Why blame Kinkade for Kinkade?

[cthulu2016]

Last edited Mon Apr 9, 2012, 04:41 PM - Edit history (3)

Kinkade was about the worst artist I know of, hands down, but he wasn't holding a gun to anyone's head. He wasn't tricking people into liking rotten, precious insincere art.

There is no "Big Kitsch Prints" (like "Big Oil" or "Big Pharma&quot pulling the strings behind the scenes.

Millions of people liked Kinkade's work because they have egregious taste and their aesthetic impulses are limited to the basest sentimentality.

If there must be a villain (that is "if&quot then it is those millions of people who are at fault here.

If Kinkade had been innovative and sincere he would not have been the world's most popular artist. There was no way he could have been a much better artist while remaining the world's most popular artist.

The people have an existing niche for kitsch (a lovely semi-rhyme) and will reliably fill that niche with kitsch.

Thought Experiment: Now that Kinkade is dead, will the American people's taste in art improve as a result? I would guess no, which suggests that Kinkade was a symptom, not the problem.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

1. do people really blame kincaide for the art or for his political views and ugly personality?

[Warpy]

2. He produced well marketed calendar art

that gave me a sugar overload when I looked at it but appealed to the people who found modern day life too jangling to cope with. I can well understand the fascination.

In fact, I found a paint by numbers Kinkade at a thrift shop that I treasure because I think the whole thing is hilarious. It's expensively framed, too, adding to the hilarity.

There are a couple of city scenes he did that were rather good. However, he painted for a certain audience and was successful at it.

The problem was how he marketed his stuff, selling people prints with blobs of paint here and there done by people in sweatshops as his originals, which they were not. While his stuff will probably appreciate as kitsch, they will never attain the stature of art.

[RZM]

3. Why even cast it as a 'problem' where people are 'at fault?'

Who the hell cares what people like?

It's especially odd that you make this case given your argument that there is no such thing as 'big art' (I don't know much about the art world, but I would tend to think you are right about that). That means that people responded to his stuff simply because they like it. So what?

You could actually make a more damning case about the music industry, which is different because there really is such a thing as 'big music.' I happen to think that Madonna is the most overrated musical artist of her generation. I absolutely can't stand her. I think it's a travesty that she's in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and I have never understood why people like her (I grew up in her heyday).

But in the end, I don't really care that people do. I don't see them as being at fault. I see them as liking somebody that I don't.

[CTyankee]

16. I think he's awful, too, but I feel more sad for the people who like his stuff, not disdain.

Americans don't have a very long tradition of valuing art. Early in our Republic, art from Europe was considered "decadent" and not in line with revolutionary sentiment. From this has come a kind of contempt for the study and reflection of art that Europeans are brought up knowing. When I am in European museums I am amazed at how many families are there, young kids with 20 something or 30 something parents and they aren't complaining. It's just what you do growing up. You go to museums. You learn by viewing works in those museums.

In this country, we don't have that tradition. What I have disdain for is people who are arrogantly ignorant, proclaiming it like it is some kind of virtue and anybody who loves art is a "snob." I will bet that most people, if not all, who are admiring of Kinkade's stuff, really just don't know any better. How could they, if they've never been exposed to fine art?

I see it argued in other Kinkade threads that people like him for his use of color, light, fantasy and what you might call the visual equivalent of "happy talk." I believe that if these people could get more exposure to artists who made stunning use of light, color and their own creativity at narratives they would appreciate them and see that Kinkade is of very poor quality. It is not snobbish to want people to look deeper...

[RZM]

24. I'd never considered taking art back to the founding

But it actually brings up an interesting point about the American identity. Constructing a national and civic identity isn't only about articulating what you are. It's also articulating what you are not. And I think there was a strong feeling among the founders that the US was not going to be like Europe. We weren't going to have a monarchy, we weren't going to have nobility, and we weren't going to closely involve ourselves in their affairs or allow them to be involved in ours. Viewing their culture (and thus their art) as 'decadent' definitely plays into that.

Still, I don't feel sorry for people who don't like what I like. If I feel sorry for anybody, it's for the struggling artists (I'm talking more about music here), who I think should get wider attention and acclaim. But I don't feel sorry for the consumers. If it makes you happy, go for it.

[CTyankee]

25. It doesn't make me happy to feel sorry. That doesn't make any sense.

I am sad because they are missing out on great experiences. I don't think it is a case of their "not liking what I like." I think they just have not been exposed to experiences of great art. I am sure that if they had been, they would like an awful lot of it. How can you like/dislike what you do not know?

[RZM]

26. But your great experience isn't necessarily somebody else's

That's the thing about differing tastes. Wider exposure doesn't necessarily guarantee that people are going to like something. Over the years I've tried to introduce my mother to some of the movies, TV shows, and music that I like. None of them were things that she would have ever tried had I not prodded her to do so. Some things stuck and some didn't and the results have quite often surprised me.

[CTyankee]

29. I firmly beleive that there is "something for everyone" in exposure to fine art. That's the great

thing about it! You don't have to like it all. Like your mother, people can pick and choose what they like and avoid the rest. But you can't know what you might like before you do see it and that is what I feel is lacking. I remember discovering Edward Hopper and then later finding out that there were other artists in his "school" that were also terrific (some not as much as others). Just the exposure to Hopper gave me the curiosity to know more about his style and what the back story was on it. It led me to a fascinating study of what is called the "Ashcan" school, a distinctly American school made up of artists emerging into the early 20th century who were Impressionistic in their style but imbued with social realism and problems of poverty and overcrowding in the city of New York. It was a wonderful exploration.

[Harmony Blue]

61. Should I feel sad about people that like

doom and gloom Goya?

Or Warhol, who is in a way, overrated?

Not really. I like Kinkade's work as it stands the test of time. Good art is appreciated more over time than when initially released, and Kinkade will go down for putting out very good works.

[CTyankee]

66. "the test of time"??

Goya, pretty much. I dunno about Warhol cuz it is too soon to tell. But Kinkade? I think you are being premature in your judgment...and that is an understatement on my part.

[bayareamike]

4. Um...

I'll second the post above me: who cares? Criticizing a dead artist seems like a fantastic waste of time.

I'll let my 80 year old mother know she's "at fault". I'll put her on notice ASAP.

Also, if you're going to criticize a guy at least spell his name correctly.

[cthulu2016]

8. ---

The OP is a counter to a commonplace view that Kinkade was an artistic villain of some sort.

If you don't hold the view being countered then the OP will not contradict you... it will not be about you at all.

The view being countered is the view that "cares" about criticizing a dead artist. The point being made is that if ones wants a villain the audience is as implicated as the artist.

If you do not demand a villian (which is a perfectly wholesome stance) then the OP does not, or is certainly not meant to, comment on your viewpoint at all.

But thanks for the derision -- always welcome.

Your point about the man's name is well taken, of course.

[bayareamike]

10. He's only an artistic villain

to a small group of critics who -- like all critics -- believe they hold special truths about the subject that they critique.

Just curious, though: why, in apparently countering the viewpoint, criticize the man yourself? What's worse, however, is your criticism of the 'masses' for liking his art...

[cthulu2016]

11. Because he is a terrible artist, IMO

I find him to be a dreadful artist and I do find something malign in his popularity, but I disagree with the (seemingly widespread) viewpoint that he somehow tricked people into liking his work.

A lot of people like his work and I am glad they derive pleasure from it. I would rather people buy art I think is poor than buy no art at all.

As to whether it is a waste of time to criticize a dead artist... I know little of him as a man and don't care. My negative comments were about an artist as narrowly revealed only through his work.

The works live on and are as open or closed to criticism as they were the day before he died.

Sorry for the snark level, by the way.

[Fumesucker]

5. Mark Knopfler begs to differ about big art..

[cthulu2016]

9. Big Entertainment is very, very real

My point is that sales of paintings and prints of paintings is not a top-down consumerist-driven industry like music, film and television.

It is a business and thus has the impurities of any business, but the prints are not ultimately a way to sell snickers bars and blue jeans. It's a (relatively) little niche market, like Hummel figurines, that has always been dominated by highly detailed and somehow sentimental works.

If there was a kitsch infrastructure capable of dictating aesthetics to the target audience (in the way popular music often does) the popular taste in framed images would probably be a lot less stable.

[Wait Wut]

6. Yep.

I didn't have to like his stuff or own it. His stuff sort of creeped me out for some reason. Doesn't mean a damned thing to people who thought he was good. I don't like a lot of things a lot of people do like. Not everyone has the same, perfect, taste that I do. Not their fault.

[tawadi]

7. The correct spelling is Kinkade, not that it matters

There were many artists, in their day, who were virtual outcasts of the art world. The first one who comes to mind is Van Gogh. Maybe time will soften the critics of Kindade's work, maybe not. Dont get me wrong, Kinkade was certainly no Vincent Willem van Gogh. On the other hand, his paintings have merit.

And I can't help but wonder if what some people lack seeing, in Kinkade's paintings, is the beauty of the mountains. Not everyone has experienced it. The unique reflections moonlight and snow can create in a truly serene setting...miles and miles from nowhere. I'm just wondering about this.

I also can't help but wonder if much of the hatred is really against the art or the fact he was a very outspoken Christian. There seems to be a tremendous amount of intolerance for Evangelicals on political forums. And although they often step on my last nerve, I don't go out of my way to crush their reputation into the ground.

Just my .02.

[edhopper]

21. No he did not paint mountains particularly well

he tried to copy the work of Church and Bierstadt and other Hudson River painters without the actual feel of the scene that they portrayed.
His lighting was fake, portraying several times of day in a single painting. And his skill was workmenlike at best, with no superior painting talent.
Hid paintings are vacuous pieces of contrived commercialism with no real merit.
I understand that people enjoyed looking at them. But people tell me they enjoy McDonald's fries. But they have no nutritional value and make me ill.

Kinkade

[img][/img]


Bierstadt:

[img][/img]

I hope you can see the difference.

[tawadi]

27. Poor lighting? The same could be said about many famous paintings

Exhibit A:



London: Houses of Parliament at Sunset

by Claude Monet

[edhopper]

31. A fantastic series

I saw them in person at a Museum. Are trying to say that Monet did not capture the light in that painting?
If so, you are way off base.

[tawadi]

32. Not really saying that

Trying to point out how light isn't necessarily poor or "accurate" in art. The light in Monet's painting comes from many different directions too.

[CTyankee]

34. So you are comparing Kinkade to Monet here?

I just want to make sure that is what you are saying?

[tawadi]

35. Of course not

We were discussing light. Showing light in art. And what is considered "fake lighting" in a painting. It was the easiest example of fine art which shows lighting from all directions.

Man, you know, it takes a lot of effort and time to make a simple point around here.

[CTyankee]

36. And from what I have seen, I still do not understand your point.

I think there is a difference. Doesn't it depend on whether a great artist does it or not a so great artist?

[edhopper]

62. No it doesn't

Monet is portraying the diffused light of a late day sun through the haze of London. The Parliament in front of the sun is dark and the soft light is reflected on the water. Everything fits with the time of day this is painted.
Kinkade has midday dappled sunlight with a sunset sky with a nighttime light in a cottage window. That is one of the big reasons his art is so bad.

[CTyankee]

33. Awwrgg! What the hell....

Hijacking the Hudson River School is just horrible. How dare he try this?

dear god...

[Quixote1818]

39. To be fair, here is a better Kinkade image of Yosemite

And keep in mind that Kinkade probably did that image you show in less than a month. Bierstadt would often work on one painting for a year.

[edhopper]

64. Except for that too large mountain in the back.

Where he is attempting something Bierstadt did and not pulling it off. This is not badly painted. But I don't think he was a bad artist because of his talent. He had a moderately professional painting skill. It is the awful kitschy, phony paintings that mad him so popular that are bad art.

[Art_from_Ark]

40. Bierstadt-- Sierra Nevada Morning

That was the first painting that I saw in person that made a huge impression on me. Gilcrease Museum, Tulsa, Oklahoma, November 1975. I went with my school's history club to that museum, and when I entered the room where that huge painting was hanging, it hit me like a ton of bricks. I almost had to be dragged out of the room. It truly is a remarkable painting.

[CTyankee]

65. Art has that effect on me often. I am sometimes speechless in front of it.

The Hudson River School tends to the "magnificent." They are wonderful works to experience! The experience you cite is the reason I say if more Americans had better exposure to art, they wouldn't be so hot for Kinkade.

[Harmony Blue]

58. I don't see the difference

Bierstadt was well known for painting in famous European mountains (eg. Alps) into American West scenes to make his paintings look more majestic.

I like Kinkade's work, and Bierstadt was merely using techniques that Da Vinci developed hundreds of years earlier.

[edhopper]

63. That shows an incredible lack

of understanding art history and painting technique.

[MissMarple]

70. Good point.

I didn't see your post until I had posted mine on Bierstadt. Clearly there is no comparision beyond the merely superficial, but apparently both have their critics. I like Bierstadt and have since I was around ten, which is probably why I still like to see his paintings. Very nostalgic. They often put me in mind of the poem "Hiawatha".

[Mariana]

43. A very outspoken Christian who defrauded lots and lots of people.

Are you really sure you want to point to someone like this as an example of a Christian? Don't imagine it's all about his lousy paintings. Even if his works were magnificent, he'd have been no less a crook.

[Snake Alchemist]

12. paraphrased as "people are just stupid". This is sure to win converts. nt

[CTyankee]

18. Not stupid, just not well educated on art and I don't mean just in the academic sense, but

more in the experience of art as something they do because their family did. An expectation that great art is part of life and is a great thing in one's life, to be experienced as often as possible. I think so many people just don't know any better. It's a limitation and it's too bad, really. They could get so much more out of the good stuff than Kinkade could ever offer them. For Kinkade to be one's "end all and be all" in terms of what they think art is, is just sad. They are deprived of great pleasures.

[Snake Alchemist]

19. It reminds me of parents telling their kids "that's not REAL music" throughout the ages. nt

[CTyankee]

22. Not really. There are many fine musicians who can oscillate from appreciation for Bach

and Mozart to appreciation for some icons of rock, country or jazz. There are greats in all of those musical genres.

[Tom Ripley]

57. +1,000,000

[Mimosa]

52. Ahh, c'mon

CTyankee, art is my passion. I'd been an appraiser and collector for more years than I care to admit.

Some of Kinkade's earlier works were good. Occasionally when I was clicking the remote I'd come across him selling his stuff on the home shopping channels. The last few years his quality had declined terribly. The nadir were those Disney themed prints. :lol: One could easily see Kinkade had the face of a serious drinker.

People are different and we all have our limitations. Certain people visit my home and they definitely will never appreciate what I believe is the 'good stuff'. 17th century Tibetan bronze Buddhas, certain Haitian artists and all sorts of classic sketches might be to my taste but not to yours or someone else's.

Another friend might adore American folk artists. For a while I was transfixed by Sister Gertude Morgan's paintings and Bessie Harvey's strange sculptures. I guess the only way they'd be superiour to Kinkade's work might be sincerity.

But I sure would rather see one of the better Kinkades hanging on a wall than nothing at all. Or maybe nothing at all than one of his Disney themed 'paintings'.

I think Kinkade is to painting what Stephen King is to literature. :lol:

[cthulu2016]

30. How demented would a person have to be to seek converts?

Some of us think that posting in an internet forum is an expressive act, not limited to propoganda or cynical manipulation.

I seek no "converts" to my way of thinking. What on Earth would I do with them? Do you suggest I flatter people into agreeing with me? Then what... do I start soliciting contributions?

How politics corrupts... am I supposed to be campaigning for something when offering an opinion of cheesy calendar art?

Goodness.

[Surya Gayatri]

44. And "boom" goes the dynamite (in a most

polite, diplomatic and well-written way, of course...)

[hobbit709]

13. Nobody's ever gone broke underestimating the bad taste of the American public

[CTyankee]

20. Americans are bombarded by the right wing that those bad "socialist" countries of western

Europe are awful places. So it is not surprising that so many Americans have no education in (nor any real desire for) the great art that Europeans produced over many centuries. The better traveled Americans are, the broader their horizons. The more they know of the culture of other countries, the more great art they can experience. But they can't do it by spurning whole countries based on simplistic nonsense coming from the Right Wing. No wonder they like Kinkade...

[fishwax]

14. most people I know don't blame him for his (inoffensive) art but for his business plan

His art isn't innovative or challenging--it can be, at best, pleasant, which I suppose is not always such a bad thing. Neither the art nor the tastes of those who like it offends me. But most of the people I know who were upset about his role as an artist had to do with his business scheme, which (as I understand it) defrauded gallery owners, set up a factory line for "genuine" Thomas Kincade paintings, and so on. There is also his personal behavior, and of course, some people dislike his use of religion to sell his wares (particularly in light of the ethically questionable business model).

Certainly to some extent the anger sometimes leveled at TK is related to disapproval of public taste, a function of his popularity in spite of what many see as his mediocrity. Ire is often directed at things that are extremely popular with the general public in spite of general critical disdain--pop stars like Justin Bieber, books like the DaVinci Code, movies with car crashes, and so on. But I don't think the reaction will be quite as pronounced when Dan Brown passes away.

[LynneSin]

15. They like Kinkade's art because they don't have to think about it

That's my guess.

I don't see Kinkade's work as 'art' but more like decoration or kitsch. Maybe because looking at the work Kinkade did it wasn't exactly moving to me. It was a pretty picture of a cottage or a church or a lighthouse that was mass produced into an Art Corporation where once again the 1% made money by selling stuff to the 99%. And boy did Kinkade sell because there was once Kinkade stores in malls across the nation. Never saw that with Pablo Picasso or Vincent Van Gogh.

But for your average person, perhaps they didn't want art that made them think or inspired them - they just had empty walls or knick knack shelves that needed something pretty hanging there.

But I read where some woman went out the day she heard of Kinkade's death and bought $13000 worth of his artwork. I hate to disappoint that woman but that probably wasn't the wisest investment. When an artist is overproduced usually the value is lost. But then again if that $13000 worth of pantings makes her happy then who am I to complain?

[Harmony Blue]

60. I don't agree.

Not only does Dali's art provoke thought, but so does Kinkade's in my opinion. If you look at Kinkades early works versus his mature works it is interesting to compare and contrast the formal elements and the design elements he employed. The same with Dali really, especially given how drastically his art changed as he matured.

[JustAnotherGen]

17. Marrying a juried artist this Sunday

I love him, I love art. We like - really really really dig it at our house. It's a third of our livelihood.

So that said, I think we have to look at the 'mass print' art world versus the commissioned/juried ones. Vastly different. I always looked at his work as appealing to the same people that threw up the 'self-esteem' poster when I was at university in the early 90's. Somewhere they took a left turn to Andy Warhol then got trapped in scenic escapes.

He made an EXCELLENT living at it. As snobbish and cutting edge as my love's work is - he retains and nodded in respect to this man because he was able to live like those 'rock stars' (as he refers to them) that were living in Paris after WW I and the 1920's. Not his tasted, he wouldn't be caught dead showing a sculpted equivalent of it, but artist to artist - the two we had for dinner last night agreed . . . craptastic, boring, and without nuance as his work was - you have to give the man credit for being able to mass market his work.

He was so good at it -he warranted a discussion at DU.

[eShirl]

23. Kinkade WAS "Big Kitsch Prints"

and "Big Kitsch Prints" was Kinkade.

But you're right, nobody was forced to like his stuff.

[progressoid]

28. Kinkade was a symptom AND a problem

His paintings were a vehicle for making money, kitch notwithstanding. He knew how to milk $ from millions of suckers. And when that wasn't enough, he milked (screwed) $ from investors.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/mar/25/arts.artsnews

"There's over 40 walls in the average American home," a business manager for the artist Thomas Kinkade once said, "and Thom says our job is to figure out how to populate every single wall in every single home and every single business throughout the world with his paintings."

Kinkade's luridly idyllic landscapes, full of quaint cottages and glowing firelight, already hang in an estimated one in 20 US homes. "In the often hurried, unsympathetic and complex world we live in, the images Thomas Kinkade paints offer a place of refuge," his company's literature purrs. "A place where the transient things of life give way to the things that matter most ... faith and family, a loving home and the people who know and love us."

Art critics have long dismissed his work as a kitsch crime against aesthetics. But now the world has grown even more "unsympathetic and complex" for the artist, who describes himself as a devout Christian and has trademarked his "Painter of Light" soubriquet. In court documents and other testimony, he has been accused of sexual harassment, fraudulent business practices and bizarre incidents of drunkenness including a habit of "ritual territory marking" that involves urinating in public places.

A court-appointed arbitration panel has ruled in favour of two former owners of Kinkade-branded galleries, ordering his company to pay them $860,000 (£500,000) for breaching "the covenant of good faith and dealing" and failing to disclose pertinent business information.

[marions ghost]

73. He knew how to milk $ from millions of suckers

"a symptom and a problem"

-----------

If Kinkade was an artist, then his story is a tragedy.

If Kinkade was a brilliant but unscrupulous businessman, then his story is a triumph, according to people who don't want to see unethical business as a problem in America. It's a story of monumental greed and deception. But seems like a LOT of people don't want to see that side of it....

-----------

Kitsch is OK as long as it's not sold for astronomical prices through deceptive means. This was not "art for the masses"--Kinkade's junk was for people who could be duped into thinking that putting out a lot of money for mass-produced art-like products was going to bring them status as "art collectors." People wanted to believe they were buying something of quality, an investment. Kinkade's marketing plan was so cynical, but it worked.

If people like the Kinkaid brand products they bought and feel they were worth it, fine--people throw money away everyday. But some buyers now know they were had by a master flimflam artist and his minions. Those buyers with regrets we won't hear from, because they feel a bit foolish. But people need to see behind the curtain at this point --consumers need to know how to avoid such mass-marketing scams.

[Rowdyboy]

37. Because it makes some people feel superior...I don't care for his art but then I like VERY little

Last edited Mon Apr 9, 2012, 09:47 PM - Edit history (1)

contemporary art. I don't give a shit one way or another but apparently many people feel a deep seated need to feel superior in their taste and judgement. More power to them.

In 100 years no one will remember any of this ridiculous bullshit that DU finds so riveting.

[Surya Gayatri]

46. Discussion of art as the reflection of a

society and its culture is worthwhile.

Even if one doesn't "give a shit one way or another" about the specific artist in question, his/her importance as a cultural phenomenon merits debate.

[Rowdyboy]

47. Debate is one thing-grave dancing is another.....

Whats been happening on DU bears no resemblance to debate as I understand it.

People of different generations and cultures have different views on death. I'm not angry, I haven't put ANYONE on "IGNORE". I'm not even disappointed. DU is what it is-if anyone doesn't like it, they're not forced to stay-and that includes me. But I do think the "joy" in any man's death is tasteless. Just my opinbion-thats what a discussion board is for.

Sometimes what people write here even changes my mind. Not in this case, but sometimes...

[IDemo]

38. More LOL slapstick stupid "art" here ->

[Tom Ripley]

59. The first one references the R. Mutt "Fountain" by Duchamp

or maybe not...

[Odin2005]

41. Wow, the snobbery in the OP is disgusting.

I prefer kitsch over abstract "art" any day.

[cthulu2016]

45. Your snobbery radar is incredibly poor.

Taste and snobbery are not synonyms, and swilling cynical insincerity doesn't make one a friend of the common man.

And your implicit assumption that the OP prefers abstract art to kitsch is hilarious—based on nothing but your simplistic prejudices.

But you got to call somebody disgusting and use a vomit cartoon and lay some weird claim to your moral superiority based on having very little taste, so that's awesome.

[Surya Gayatri]

48. I swear, judging by some of the replies to your excellent OP,

we could be on some knee-jerk, anti-intellectual RW blog.

Same kind of anti-knowledge, anti-culture, lowest-common-denominator, dumbed-down dialogue.

"Going to college (or discussing art) is just so snobbish..." (apologies to Frothy Santorum!)

[Odin2005]

50. Only of you define "culture" as what a small academic clique likes.

And this small clique by definition likes "art" only as so far as it gives them a reason to think they are oh-so enlightened and superior to us because they read some arcane meanings into a random splattering of paint and proclaim it to be The Truth.

[cthulu2016]

67. As the author of the OP...

I don't give personally identifying details here, by my entire career has been in art and has been dedicated to the advance and appreciation of representational painting in the face of the ridiculous establishment of which you accurately speak.

I do not denounce Kinkade because he is not trendy garbage, but because he is a poor artist within the traditions of representational painting that is accessible to and enjoyed by non-esthetes.

As to what rarified contemporary art critics think of him... who cares? They are risible fools whose opinions ought be ignored as much as possible.

[Odin2005]

71. Sorry, I was making assumptions about you, my bad!

[Odin2005]

49. Taste is subjective.

Bashing people for liking Kinkade's paintings is like bashing people who like spicy food because you hate spicy food. The "Art Criticism" world is a tiny clique that thinks they have a right to determine what is good are and what is not, as if their subjective groupthink is objective truth comparable to 1+1=2. They are like the English teacher who marks your essay question answer wrong because your interpretation of a book was not the same as hers, and her interpretation is "the right answer".

[demgrrrll]

51. Reminds me of the magazine article where an art gallery in New York put up a bunch of drawings done

by 3 year olds which they introduced to the public as new modern art. The gallery then recorded the comments of the people who viewed the art and were talking about what the artists were trying to "say" and what their motivations might be... etc. Really really funny. Many people liked Thomas Kinkade and in the great cosmic scheme of things it seems to be a rather benign pastime

[Odin2005]

72. Bingo!

[Mimosa]

54. True.

Art criticism tends to be a corrupt racket. Prominent critics used to build up artists in whose works they invested.

I've always appreciated this early Kinkade painting title Autumn Gate.

[CTyankee]

56. Hah! This story...

I went to grad school a bit late in life. In one seminar we were discussing "King Lear." One of my classmates was going on and on about Lear's speech to Cordelia "Come, let's away to prison;
We two alone will sing like birds I' th' cage" and how beautiful and tender and lovely it was. I thought it was just denial/lunacy, so I blurted out "Oh, I dunno, it sounds like something my first husband would say."

I saw the look of shock on the professor's face (Ph.D from Harvard in Shakespeare's tragedies) and thought "Oh, man, I've really screwed myself big time"... and then she started laughing. It was a moment to remember, that's for sure. That professor and I have remained good friends over the years...so I guess I was lucky (I received Honors in that course, I'm happy to say, but it sure could have been a different story)!

[Surya Gayatri]

42. +1,000 ! Well argued and written...

[quaker bill]

55. For fun and a bit of money

I do art and hang out with artists. It is not my day job, but I have been involved as a professional for 5 years now.

Something about artists came forward right away, they really like their own work, and a good number of them think what they do is the best or nearly so. Most do not sell well.

Many find something wrong or something to complain about in the work of any artist that does sell well. Being a jeweler I don't need to worry about this too much, because those who have issues when I sell well simply determine that jewelry is a "craft" (not an art). Being dismissed as an artist causes me no concern, because I am in fact a scientist who makes art for a bit of fun and cash. So, I tend to take it in stride. When the occasion arises that I am not selling well, I become a comrade in arms.

Another observation is that all but a very few who do sell well have some sort of gimmick or hook that extends well beyond the image on canvas. They are almost always stong personalities with egos difficult to avoid due to their size. They create an aura and give the customer the impression that they are buying something more than the object. The atmosphere is created and I think part of the creative process. This tends to irritate those not in the idolized mix even more as they see it as false. They are a "the work should stand on its own" faction. I tend to join them in this sentiment, but then there are jewelers who get all the awards and often sell better, so perhaps I should.

Now here is the point with Kinkade, the "art" was not so much on canvas. It was the notion that a person was buying into something larger. In his case, a saccarine vision, but it was created and he created it. You can only blame Kinkade for Kinkade. He could have painted anything he wanted to, but he chose this and the atmosphere he created around it with purpose and intent.

[XemaSab]

68. There's something about Kincade's art that seems almost fascist to me

Faux-sentimentalism in service of a repugnant ideology.

[marions ghost]

74. Yeah and the posters of Chairman Mao also come to mind...

Art reflects society. If Kinkade had not had such an impact we could dismiss him as just another syrupy hack painter. But he knew he had to be a feelgood guru and bend minds. And ladle in a big dollop of Christianity just in case anyone had any doubts about his morality. And elevate his status in an art world the buyers obviously knew nothing about but were sure they were being inducted into.

The fact that Kinkade made it so big speaks volumes about this society--somebody should study it as a sociological or mass psychology phenomenon.

I can only feel sad and wistful about the people who saw Kinkaid's world as where they would rather be...

[MissMarple]

69. Albert Bierstadt doesn't get any respect either, way too "romantic".

I could never purchase a Kinkade, too sappy by far, but I would certainly consider a Bierstadt, not that I could actually afford one. I also understand that there are some who like paintings of Elvis on velvet. Interesting.

http://www.albertbierstadt.org/

http://www.google.com/search?q=bierstadt&hl=en&prmd=imvnsa&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=a1-ET-aqNI2g8gT7-r2qCA&sqi=2&ved=0CGIQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=847