drunken downfall of beloved artist thomas kinkade

[Liberal_in_LA]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2652531/Thomas-Kinkades-downfall-Americas-loved-evangelical-artist.html




Drunken downfall of America's most loved evangelical artist whose works hung in twenty million homes: Thomas Kinkade was found dead after overdosing on valium and booze
Kinkade's 2012 death was caused by an accidental overdose from ethanol and Diazepam intoxication
The troubled artist had a history of alcohol abuse and in many cases made drunken scenes
In one instance, Kinkade urinated on a Disney character while yelling 'this one's for you, Walt'
Former employees say the Disney incident was the beginning of what Kinkade called 'ritual territorial urination'

[tularetom]

1. Beloved? WTF?

I wouldn't line the bottom of my bird cage with that crap.

Even if I actually had a bird cage.

[Liberal_in_LA]

6. millions love his paintings

[hobbit709]

9. Millions vote Republican too.

[Marr]

36. ...

Some of the worst, pathetic little hamburgers in the world.

[alarimer]

49. Well they have no taste.

It's shit, it's schlock and he didn't even paint them himself. Other people did the work, but he signed his name to it.

[KamaAina]

39. And "artist"?

[Logical]

195. Really? Post yours! nt

[KamaAina]

200. Fair enough.

[Logical]

202. LOL, ok! Nt

[librechik]

204. simple. Highly skilled commercial illustration vs "serious art."

Kinkade vs a serious artist, say Constable? That's comparing apples and oranges. Nobody ever took Kinkade seriously,and it destroyed him. But he was the one who entered the commercial field. He had only himself to blame. Damn those artists and wanting to not starve!. Although the lines they blur THEY BLUR I TELL YOU!!!!

[ChairmanAgnostic]

45. they've been known to cause constipation in birds.

That's how bad they are.

[dhill926]

65. haha….

[roody]

154. Duzy

[Logical]

196. I love the DU art, food, movie, etc critics. A bunch of whiners! nt

[MohRokTah]

2. I have a very low opinion of his work.

"Crappy piece of shit" comes to mind when I see a Kinkade piece.

[Liberal_in_LA]

5. article says he was saddened by the widespread derision of his work

So much success yet he knew his works was derided. Wonder if that lead to the alcoholism

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

13. His work wouldn't have been derided

if he hadn't painted kitschy crap.

[CTyankee]

50. well, yeah! Why did he even do it if he didn't expect some critical examination of his work?

Does he think momentary popularity is the measure of great, or even good, art? Did the guy ever study art history? Or take an aesthetics course?

[Warpy]

53. Or develop his business model of having prints of the original

daubed with a few blobs of paint and sold as original paintings for the prices that the real thing commands.

He was a grifter in that respect.

I know a lot of people love his treacly, cloying paintings. I might have loved them when I was a preschooler.

I do have a "Kinkade." It's paint by numbers and expensively framed, a thrift shop find. I think it's hilarious and exactly where his art belongs, on printed and numbered canvases that come in a hobby box. In any case, it's more original than the crap he sold for premium prices.

[ohnoyoudidnt]

28. Every successful person's work is derided to some

extent. It is unfortunate he couldn't handle it. He needed professional help.

[pipi_k]

135. Oh, baloney!!!

So much success yet he knew his works was derided. Wonder if that lead to the alcoholism

I've known enough alcoholics over the years to have heard the same shit again and again. Always the excuses and blame...this or that "made me drink".

Although one halfway honest recovering alcoholic stated point blank that even a broken shoelace would cause him to pick up a drink.


Too bad his stuff was derided. I liked his technique, but the subject matter...well, it really was, as someone else said, schlocky.

[Logical]

197. Well aren't you the art critic! nt

[1000words]

3. lol ... The "Yum" cartoon bubble.

Now that's art!

[mudy waters]

160. Yum! is the corporation that owns Taco Bell, KFC, Pizza Hut

And various other brands that are making Americans overweight and out of shape. Perfect fit for Kincade, his work is like a cultural clogged artery.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. Art + Kincade = oxymoron

[NightWatcher]

7. his later, Star Wars stuff was genius

[Liberal_in_LA]

8. hiis cottages are always waaay too close to river

[NightWatcher]

10. Darth Vader takes out one damn and all the Ewoks would wash away

[dixiegrrrrl]

25. Duzy!!

[Ilsa]

31. Now that is pic I want!!!

Do you have more?

[NightWatcher]

42. I cant believe you havent seen these

[Ilsa]

55. I don't get around the internet much. ;) nt

[NightWatcher]

56. Next, there are these cats that want cheeseburgers...

[m-lekktor]

43. lol

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

11. He had decent technical skills, but his paintings are sentimental dreck.

They are sort of the "Precious Moments" figurines of oil paintings.

[NightWatcher]

14. Oh no you didn't talk shit about Precious Moments

I'm gonna sic a Hallmark store full of old ladies on you

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

18. I *am* an old lady. Bring 'em on.

I'll whack them upside the head with my favorite Keane painting.

[Whisp]

21. gawd that's ugly! oiy!!!

you are kidding, right? about this being a favourite?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

27. Oh, yeah. Keane was even worse than Kinkade.

And funnier, though not intentionally. She specialized in waiflike children with freakishly huge eyes.

[nolabear]

30. I got a doll for Christmas once patterned after one of those dolls.

Scared the holy hell out of me.

[Jackpine Radical]

128. They look like Gray Aliens,

only pink.

I guess they would go well with those Kinkaid Trek (Dreck) mashups.

[GReedDiamond]

138. Keane is an influence on a certain segment of the...

...current "pop surrealism" art movement.

Prime example, Mark Ryden is a very popular and successful "neo-Keane" pop surrealist - although I don't know if anybody else besides me has described his work that way, it seems pretty obvious to me.

Examples:











His original of "The Creatrix" (3rd image from the top) sold direct from Mark to a collector for a million bucks.

I have one of the Princess Sputniks (the last image, directly above), issued in an edition of 25.

It's approaching "priceless-ness," even as we speak.

However, fortunately, I have no Kincades, as they have actually lost value instead of appreciating.

[annabanana]

153. Now THAT's a tribute!

It is the true and logical homage to dreadful art!

[Owl]

172. Yuck on all of those. Ewwww...

[Ilsa]

33. Oh shit! Aliens are real and walking amongst

Us and have their pictures painted?

[edhopper]

62. Not sure if you know

but Keanes were really painted by his wife.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

64. Yes, Margaret Keane. That fact came out some years ago.

Either way, they're dreadful.

[edhopper]

69. True

and like Kinkade, designed to appeal to people without artistic knowledge.

[Logical]

198. Ahh, another DU expert! LOL! nt

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

205. So, what level of expertise would you require

in order for someone to express an opinion about something (e.g., art) on DU?

And, since you don't know me or anything about me, how do you know that I'm not an "expert" on art? I could be an art professor or an art historian or a professional artist. Would you want a detailed resume in order to evaluate whether I qualify as an expert? I might (and in fact, do) have training in art. But what if I weren't an art expert, or lacked any training at all; maybe I'm a dog groomer or a dentist or a helicopter pilot or a software developer. Am I therefore prohibited from offering my opinion on DU on any topic other than dog grooming, teeth, helicopters or computer software?

DU is just an internet message board. Anybody can offer their opinions on anything as long as doing so doesn't violate DU's rules, without having to qualify as an expert witness as if they were testifying in a trial. You are welcome to accept or argue with or ignore anybody's opinion, but don't go snarking at people just because they offered one.

[edhopper]

207. One would only have to read your critique

of Kinkade to know you understand art.
All I have heard from those who don't like us "artsy" types is that people liked Kinkade, and who are we to judge. No defense of the actual art.

[Logical]

208. Why are you whining? I said you were an expert! nt

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

210. Right. "LOL"

[LanternWaste]

12. His and Boris Vallejo's works seem to be the precise same branding overlaid onto two distinctly diff

His and Boris Vallejo's works seem to be the precise same branding overlaid onto two distinctly different subjects. Never did get either one, but many people seem to like the stuff.

[Liberal_in_LA]

17. googled boris vallejo. omg. would be less embarrassed to display kinkaid art.

[LanternWaste]

24. One might. Another might not. To me, they're both hacks.

"would be less embarrassed to display kinkaid art..."

One might. Another might not. To me, they're both hacks-- to someone else, either (or both) are artists.

[Ilsa]

34. Man, that's kinky. nt

[MrScorpio]

59. Vallejo's a sci-fi/fantasy artist, so I'd cut him some slack

But he did have this annoying habit of modeling himself and his wife in most of his paintings. I took a pic of Vallejo at a comic book store signing once. I should dig it up.

[GReedDiamond]

139. I remember as a teenager in the early 70s...

...my devout Catholic father (may he RIP) gave me a Vallejo book as a birthday present.

He thought I'd like it, cuz I liked "weird" art, but I had never heard of Boris until Dear Ol' Dad gave me the book.

I never fully appreciated Boris, though, I guess.

[Journeyman]

15. Always saddened to hear when anyone falls victim to their personal demons . . .

though it shows again -- for those willing to recognize -- that success in material pursuits is no guarantor of happiness within yourself.

[Nye Bevan]

16. Lots of snide derision for him in this thread, but I will say this:

he had a whole lot more artistic talent than I will ever have. And while his art did not exactly appeal to me, millions of people enjoyed it. And it's always a pity when a life is ended prematurely due to alcohol and/or drugs.

RIP Mr Kinkade.

[elehhhhna]

26. tech skillls were fab

and he did a wonderful job making the crap he wanted to make. there was/is a huge market for that stuff and he was a master at it - dreck imo but well executed.

[edhopper]

63. I really doubt this is the art he wanted to make

it is cynically designed for the widest appeal.

[joeglow3]

163. What is the appropriate level of success to still be considered "art"

This is why "art lovers" piss me off. They do everything they can to make it a small circle so they can feel like they are superior.

[edhopper]

166. I know a number of very successful artist

who do the art they love. And those less successful who also do the work they love.
I also know a number of them who are looking for the next gimmick that will bring them success.
Both of the first two love making art.
The latter are usually frustrated and unhappy.
It isn't about the success, it's about the sincerity art.
His art was just cynical crap made to sell.

His art on it's own terms, with or without the success stinks.

[joeglow3]

169. And that mentality is why 50% of college art projects involve piss or shit

Seriously, a great friend of mine was an art major for a bit and he could not believe how many people felt piss or shit had to be involved in order for it to be art.

That said, that is the difference between you and me. I don't define art as what I like and everything I don't like as "not art."

[edhopper]

170. I don't either

And contrary to your friends semester in art school, I am talking about realistic artists who paint from life, and have spent a years making art, not modernest that you don't like.

If you read this thread you will see post from a number of people who are very knowledgeable about art explaining why his work was not good. It's not about "like' it's about the things that make his art bad.

[joeglow3]

173. Art is.......well, art.

The attempts by you and others to make it a science doesn't make it so.

[edhopper]

174. I'm not saying his work isn't art.

I'm saying it is bad art.
And people here have clearly demonstrated why it is bad art.
But if you want to think it's great, that's your choice. Or perhaps you could learn something and not rail against all those snooty, artsy people.

[joeglow3]

175. I don't like his art, as it is not my cup of tea.

I am just saying if something is popular, many people will oppose it just to feel superior.

[edhopper]

184. True

but sometimes they oppose it because it's crap.

McDonald is popular, but it's crap.
Bill O'Reilly is popular, but he is fill of shit.
Kinkde's work is bad at a basic artistic level when compared to 1000 years of landscape painting.
And no, it wasn't innovative like the impressionist or fauvists. It was just a pastiche of the techniques of other , better artists crammed together in one painting, whether they fit or not. And that is why it is bad art.

[joeglow3]

186. I do enjoy Terry Redlin, but I am sure most cosider his crap as well.

[edhopper]

189. Well it is certainly

more Hallmark than anything else. But beyond the subject matter, which is obviously kitschy, his technique is fine.
And unlike Kinkade, his lighting is appropriate to the time of day and light source.

[GReedDiamond]

141. Yes, and, in the franchised Kincade Galleries, they would show you how...

...when you changed the lighting on the works from direct to indirect, the whole image would magically shift from "super color-saturated ultra-daylight" to "almost like it's really cloudy and raining" - it was actually pretty clever, sorta like two paintings in one.

But the work generally still sucked...

[CTyankee]

35. I do not consider his stuff "art."

We have so many fine American artists, even the so-called "primitivists" such as Clementine Hunter, a black woman and granddaughter of a slave, who was completely untrained but painted this

[Demo_Chris]

60. Completely untrained and it really shows...

That she is black or a woman or a former slave are all equally irrelevant. The work -- though I hesitate to use that word -- is crap.

[CTyankee]

68. Why don't you read this ny times article before you jump to judgment here...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/travel/looking-for-clementine-hunters-louisiana.html

real art "speaks to you" and I can't really put it more forcefully than that...Kinkade falls flat...Hunter soars...even with her untrained hand in portraying people, the force of her vision is undeniable...I would look at Hunter's works all day long...how long would you spend on Kinkade?

[Demo_Chris]

74. I don't need to read a marketing blurb to recognize artistic merit...

Her work belongs on an Elementary School hallway next to the macaroni houses and crayon doodles. It really is that bad. Here's a tip to help you spot bullshit in the art world (and lord is there a lot of it). Ready?

When the conversation is about the 'artist' it isn't art, it's marketing.

[CTyankee]

88. well, I guess she has no talent because she is "untrained" or "unschooled."

Really, Chris, are you THAT mean spirited and downright nasty? Do you have a nice bone in your body?

AND, do you want to go up against the NY Times...really?

"I’d long been enthralled by Hunter’s work, with its exuberance, astonishing palette and immediacy. While her work now hangs coast-to-coast, including in museums, galleries and private collections in New York, Dallas and Chicago, a good bit of it landed in her home state. But despite having lived in Baton Rouge for 13 years, I’d never actually visited the landscape that inspired it. Earlier this year, after having seen “Zinnias: the Life of Clementine Hunter,” a new opera presented by Robert Wilson, at Montclair State University in New Jersey, where I live now, I decided the time had come. "

Here, again is the link, in case you'd like to rethink your rather intemperate post: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/travel/looking-for-clementine-hunters-louisiana.html

Try a bit of humility in the face of a poor, black woman, who against all odds took up oil painting while on a life of toil on a Louisiana Plantation.

[Demo_Chris]

145. I am not trying to be mean. Let me be clear...

I'm sure she was a fine person with an interesting story and unique challenges. But none of that means a damn thing when it comes to calling something art. Nor would you even try to make that claim if, rather than some bad paintings, we were instead discussing an out of tune piece of music she composed. You wouldn't be here saying, 'It might be out of tune, and it might sound like crap, but hey she had no training so that's okay.' No one is calling W Bush paintings art just because he was a President (talk about unique), and no one in this thread cares about Kincade's struggles with addiction, when we talk about these guys we talk about the work.

If you think a piece of work (or artist) has merit then make the case. Don't tell me about the artist's struggles or poorly executed vision, tell me what you like about their work.

[CTyankee]

147. I was responding to your remark about how her art was out of elementary school...your point not mine

I never said it was ok because she had no training...again, you said it, not me.

Hunter expresses nerve (what I would call serious daring) and vision. She has something to say and Kinkade does not. Her vision takes her beyond the technical skill issue. Her palette is exciting but it is more than just some vibrant colors thrown on a mural. Her picture has life, expressed with a sense of place and time and purpose. Kinkade is lifeless and, to me, downright irritating because it is a waste of canvas and, frankly, my time.

Seeking art to appreciate is a major focus of my life; it's what I do in retirement. It is the focal point of my travels and I have had electrified experiences in front of it. Two of which were quite defining: "View of Delft" by Vermeer and one wheat field with crows (I do not even recall its title) by Van Gogh (I actually started to cry). I have talked with other art lovers and even museum guards about these experiences and whether it is a normal phenomenon. It's like what Emily Dickinson wrote about poetry: "If it feels like the top of my head has been taken off, I know that is poetry..."

[snpsmom]

203. Also, it is balanced and has movement.

Despite her lack of formal training, the artist clearly leads the viewer's eye. This is art that makes sense to me, where Kincaid's always seems like too much is crowded onto the canvas. No place fo my eye to rest, no clear and important focal points, no real balance among the muddy colors. Meh.

[CTyankee]

206. And his stuff is dishonest...that makes me angrier than anything else about him...

[edhopper]

209. I don't even see why we are comparing the too

Hunter is a worthwhile outside artist.

Kinkade is an art school trained professional who had aspirations of being a fine artist.

Lets compare him to contemporary landscape artists who are the real deal.

Richard Schmid, Clyde Aspervig, John Stobart, Matt Smith to name a few. And there are many more.

[kwassa]

131. I think you have little knowledge of what art is, judging by what you have said so far.

This is no crime, it is simply not your area of expertise.

Art is about having a unique, intelligent, and insightful vision and viewpoint, and presenting it in a way that communicates that viewpoint powerfully. Understanding art comes from looking at lots of art in many different styles over time. I can tell by the way that you talk about it that you haven't done this.

Technical ability is not viewpoint, it is only technical ability. Some self-taught artists have more powerful communication skills than those artists with great technical skills.

The fact that you describe this as elementary art tells me how little you are using your eyes to really see.

[Demo_Chris]

144. Yeah, but really that's all nonsense...

Just as a musician is expected and required to play actual notes before being called by that title, or an author expected to generally follow the conventions of language before his or her work is caller literature, a visual artist is expected to demonstrate at least some mastery of the craft. Randomly slamming piano keys is neither music nor art no matter the grand thoughts of the 'artist.' Anyone who claims otherwise is selling you a load of BS and probably a painting. Art, if it does nothing else, must stand on it's own merit, and this remains true whether we are talking Waterhouse or Monet or even the recently departed Giger. No one needs to explain, or talk about the artist's grand vision or stairways to the subconscious mind. Their work, like all real art, needs nothing more.

As for what I know... the answer would be little except that I make my living selling my art (though I prefer not to use that particular word) and have done so for most of my adult life. That said, I am no amateur art historian, and have virtually no interest in modern art at all -- being primarily interested in craft rather than bullshit.

This woman's work might be historically interesting. That she was black is enough to ensure that much, but that's as far as it goes.

[Tansy_Gold]

179. No, it's not nonsense.

As a writer and a writing teacher, I fully understand the difference between Art with a Capital A and technical skill. I'm not sure that you do.

Technical skill in writing -- knowing exactly which word to use and how to use it -- can dramatically help a writer to tell a story. I do everything short of browbeat my students to learn how to use the language properly. It is their primary tool for telling their stories, and the better they are with that tool, the better their writing and their stories will be.

But no amount of technical skill can make up for lack of creative spirit, lack of artistic vision, lack of imagination and soul, emotion, passion. Sometimes the perfection of technical skill destroys the Art with a Capital A.

Hunter's painting technique may not be the same as Kinkade's, but she has much more creative spirit, and that's the whole difference.

Kinkade's works spoke to an audience that, in many ways, took comfort in the comfortable and familiar, an audience that didn't want to think, didn't really even want to feel. So they weren't asked to imagine much of anything in his . . . art. It was all there for them, in all its impossibilities and shining lights and foggy neoned colors. He told them what they were supposed to feel, not how he felt. He was selling them a product, not expressing himself.

Technique is not all there is to art. Not by a long shot.

[Demo_Chris]

182. Great response, and I mostly agree, but would add...

That while technique is not all there is to art, art without technique is generally not art at all. More, many classical master were little more than the Kinkades of their day. They weren't attempting to communicate some grand idea or personal emotion, they were as often just doing their job -- if astonishingly well.

[edhopper]

187. Could you post an old master

whose work was as flawed artistically as Kinkade's?
Even the rococo painters, with all the flying cherubs, had artistic veracity.

[CTyankee]

78. here

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/travel/looking-for-clementine-hunters-louisiana.html

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

97. Hunter's painting, although primitive, has movement and life.

Kinkade's paintings are static, lifeless and based on a single formula: a cozy wattle-and-daub cabin with blinding yellow light streaming from all of its windows, nestled in a fake wilderness and surrounded by a whole lot of flowers in weird purply-pinky pastels. The light of which he calls himself a painter is unnatural and comes from all directions. The whole thing looks like a stage set. Hunter's work is honest; Kinkade's is not.

[CTyankee]

99. Oh, key-rist thank you!

I wish I had your gift of writing here...I am almost speechless with this conversation...what am I missing?

[REP]

98. Art degree from "Can You Draw Sparky" matchbook school of art?

I'd drop some names on you, but they'd be totally meaningless to you. It shows. It really does.

[CTyankee]

100. Are you talking about Hunter?

[REP]

107. Nope.

I actually understand Outsider Art, unlike the graduate of "Can You Draw Sparky?" school of art to whom I was responding.

[CTyankee]

113. OK, thanks...I am relieved... I was ready to despair completely...thank you...

I don't know if Clementine is any longer an "outsider" in the art world. It seems to me she has been embraced by them...which I LOVE...

[REP]

118. Outsider has replaced Primitive and Naďve last I heard ...

So she'll always be an Outsider.

[CTyankee]

119. well, good, that takes care of the "Primitive" label of shame...I like it...

who needs that stupid label anyway...who thehell is primitive and who is not? It's dumb...

Outsider is much better, IMO...

[Demo_Chris]

146. Kinda sad you felt you had to go there. nt

[rrneck]

142. It's good work.

Kincaid's art tells people what they want to hear. Hunter's work lets people find out what they need to know.

[Raine1967]

137. Exactly.

I totally am in synch with this line of thought.

If only people would pay for pieces of art that so many that go unnoticed. Here is an artist that I LOVE seeking out: http://www.whohadada.com/aclarke/

[840high]

101. Thank you. I have one of

his cottage painting and when i feel low I look at it and calm down.

[Logical]

199. The DU is always full of make-believe experts That love to criticize people.

[dilby]

19. Was never a fan but have nothing bad to say about the guy.

He was obviously a good artist, not my style but people liked it. And like most good artists he used substances, I am not going to diss on that most of the best music I love was created by artists while they were using heroin or cocaine or both.

[cali]

47. I kind of hate to wde into this but I don't

think he was "obviously a good artist". Nor do I think he had the technical skills some in this thread claim he had. Art is about vision, for one thing. It's about having something to say. He didn't have the former and as for the latter, his cottages and other scenes say nothing, but I want to make big bucks. Not art.

[flying rabbit]

58. Great art has vision, and skill.

Good art has vision or skill. Ah, hell it's all subjective anyway.

[CTyankee]

93. Hello! And thank you!

[CTyankee]

168. I agree; he had nothing to say. Real art has an idea behind it.

And you know what else? I find that he annoys the hell out of me. He is patronizing his fans deliberately. It's a waste of good canvas, IMO...

[cali]

171. I'm with you- a waste of good canvas.

[Whisp]

20. Jigsaw Puzzle Painting.

Some of the colours there I like, but that's not enough. I do see that many, many people like this kind of stuff. I don't understand how they can, but who am I to say what people should like.

[KG]

22. Is fraudster now a synonym for artist?

[CBGLuthier]

29. Is internet access an art critic's license?

I do not particularly care for his work but matters of TASTE are not what makes the definition of artist.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

38. The fraud comment has to do with Kinkade's business practices

and allegations in lawsuits claiming he ripped off gallery owners. http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Artist-s-firm-on-hook-for-2-1-million-3227005.php And there's also this:

Kinkade's production method has been described as "a semi-industrial process in which low-level apprentices embellish a prefab base provided by Kinkade." Kinkade reportedly designed and painted all of his works, which were then moved into the next stage of the process of mass-producing prints. It is assumed he had a hand in most of the original, conceptual work that he produced. However, he also employed a number of studio assistants to help create multiple prints of his famous oils. In other words, it is believed that Kinkade designed and painted all of his original paintings, but the ones collectors were likely to own were printed factory-like and touched up with manual brush strokes by someone other than Kinkade.

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

You don't need a license to be an art critic - and you know what they say about opinions. Speaking as an unlicensed art critic, I think Kinkade's stuff sucks. And it looks like he was a huckster as well.

[CTyankee]

52. The so-called "production method" is not an entirely new phenomenon...

In the 17th century Rubens had a workshop of young artists working for him...they would "do" a work and he would add his touch and voila a Rubens! We know this about Rubens (and other great artists) and judge accordingly...and it seems to me that art critics are pretty good at spotting the not so great places in his art. It all comes out in the wash. But the good "wash" has to be there in the first place...

[CTyankee]

23. I could never figure out what folks saw in his stuff...

even Norman Rockwell at his most maudlin wasn't as bad as Kinkade...

[edhopper]

67. Rockwell was an illustrator

with no pretense of a "fine artist". His work was to sell magazines. That said he had more talent in one pinkie that Kinkade in his whole body. Most artists I know love Rockwell, understanding the maudlin nature of his work, but revealing the skill and seeing through the subject mattter to the artist behind it.

[CTyankee]

75. I am in the process of preparing a little art essay to put on GD about Rockwell...

Rockwell's art makes his America seem natural and necessary. I find that interesting. I also think it is a set of works in time, a special time, in our country where illustration became a national art because of its importance during WW2. We needed it to boost our spirits in a terrible war. But Rockwell was still an artist. He knew art history. His works echo poses in classic works of art -- he has obviously studied Vermeer and Michelangelo-- god only knows what Kinkade studied, if at all...

[edhopper]

81. His art would fit in very well

with much of the Church paintings commissioned over the centuries. The were also simplistic and cliche, but done with great skill and meant to convey a message to the populace.

Kinkade would fit in well with clowns painted on black velvet.

[CTyankee]

91. well, let's just put it down to that and be done with it...

I think Church's works are much better, however...

[edhopper]

94. A truly great artist

who Kinkade copied from, but with 1% of the talent.
Church painted the Sublime and Kinkade painted the ridiculous.

(BTW, did you think i was disagreeing with what you said about Rockwell? I wasn't, just adding my two cents)

[CTyankee]

96. Yeah, I'm still on the fence with Rockwell...part of me wants to love him but part of me hates

his manipulation of his era...I think I am going to have to say it is what it is...a place in time and we have no say in it now. What he did, when he did it, is what was done...history will judge...

[edhopper]

106. I can tell you he

is very well received by artists. They look at the skill and execution of the work. If you look pass the subject matter, which was specific to the time and use, he was a master craftsman and most artists I know marvel at his painting.

It's like listening to a musician playing a song or type of music you may not like. You can still appreciate the ability.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

117. I used to dislike Rockwell because of the sentimental subject matter.

But I've changed my mind pretty much - I realize that he was a first-rate illustrator, and he was reflecting his times.

[kwassa]

176. Rockwell is mostly weak stuff.

He is the master of cornball.

He isn't all that great technically. Many of his pictures have all the characters lit from the same light position, which clearly derives from his studio. For someone seeking naturalism, he didn't really find it.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

177. Better than Kinkade, though.

Mostly cornball, but not dishonest.

[kwassa]

180. much better than Kinkade

but then, only several housand artists are better than Kinkade.

[edhopper]

185. I disagree with you about his technique

A have seen a great many original and he was a superb craftsman, especially given the deadlines he met.

The subject matter is another thing, but just looking at his skill as a painter, he was excellent.

Was he one of the great artist of the 20th century, no. But he has a great illustrator.

And I'd say he did achieve a level of naturalism, even using his studio photos.

[img][/img]

[img][/img]

[img][/img]

[kwassa]

211. I like Edward Hopper much better, edhopper.

[edhopper]

212. Well Hopper

was a great artist. (who could imaging I would think so )

But that doesn't diminish the talent of Rockwell.

[sweetloukillbot]

143. I felt he was maudlin and cheesy until I saw an exhibit that included his civil rights work

There was a piece about the killing of Medger Evers that was downright chilling.

[Tansy_Gold]

183. This?

http://www.al.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2012/09/after_the_post_norman_rockwell.html

[sweetloukillbot]

193. The second one - and there was another in a similar vein

I'm at work so I can't track it down, but it was another powerful one.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

105. Kinkade *should* have studied Vermeer, who was a true painter of light.

Probably the best ever. Kinkade couldn't even decide where his light was coming from.

[CTyankee]

109. Kinkade and Vermeer? Really?

Please.

...and I am being kind here...

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

114. That's my point. If Kinkade had seriously studied the way Vermeer handled light

maybe his paintings would have sucked a little less. Yes, I know it's hard to utter the words "Kinkade" and "Vermeer" in the same breath.

[glinda]

178. Kinkaid was a broccoli painter.

[edhopper]

111. He probably did

just learned the wrong lessons from it

[CTyankee]

116. Vermeer did not do what Kinkade purports to do....in fact Vermeer has only two paintings that

are outdoors...View of Delft and A Little Street in Delft.

Or at least that is what is out there...

I cannot see anything that suggests that Kinkade ever LOOKED at a Vermeer, much less learned something form it!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

120. Good point; Vermeer did interiors, not landscapes

except for those you mentioned. Still, Kinkade could have discerned at least the basic notion that no matter what your subject matter is, you have to know what the light source is and the shadows have to line up.

[CTyankee]

122. but I think he fails at that...don't you?

Jeez, you look at a Vermeer, with his light coming thru windows, and you look at Kinkade and there is NO relation to it? What the hell?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

123. I'm not sure what you're getting at, but yes, there should be some basic understanding

of where the light is coming from, and it seems like Kinkade either never figured that out, or didn't care.

[CTyankee]

126. I think both...he didn't care that much because he was painting for a specific audience he knew

would like what he did, no matter what...he was counting on their not knowing art...I think today, with art being everywhere on the Internet it would be more difficult to promote such horrible works, he just thought, well, nobody is gonna check up on me, so what the hell...

[edhopper]

121. True

I was just being snarky.
He had formal asrt training and was a journeyman artist. He painted crap.

[factsarenotfair]

32. He's wearing a skull ring and an iron cross ring. WTF?

Oh, and I don't care what other people think, I like his paintings.

[Owl]

54. I also like his paintings.

[factsarenotfair]

90. Cool!

We're not alone.

[840high]

102. .....

[Xyzse]

37. I could only wish to paint as well.

Technical skill is pretty good actually.
Would I want his work? No. I just have to give him recognition for skill.

[Lint Head]

40. Many hacks have skill. Why are there never people in his decorations? I consider his paintings

nothing more than decorations. I knew a house painter who was an artist at painting houses.

[hunter]

41. If I had a time machine I'd send Kinkade back to mentor a young Adolph Hitler.

Maybe, as a financially secure "artist" Hitler wouldn't have gone into politics.

I think Kinkade is a victim of sorts, destroyed by a society that equates money with success.

I'm more of a Bob Ross The Joy of Painting sort. My wife and I collect Bob Ross inspired art we find in thrift stores.

[cali]

48. lol genius comment.

[Raine]

44. He was a genius at shaking the money tree. nt

[ChairmanAgnostic]

46. I was dating the daughter of a Kincaide collector.

I seriously had no clue until that moment just how religious her family was, or what bad taste they had.

If you see one of his works (or like I did, 20) in person, there is something unnerving, odd, and off-putting about them. I was seriously bothered by his art.

That one meeting with parental units, and her sudden display of religious faith stopped that relationship right quick.

[Rider3]

51. old news

Why post this? Did I miss the point?

[Jamastiene]

57. I was going to ask the same thing.

He died a long time ago. Why post this now?

[edhopper]

72. New article

in the Daily Mail.

[Demo_Chris]

61. Kinkade was a master at painting LIGHT...

Something that's actually very difficult to do well. Yeah, his subjects were commercialized mass market fantasies, but then so were Norman Rockwell's (which is basically true of artist who has managed to make a living doing it). No, he wasn't Michelangelo, but then no one is.

[cali]

66. He didn't paint light as seen by any human eye in any form.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

70. Michelangelo was Michelangelo,

so it's not quite true to say that no one is Michelangelo. While it's true that it's difficult to paint light convincingly (more accurately, light on subjects), what was wrong with Kinkade's stuff is what he painted light shining on - like gardens with weird pastel colors that don't exist in nature, and cozy little cabins with light shining out every window, like the place was on fire. I wouldn't call him a master at painting light. You want a master at painting light, check out Vermeer. Kinkade wasn't even close.

[edhopper]

86. He copied the lighted cabin stuff from John Stobart

a wonderful maritime artist who does great night time scenes. Kinkades cabins do look like they are on fire and it isn't even night. It is both sunset and midday in many of his paintinings.

Stobart

[img][/img]

[img][/img]

[edhopper]

71. He just called himself that

all he did was copy the technique of much better artists. But there is nothing true in his paintings, the light sources and time of day don't line up.
He wasn't the master of anything but marketing.

[Demo_Chris]

76. I am talking about his use of color to simulate illumination...

I don't really give a damn about the rest of it. And in any case, it's interesting that we would find fault with something like the time of day being off, then praise other so called artists who cannot manage a straight line with a ruler. Let me be clear, I am no Kinkade fan, I never liked his subjects or style, but the guy was undoubtedly very good at what he did.

[edhopper]

80. I disagree

but we don't need to go into a nuanced debate about a painter neither one of us liked.

[Demo_Chris]

84. Fair enough :) nt

[kwassa]

79. Since all that human beings see is light, this covers every painter who every lived.

Turn out the lights, nobody sees anything.

[Demo_Chris]

83. It's not that simple...

One of the truly amazing things in Ansel Adam's photography was his ability to capture the entire spectrum of light, from black to pure white. It wasn't an accident. And while it is true that every artist has at least made some effort to paint the things he sees, relatively few have had Kinkade's ability to capture LIGHT as light, to create the illusion that what the viewer is seeing is not simply another color, but illumination. And no, not everyone can do it.

Which is why he was world famous and you and I are not.

[edhopper]

92. No he did not

all he did was copy the technique of much better artists whose work was superior in every way. if an artist is relatively skilled, it is not as difficult as you make out. Most really good artist i know can do it regularly.
His painting skills were that of a journeyman and his paintings were horrid.
His fame was due to an uneducated public falling for the bright shiny thing.
He was the Fried Oreos of art.

[Demo_Chris]

158. While the educated elite swoons over...

Behr Premium house paint blasted by prop wash or craft paper shapes stuck on canvas with Elmer's.

And while that's a bit unfair, there's more than a hint of truth there as well.

[edhopper]

161. Apples and oranges

strawman argument.
I am comparing him to other, much more talented realistic landscape artists.
Not non objective modernist.
Compared to others in his genre he is a hack who found a commercial gimmick.

[kwassa]

129. You can't be serious. Kinkade is a terrible "artist".

He has no unique abilities as a painter. None. His treatment of light is not remotely realistic. His landscapes do not compare in the tiniest ways with quality artists.

I say this as an artist and art teacher.

Let's look at some real artists of light:

Thomas Moran



Albert Bierstadt





Frederic Edwin Church

[edhopper]

134. Three of my favorite artists.

I posted earlier about John Stobart. Who he also copied from (or at least tried).

[TuxedoKat]

140. Another great painter

of light was Joaquin Sorolla. At at an exhibit I saw of his some 20+ years ago, they called him a "Painter of Light".

http://www.sorollapaintings.com/sorolla_paintings_list.htm

[CTyankee]

148. interesting artist! I missed his works when I was in the Prado in 2008...

He reminds me a bit of John Singer Sargent...of course, same era but also the same effects of sunlight...

[edhopper]

149. Yes they were contemporaries

His work is not in the Prado, but in his own museum (his house)
I take it you are in Connecticut.
He did some magnificent murals at the at the Hispanic Society in upper Manhattan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/arts/design/05antiques.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

https://www.flickr.com/photos/jag9889/13298243293/in/photostream/?rb=1

[CTyankee]

150. lovely stuff...I need to plan a trip into Manhattan soon!

I have an art/travel buddy I might cajole into going with me...

[TuxedoKat]

156. FYI

http://www.sdmart.org/art/exhibit/sorolla-and-america

If you are going to be in San Diego, there is an exhibit of his works there now. One just finished in Dallas, but you can see some of his paintings at this website. I think the beach paintings are the best at showcasing how well he could depict light on a canvas.

http://www.meadowsmuseumdallas.org/about_Sorolla.htm

Wish I could post a picture of his on DU. I learned how to do it once, wish it wasn't so complicated.

[CTyankee]

162. Here's what I do: I see a pic, right click and click on "save image location" and it will appear

when you post your message onto DU. However, when I have a series of pics of artwork, like I did when I did my Challenges, I keep them saved in their own picture file on my PC and use tinypic.com for the process (you can also use photobucket). It's more complicated but I keep the pics in a folder grouped by category so I don't have to chase them down on the Internet one by one.

[TuxedoKat]

164. Thanks!

I'll try that next time. Much easier than using photobucket.

[CTyankee]

165. I think my sequencing is correct...I am very forgetful recently...it seems like I have to

stop and think "now, how did I do that last time?"

[edhopper]

167. Easier than that

right click on the image on whatever page you are looking at and then click "copy image location" from the list.

Paste it in the middle of this:

[img][/img]

As in "[img]image link[/img]"

[img][/img]

[Demo_Chris]

157. Stunning, but they suffer a serious lack of...

Cottages.

That was a joke in case you were wondering.

In any case, I don't really object to someone saying that Kinkade's work is not Art. I don't really see it that way myself. It does, however, posses a level of technical merit that should not be casually dismissed. I am here because I can appreciate the talent and effort, and because many of the criticisms are a bit disingenuous -- he gets criticized for 'failings' that are passed over as irrelevant (or a virtue) in other artists. For example, his unrealistic color and lighting choices. But again, these things don't make it ART and that wasn't my purpose posting in this thread.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

103. Look closely at the painting in the OP. The light is all wrong.

There appears to be a sunset behind the hills in the background. The trees should be backlit, with light around the edges, but they're not. There's some kind of whitish something behind the trees - mist? Fog? It makes no sense for that to be there unless there's a parking lot back there with bright street lights. And look at the flower beds in the foreground. There are shadows falling from the right side of the picture onto the path, but if the sunset is behind the trees in the background, how can those shadows be there? The point is, for someone who advertised himself as The Painter of Light, the light is completely messed up. It makes the whole painting look wrong and unnatural and fake.

[edhopper]

108. You forgot the dappled sunlight that occurs at midday

from a sun that is setting.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

124. Oh, that must be it.

[kwassa]

133. You're right. The light is totally wrong, mixing different times of day in the same painting.

This is really characteristic of many of his paintings.

[Blue Owl]

136. Very much about "it's five o'clock somewhere"

n/t

[LiberalElite]

73. Sentimental paint-by-numbers schlock IMHO

"Painter of Light" -oh please

[edhopper]

82. More like

Painter-Lite, all the colors with half the skill.

[TwilightGardener]

77. Laughing at "ritual territorial urination". I'm sorry, that's just fucking funny.

[janlyn]

85. The COLORS !!! AHHHHHH!!!!

Seriously,his use of color is an assault on my senses!! I honestly cannot look at his stuff for very long!! Whenever we got any of his work in I would put it in our ugly art section.
My mother adored his work and had multiple things of his, so going to visit her I couldn't let my eyes rest on anything for too long!!! When she passed away I told my sister inlaw that I was sure that mom would have wanted her to have them since she was such an admirer of his work as well!

[Owl]

87. The painting in the Op is lovely.

Satisfaction in tearing down this troubled deceased fellow?

[840high]

104. I wonder how many of

his critics on this thread could do half as well. I very much enjoy his art.

[edhopper]

110. I personally know a great many artist that

can paint rings around him.

I can't sing very well, doesn't mean I don't know a mediocre singer when I hear one.

[840high]

112. Well good for you. I was asking about

the critics on this thread. Can you paint half as well.?

[edhopper]

115. I can paint

Better.

[kwassa]

132. I can paint better, too.

Kinkade is a crappy landscape artist.

As others have pointed out, this painter of light has multiple lighting sources coming from different directions. Painter of made-up light, perhaps.

[JI7]

89. isn't he more of a business person than artist ?

that's what his "art" was about. he made to sell to the masses.

[edhopper]

95. Yes

and a particularly dishonest one at that.

[nolabear]

125. Last I heard he didn't paint his "paintings."

There was a huge scandal about it. I never heard it debunked, and here's one of many articles about it.

http://beforeitsnews.com/arts/2012/05/thomas-kinkade-art-scandal-continues-to-unfold-2170107.html

[NuttyFluffers]

127. there's a few of his (wife's) paintings i like

and i care less about naturalist fidelity. so his saccharin shlock on average is unnerving, and his empire was based on defrauding the art ignorant (which does piss me off), and it was used by moralists to beat everyone over the head. but there are a few pieces of candy raver Maxfield Parish gardens that please me.

sure as hell beats put anything Precious Moments or Anne Geddes. but then it also is more visually palatable to me than a lot of modern art and architechture.

[MADem]

130. He's been dead for awhile. He got very boozy/pill-ish at the end, and gained a massive amount of

weight.

Well before that he was going down hill, peeing all over the place. The "beloved character" was Winnie the Pooh--surprised he didn't try pooping on the poor thing.

His stuff isn't terribly good--it's formulaic and wasn't actually done by him; he had sweatshops where it was turned out.

Not sure why MAIL is rehashing him...slow news day?

[Shadowflash]

151. Kincade was the Kenny G of the art world

His stuff was all the same and really boring.

[JustAnotherGen]

152. We don't look at him as an artist

In our household - my husband is a juried sculptor/metal artist. Probably having work in Art Basel Miami this December. If The Gio says it's not art - I'm not 'allowed' to say it's art.

[randys1]

155. Simple for simple...god didnt help him with his alcoholism, hmmm...wonder why

(i know why if anybody is interested, been there, done that)

[theHandpuppet]

159. Kinkade was a right wing bigot

As such, his hypocritical behavior was to be expected. The shlock he produced as art was appropriately symbolic of that hypocrisy.

[kskiska]

181. Prior to his death he was involved in a domestic disturbance of some sort

Someone created this:

[CTyankee]

188. now, that's funny...hee, hee

[NCarolinawoman]

190. EDWARD HOPPER was the ultimate modern-day "Painter of Light".

No cookie cutter, colored frosting coated bushes and trees using the same formula over and over again. No fear of Edward Hopper's art giving you diabetes.

[WI_DEM]

191. Can't say I love his art, but he certainly can draw better than me

[Algernon Moncrieff]

192. Great - an art snobbery thread

What is good art? If you enjoy looking at it and you want to display it in your house, it's good. Whether it's Monet, or Dali, or Kinkade, or Precious Moments figurines. I've been told how great Jackson Pollock is my entire adult life. Personally, I think his work looks like something my kid could do in my garage.

Yes, a lot of people bought Kinkade paint-by-number oils thinking they were getting a great investment. Rule #1 in buying art - don't buy it as an investment. Buy it because you enjoy it.

Kinkade was an alumnus of Cal Berkeley. He struggled with addiction in his adult life, and died too young.

[Javaman]

194. "6-foot, 254-pound Kinkade as mildly obese"

That must make me, at 6'2" 190, svelte. I'll tell my doctor that next time I see him.

[question everything]

201. why are we debating this in 2014, two years after he died? (nt)