Neiman is almost completely surface, while Kinkade is almost completely sentimentality. I think they are complete opposites, and that it would be unfair to hang a Kinkade on my wall without a Neiman to go next to it.
Thank you all very much for your replies. And thank you also for not pulling punches in your comments. The responses here are exactly what I was looking for and now I have a much greater insight into the thinking in regard to Neiman than I had before.
Frankly, I’ve been a little puzzled by my own attraction to his work. Most of his paintings aren’t what I’d call “pretty” and I don’t think I’d care to have one on my wall (if it were only to be for decorative purposes, that is, and not because it was famous and/or valuable). But I have been drawn to the lively colors and the sense of movement and liveliness that they convey, at least to me. His work just seems more vibrant and alive to me. Many famous works by highly regarded artists (Renoir’s Luncheon of the Boating Party, for example) are very beautiful but seem to me to capture only a moment of action – somewhat like a photograph – whereas Neiman’s work almost makes me feel like I’m there.
I think Krokodil has hit the nail on the head regarding my feelings about Neiman and his work. His paintings work very well in an illustrative context but not in an “artistic” context.
I should probably also add that I have found Neiman’s technique to be fascinating. He very often uses the same color in both positive and negative space. His figures are frequently modelled using little dabs of this color and that and often seem to have a transparent quality to them…and I haven’t a clue as to how he decides to employ the colors he does and in the way he does.
For example, if I were to try to paint a local scene in the manner of Van Gogh I would feel fairly comfortable that, given enough time and reference material, I could at least come close to approximating Van Gogh’s style – at least on a superficial level. But if I were to try to paint some local scene, be it a sporting event or bar or cafe in Neiman’s style, I wouldn’t have a clue as to how to go about it. I have no idea how he makes the decisions he does as to what colors to lay down where, what part of a person or object to model and what part to leave out, and what philosophies guide his hand when he’s painting. I recall seeing just a bare forearm in one of his paintings that consisted of three or four colors.
So in other words, I would feel I could at least tackle the styles of various highly regarded painters, and while my work would by no means be on a par with theirs, I would at least know how to attempt what I was trying to do. But when it comes to Neiman’s style, I wouldn’t have a clue as to how to make the decisions he does when he’s constructing his paintings. Perhaps this is why I’ve been inclined in my painterly immaturity to regard him as highly as I do.
(However, I will certainly agree with Slithy Tove and Pochacco that his draftsmanship leaves a lot to be desired, especially when it comes to the faces of well-known people. Whether it’s Sinatra, Ali or whoever, I can’t think of a painting where I felt the likeness was very good. In fact, his poor likenesses – which I nonetheless attributed to purposeful intent – are the only things that have really stood out to me as being something I didn’t like.)
In closing, thank you, fessie, for your good advice, the links you provided and the encouragement you offered. You went the extra mile here in trying to help me and I wanted you to know it’s appreciated.
Slithy Tove, mrunlucky, CalMeacham, and Pochacco, you all went to considerable time and effort to answer my question and I thank you for your posts. You provided exactly the kind of informed insight I was looking for and added some educational gems as well. I think I may have progressed to another level in my understanding of art tonight thanks to your posts. (And thanks to you, too, Pochacco, for the link to the painting by Lucien Freud. What a wonderful, powerful piece.)
And to the rest of you who took time to post a comment or joke (are you listening, Hamlet? ) I appreciate your comments too.
This has been a most gratifying thread. If anyone would like to comment further on any of the points I’ve raised tonight, I’d be very glad to hear them.
Thanks again, all.
:smack: Dag nab it, I knew I’d leave someone out! Thank you, too, capybara. You’ve made my guilty pleasure feel less guilty, and you’ve reminded me that “nice art” can be just fine in and of itself. This is important to me because even though I’m only middle-aged, I doubt there is enough time ahead for me to become really wonderful; and, as you said, not everybody can be an innovator anyway. If I can get to the point where I am genuinely producing nice art, that will be reward enough for me.
Neiman is not a very good painter but he had a lot of publicity and exposure back in the day, which plays right into the American prejudice that if someone is famous, he must be really talented.
I never thought I would say this but Kinkade is actually technically a better painter. But if I had to own one work by one of them I would pick a Neiman.
The sort of Neiman one can purchase will always be worth something, even one of his prints. The sort of Kinkade one can purchase will eventually be worth nothing. (Market saturation and niche marketing is a bitch.)
Just an anecdote–
When I got my first real job in the '80s in a big office with lots of rich and/or hungry and/or obsessed and/or social climbing lawyers, Neiman prints were the number one decor choice (along with the little wooden gavel everyone seems to think is an appropriate lawyer gift). There were at least 3 copies of that sailboat racing one. I can still see it. As I sat across the desk and stared at it over the head of a big guy, waiting for him to finish his personal call so we could actually work, I learned to be puzzled and annoyed by it. It didn’t mean anything–it was a vaguely-sports-themed ornament by a trendy, safe artist and you knew that it had cost some amount of money. A status symbol.
(Or maybe I was puzzled and annoyed because I was sitting across a desk waiting for a big guy to finish his personal call so we could work.)
OTOH, the old money guy, the one who had paintings on loan to the Art Institute, he didn’t have a Neiman on his office wall.
I think Krokodil described Neiman very well when he said that Neiman was a superb illustrator but not a very good “artist.” I think this is why his paintings make things seem lively and interesting to me but they aren’t something I’d want to hang on my walls.
I’ve been told by someone I know who is an artist that Kinkaid’s technical skills are actually quite good…it’s just that he’s chosen to use them to ill effect.