PDA

View Full Version : Thomas Kinkade Died...



Pages : 1 [2] 3

skatesindreams
04-08-2012, 08:12 PM
If he had taken the other approach he might have been accused of imitating/trading on Rockwell.
Heaven knows, he was villified for less.

Anita18
04-08-2012, 08:27 PM
If he had taken the other approach he might have been accused of imitating/trading on Rockwell.
Heaven knows, he was villified for less.
But he didn't paint like Rockwell, and his work would look vastly different even if he pursued similar subject matter. He chose to paint the subjects he did.

At any rate, I think the art world could learn a lot from his hustling abilities instead of vilifying him for being so successful. :)

Matryeshka
04-08-2012, 10:32 PM
At any rate, I think the art world could learn a lot from his hustling abilities instead of vilifying him for being so successful. :)

You mean like being under investigation from the FBI for defrauding his investors? This is the type of behavior you think other artists should emulate?

I'm sorry he died so young, but there was a vast difference between his public persona as a Chrisian family man painter and the reality.

skatesindreams
04-08-2012, 10:48 PM
Was he ever tried/convicted of any of the charges?
It's possible to become a "victim" of one's own success.

Until recently, he was featured on the "Shop NBC" channel.

Anita18
04-09-2012, 03:13 AM
You mean like being under investigation from the FBI for defrauding his investors? This is the type of behavior you think other artists should emulate?

I'm sorry he died so young, but there was a vast difference between his public persona as a Chrisian family man painter and the reality.
I didn't know that part, but I meant licensing his work to go on everything under the sun, and opening Kinkade-branded galleries in popular malls where people pay hundreds for a lithograph with a few daubs of paint on it. :lol:

Skittl1321
04-09-2012, 03:17 AM
Kinkade almost never included people in his idyllic paintings, which is kind of creepy if you think about it. :shuffle: Or when he included people, they were never directly interacting with each other.


Why is it creepy to have paintings without people? I just looked through a gallery and he did many paintings with people, but the settings he mostly painted made sense without people. They were idyllic, secluded places that the viewer might imagine themselves in- you don't want a crowd.

Looking around my house almost none of the paintings have people in them. I don't see anything creepy about that. I have a few Van Gogh prints that have people in them- but I can't really tell if they are interacting, they are very tertiary to the subject of the painting. (Looking at Kinkade's, the people are interacting in the same sense- together watching the Indy race, walking along the Seine, together on a sleigh ride. People walking with their pet. That all seems normal to me. Do you want them holding a conversation?)


My husband said he thinks all the houses look like they are on fire...

tarotx
04-09-2012, 03:59 AM
Imo he wasn't a great business man but he knew that there was a market for things different from the gritter side of art that be believed rap,tv and movies presented.He slowed it down and took it back. Perhaps he didn't bring something new to the world but he delivered beauty and gave you a glimpse of a calm that is not really a part of most of our lives. He made a lot of people want art and I think he was good for art. Perhaps he was more decorator than artsy but he provided many people with beauty. At the end of the day art is in the beholder and giving beauty and calm is good thing.

Anita18
04-09-2012, 04:11 AM
Why is it creepy to have paintings without people? I just looked through a gallery and he did many paintings with people, but the settings he mostly painted made sense without people. They were idyllic, secluded places that the viewer might imagine themselves in- you don't want a crowd.

Looking around my house almost none of the paintings have people in them. I don't see anything creepy about that. I have a few Van Gogh prints that have people in them- but I can't really tell if they are interacting, they are very tertiary to the subject of the painting. (Looking at Kinkade's, the people are interacting in the same sense- together watching the Indy race, walking along the Seine, together on a sleigh ride. People walking with their pet. That all seems normal to me. Do you want them holding a conversation?)

My husband said he thinks all the houses look like they are on fire...
About the flaming houses....clearly, all the lights are on but the viewer is outside, so it's likely not the viewer's house.

So that's voyeurism, or the coveting of another person's lifestyle. You're looking at the calm scene, and you want this for yourself. You want this person's house. I think that's the most specific way I can explain why they bother me ever so slightly. Someone is home, you're looking at their house, and you want it.

When I was in high school and younger, they didn't bother me. I actually could do a mad Kinkade replica back then. One of them still hangs in my parents' house. :lol:

I have nothing against idyllic calm scenes. In fact, one of my favorite painters has always been Monet, who I consider the real painter of light. :lol: He always paints idyllic scenes and also with nary a person in them, but you get the feeling that they're studies of real-life scenes. His thing was to experiment with color and texture to make an impression of what light is doing to what he is seeing right then. He doesn't pick and choose subjects on purpose and add that fictional slant to them the way Kinkade did. You appreciate Monet paintings for their beauty, but it doesn't idealize the subject. Or at least, that wasn't their main purpose.

snoopysnake
04-09-2012, 04:20 AM
I worked in a museum while he was in his heyday, and I think there was a lot of criticism of Kincaid from the arts establishment because they thought he was overly sentimental and commercial. He did a lot of safe stuff that spoke to ordinary people, and there's nothing wrong with that in my book. He was certainly a great craftsman/technician for the kind of thing he did, and hey-art is in the eye of the beholder. His work wasn't for me, but I am sorry he died so young. 56 is way, way too young.

I do like his work but agree with you on why some people did not. It was a similar case with Bob Ross (and his original mentor, Bill Alexander) who did the 30-minute paintings on PBS. Many people thought their work was schlocky, but they did teach many people how enjoyable it can be to paint, and their paintings pleased a lot of folks.

Kinkeade died much too young, as did Ross. (Bill Alexander, at least, lived into his 80's.) All were gifted and pleased many people.

Nan
04-09-2012, 02:52 PM
I loved watching Bob Ross paint his "happy little trees." :)

skatesindreams
04-09-2012, 03:38 PM
I wonder how many people realize that many of the "great masters" had "schools" with assistants/copyists to keep up with the demand for their works.
Would they have been accused of "commercialization"?

danceronice
04-09-2012, 03:47 PM
I wonder how many people realize that many of the "great masters" had "schools" with assistants/copyists to keep up with the demand for their works.
Would they have been accused of "commercialization"?

Not so long as the subjects were depressing, disturbing, or nonsensical enough... :slinkaway

"Serious Artistes" of the modern day don't like artists who aren't trying to be subversive or offensive somehow. Kinkade also committed the cardinal sin of being financially successful (something I have much more respect for than someone trying to create ART. A lot of historic GREAT ARTISTS were just trying to pay rent, too, and wouldn't have begrudged Kinkade a healthy bank account.) Painting light and happy little trees are not subversive or offensive, ergo the artists must be sellout hacks.

Personally, I can't paint pretty cottages or trees, happy or otherwise, so more power to them.

barbk
04-09-2012, 04:31 PM
I loved watching Bob Ross paint his "happy little trees." :)

"This tree needs a little friend." In that incredibly calming voice. :lol: I always thought they could make some bucks by selling Bob Ross sound tracks to help people with insomnia sleep.

Looking around my house, none of the art I have features people.

My brother and SIL bought a Kinkade print for their family room -- one of the cottages with a stream running about fifteen feet away, with no bank. As we were sitting there yesterday I kept thinking about flood risk and wet basements. But, it makes them happy.

I like some of his earlier work, not enough to want one at home, but I find it enjoyable. And to be fair, compared to the "art" Denver International Airport commissioned (the demon blue stallion with the glowing red eyes) that killed its creator -- I'd rather they'd have invested in Kinkades. Some call it Blucifer. :yikes:
http://www.discerningtheworld.com/images/wpi/dia-horse.jpg

It is on the order of 30 feet tall, and the glowing red eyes at night are enough to make anyone wish for the calmness of Kinkade.

NinjaTurtles
04-09-2012, 05:14 PM
Kinkade also committed the cardinal sin of being financially successful (something I have much more respect for than someone trying to create ART. A lot of historic GREAT ARTISTS were just trying to pay rent, too, and wouldn't have begrudged Kinkade a healthy bank account.) Painting light and happy little trees are not subversive or offensive, ergo the artists must be sellout hacks.


On the other spectrum (contemporary art), Damien Hirst receives similar amounts of negative criticism...he also sold an entire show of work for ~$200 million.

Alexa5
04-10-2012, 03:45 PM
I think the thing that changed my mind about him a while back was when he was not treating his gallery owners fairly, and they sued him successfully, and for good reason. Before that I liked some of his work, but it just seemed that he was selling an image to even his gallery owners that was not reality.