himself on a Winnie the Pooh figure at the Disneyland Hotel in Anaheim while saying "This one's for you, Walt."[32][33]

[YellowRubberDuckie]

104. He liked himself a WHOLE LOT.

He was his biggest fan.

[TalkingDog]

6. Thank you. That's exactly what I keep saying. Hell, I even "like" Bob Ross on my facebook page.

Kincaide... not so much.

[cali]

9. I don't give a shit. it's still stupid. And I hate, hate, hate his "art"

[progressoid]

13. Plus Bob Ross was rockin' a cool 'fro.

[arthritisR_US]

16. I thought his animals playing poker were a hoot. nt

[Generic Other]

18. a few words from the art critics

Nearly 500 paintings emerge daily from this immaculate place…

Today, workers squeegee, peel, glue, dry and highlight The Light of Freedom, which depicts the Stars and Stripes fluttering before a World Trade Center-less Manhattan skyline. The sea of prints boasts a dizzying sameness that would make a Xerox machine jealous. …

Kinkade’s divine yet technical inspiration was the perfection of a process by which an original oil painting — he creates a dozen new images a year — is digitally photographed, transferred onto a plastic-like surface and glued onto canvas. Each print visits “highlight artists,” mostly Hispanic and Asian hourly workers. In a paint-by-number style, they add a dot of red to a tree here, a dash of white to an interior light there. …

There are nine versions of each reproduced image, from Standard Numbered editions, for a few hundred dollars, to Studio Proofs that feature a textured canvas, more highlighting and Kinkade’s machine-etched signature — compete with his DNA, courtesy of mixing the ink with the painter’s hair and blood. …

— Marco R. della Cava
“Thomas Kinkade: Profit of light”
USA Today, March 11, 2002

“Putting Thomas Kinkade in an art-historical context is like trying to put Jack Chick in the context of the illustrated comic strip,” says Peter Frank, associate editor of The Magazine Los Angeles and senior curator at the Riverside Art Museum. “In the age of Photoshop, anybody can do this kind of crap.”

— Paul Cullum
“Thomas Kinkade’s 16 Guidelines
for Making Stuff Suck”
Vanity Fair, November 14, 2008

Sentimentality, as literary critic Alan Jacobs says in a recent interview with Mars Hill Journal, encourages us to “suspend judgment and reflection in order to indulge deliberately in emotion for its own sake.” Reflection reinforces and strengthens true emotions while exposing those feelings that are shallow and disingenuous. Sentimentalists, however, try to avoid this experience of reality and try to keep people from asking questions by giving them pleasing emotions they have not earned. The shameless manipulation of our emotions, says Jacobs, is the ultimate act of cynicism.

Kinkade’s cottage fantasies offer this sort of emotional manipulation. The cottages are self-contained emotional safehouses in which the viewer can shut himself off from true emotions earned through a real encounter with reality, from the rough and sometimes harsh realities of creation, and — most importantly — from other people.

— Joe Carter
“Thomas Kinkade’s Cottage Fantasy”
First Things, June 16, 2010

more reviews:
http://home.conservativebabylon.com/2012/04/07/hack-artist-christian-hypocrite-thomas-kinkade-dies/

[Atman]

41. I think Zippy The Pinhead said it all...

(Bill Griffith doesn't allow image linking, but scroll down to blog posts #69 - #70 for some very good insight, and a GREAT Thomas Kinkade/Zippy comic strip.)

http://www.english.ufl.edu/imagetext/archives/v1_2/griffith/

[Generic Other]

97. "He evokes feelings of a simpler mind"

So true.

[mistertrickster]

20. Good point. Bob Ross also encouraged people to be creative.

Kinkaide just wanted people to consume his paintings.

[CBGLuthier]

21. I put him right in the same class as Warhol

Commercial art at its finest as it almost resembles "art" art whatever the hell "art" art is anyway.

[edhopper]

26. You really don't understand

what Warhol was doing.

[HiPointDem]

83. Making money.

[edhopper]

88. Thanks for making my point.

[HiPointDem]

101. People like warhol aren't hard to understand. They like cash, they like to be around people with

cash. Wooh, deep. He was a confidence man, and he pretty much said as much all through his career.

He wasn't a very nice person, either. Use people up and drop them for the next shiny object. Sweatshop master, paid his people shit while he made millions.

[CTyankee]

27. Do you think we'll see Kinkade's stuff at MoMA, on the same floor with the Jasper Johns and

the Warhols?

One of the curators at MoMA might be able to answer your question. I think it would be an interesting conversation to have!

[joeybee12]

34. Nope, we'll only see them at Sunday sales at hotels...nt

[Atman]

53. Don't be so sure of that...

Check out this blog post from Bill Griffith (Zippy The Pinhead). Apparently there was just such an exhibit at Moma, although it doesn't appear that Kinkade was in it. I don't think he was on the scene at the time this was written (Post #69)

----

This strip (sadly, the referenced image no longer available at the site) I did, I think, apropos of a show, I'm not sure, maybe it was a precursor. There was a show at the Museum of Modern Art in New York, called "High Art / Low Art." Art Spiegelman did a great critique of it in Art News. He did a full-page, "just let 'em have it" critique of the whole thing. I think I might have done this before that, I'm not sure. Anyway, I'm parodying four different artists here. First, of course, Magritte's famous surreal painting of the guy with the green apple floating in front of his face and he's saying, "What's all this controversy over high art and low art?" Then this weeping Picasso woman in the second panel is says, "The distinction has become academic, n'est pas." Then the Keane painting girl in the third panel says, "Just dial 411." And then Sluggo, from the Nancy and Sluggo strips says, "Art is information."

----

http://www.english.ufl.edu/imagetext/archives/v1_2/griffith/

[CTyankee]

58. As I have said, this "high art/low art" discussion is timeworn. It goes on and on. And there is

nothing wrong with holding the conversation. This looks like a creative way of doing that. It gets people thinking about what they really care about when it comes to art.

I am certain in my belief that Magritte is not "low art." My opinion is that he is a pre-eminent surrealist, who added value to the art dialog of his time. I love his wit AND his fine hand. But that is me. Some artists hit me that way with their works. Now this is a subjective decision on my part, I would totally agree. But Magritte was part of an art movement in which he made strong contributions. It's an important era of art and really fascinating, when looked at through the prism of social and technological change. Quite a story...

[Tommy_Carcetti]

28. Except that the people doing the pile-on seemed to make it about his art.

The guy may have been greedy or an a-hole, but all the comments I saw seemed to be directed towards his art first, and then his personality or business strategy second.

And you wonder why the term "art snob" is common parlance....

[EFerrari]

49. The guy's work is art like Fox News is journalism.

If that makes me an art snob, I embrace my inner snob. Might as well go the other 8 yards and call me a liberal elite. It's cool.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

56. Yeah, so what?

Does that require that someone put "finally" at the end of the post announcing his death as if the dude was Josef Stalin or something like that?

[Cobalt Violet]

102. I feel the same way.

His painting are as much art as the owner's manual of my printer is a literary work.

[GoneOffShore]

38. It's Godwin time!

Hitler would have loved Kinkade's stuff and no doubt would have made him the Third Reich's official painter.

There - That should effectively thread kill all Kinkade threads (I hope - because I'm tired of reading about the minimally talented bastard and his schlock and how it's unkind to grave dance).

[dionysus]

106. you win!

[IDemo]

50. Cheesy as Kincaide's work may have been

It was the realization that I would never be part of the school of "art" such as this that made me quit art school and my pursuit of art as a career:

[Quixote1818]

51. Kinkaide was an amazing artist who sold out

He and James Gurney traveled around living in their car doing sketches and paintings. A lot of his personal work is absolutely mind blowing good but he sold out to do fluffy cottage stuff the general public would like to make money and the monster got away from him. I am sure he was never happy because he wasn't doing what he loved but what made money.

That being said, the guy had a rough unhappy life and I really don't see what good it is to pile-on a guy who was tortured in life and is dead now. Even though he sold out his work touched a lot of people very deeply. This should be a lesson about doing what you love and not selling out for $.

[edhopper]

75. His personal work was

serviceable and showed some skill, But in no way was it mind blowing. Gurney is the far superior artist in every way. Perhaps if he pursued that instead of his schlocky crap, he might have been a better artist. As it was, his work did not show any great talent.

[img][/img] [img][/img] [img][/img]

[Demit]

84. So that's his private stuff, huh? Pretty pedestrian.

Maybe on the upper end of weekend painter work, but any curator would flip through those slides without hesitating, having seen it a thousand times. Thanks for posting these.

[Quixote1818]

103. You Cherry Picked some of his worst stuff

It's not easy to find some of his early stuff but a few here are quite good: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/04/09/the-thomas-kinkade-you-didnt-know/

[edhopper]

105. I picked the first few I found on Google.

I think the beach scene is quite nice. My point was that he was an okay plein air painter, but not an outstanding talent,as had been put forward in the post I was responding to.
The paintings you posted are fine, but nothing exceptional, I know dozens of far superior plein air painters. Again he had a journeyman talent.

Looking at your link, I think this is a pretty nice painting;

[img][/img]

But it's not that he painted badly. His skill was serviceable. His art was bad because of the kitschy, fake, manipulative, insincere things he painted.

[marions ghost]

111. Why is it that people excuse Kinkade?

...when they don't excuse Bernie Madoff, Richard Skilling, forclosure scammers, internet scammers, the criminals portrayed on "American Greed," etc etc

Seriously--was his game so successful that people still can't see through it?

[The Straight Story]

59. He should have just done a "Piss Christ" and others would have loved him

Or churned out something as offensive as possible so he could feel superior to others...now that would be art because most people would hate it.

Wonder why he sold so many paintings? Maybe because some people liked them (I didn't myself but I didn't think they were awful).

And his behavior? Makes him seem like the stereotypical artist - got to be a dick (I would say "or a C*!$ but that is sexist, the former is not because men out number women or something like that) somehow or do something weird and crazy and then when you are dead people will buy your art that looks like a kid drew it for millions....

[edhopper]

76. Either you don't actually know any artist

or just get your idea from seeing them portrayed on TV. I know many, many artist, they are among the most level headed, caring people I have ever met.

[The Straight Story]

80. And a lot of people get their ideas of christians from the 700 club

And I also learned if I say "Some of my best friends are X" that means nothing because I can't possibly understand just because I know people of a certain group.

[edhopper]

91. Nice non response

I don't just know some "people of a certain group", I know hundreds of artists and people in the art field who also know hundreds and thousands of others.
What you characterized as the stereotypical artist has no basis in reality, It is a idiotic, ignorant thing to say.
That you defend it instead of admit you are wrong further shows your stupidity.

[LaydeeBug]

100. but DuChamp REALLY did do that. nt

[Starry Messenger]

78. He did that to Winnie The Pooh instead. nt

[LanternWaste]

64. He's right up there with Frank Frazetta and Boris Vallejo

He's right up there with Frank Frazetta and Boris Vallejo in gratifying and pampering the lowest common denominators of their target demographics.

[edhopper]

79. What an idiotic thing to say

Both were far more talented than Kinkade and meant as commercial illustration, not self contained works of art.

[LanternWaste]

81. Having been a fan of all three at different points in my life...

Having been a fan of all three at different points in my life, I imagine we see what we see.

However, I'm guessing many people believe they themselves have an absolute knowledge of what is, or is not art -- the very people I am tempted to pat on the simple head and say, "well, bless your little heart..."




(try the DU Boris memorial threads from some months back when he too passed-- 'art' used far more then 'commercial illustration'.)

[edhopper]

90. Boris is still alive

do you mean Frazetta?

[librechik]

72. it's outrageous that Kinkaide was rewarded with million$ for his unoriginal appeals

to the lowest common denominator -- nostalgic human need for a time and place that never existed. I'm sure jealousy is a factor among those artists who take more pride in the integrity of their work than Kinkaide ever did--and are not as generously rewarded by the endlessly voracious commercial appetitite for sappy crap.

Somebody besides Kinkaide made zillions off this holiday card genius. Something tells me they will make even more now that he's dead.

[Taverner]

85. It's about the hypocrisy

[HiPointDem]

113. lots of hypocrisy out there; this guy's hypocrisy seems to have spawned threads all out of

proportion to his place in the larger scheme of things.

[Mimosa]

116. You post a topic to complain about piling on? OMG.

Pathetic.

And pointless.