Our favorite freak, Thomas “The Urinator” Kinkade strikes again.
I did take solace in last night’s Law & Order: CI, though. As I mentioned in a CS thread, the episode featured a “bad guy” by the name of “Wallace Kanter” whose “art” had more than a passing similarity to the schlockmeister. The actor even had a passing resemblance to Kinkade.
All throughout the episode, various characters were slamming the “art” of Kanter…very delicious.
So people want to buy houses that look like houses painted buy some guy you don’t like. I know its all the rage to hate Kincade, but I prefer to heap scorn on people who use terms like "middlebrow ".
I love this comical notion that all aesthetic judgments are completely subjective and unjustifiable. Just like Britney Spears is every bit the equal of John Coltrane, right? That fantasy is the refuge of those who don’t have any taste, so they can pretend that no one does.
Though since when is Kinkade “middlebrow”? I’d put him in lowbrow, just above the nobrow delights of paintings of Elvis on velvet.
If its any help, I have very little taste in quality art. And yet, I knew immediatly that the OP was ranting at Kinkade when I read “urinator of light”.
I think that, in this case, art is in the eye of the beholder unless you are a fictional beholder who happend to be in a kincaid drawn dwelling. If that is the case, you would be vaporized by the intense light.
*Fans of Thomas Kinkade’s sentimental paintings soon will be able to do more than hang them on the wall. They could hang them on the wall of a house designed to look exactly like one of Kinkade’s paintings.
The California artist, beloved by middlebrow America but reviled by the art establishment, has signed a deal with developers in this resort city to help design five lake-view homes that are copies of homes in paintings such as “Beyond Autumn Gate.”*
A developer in our area tried to market dwellings based on those featured in the paintings of Hieronymus Bosch.
And I just love this comical notion that aesthetic judgements are completely objective and justifiable. That someone could assert that Coltrane is objectively better that Thelonious Monk, or the Beatles are objectively better than the Stones or that some pretencious assholes would slip in a comparison of Britney Spears to John coltrane and think they have made some kind of point.
And I just love this comical notion that aesthetic judgements are completely objective and justifiable. That someone could assert that Coltrane is objectively better that Thelonious Monk, or the Beatles are objectively better than the Stones or that some pretencious assholes would slip in a comparison of Britney Spears to John coltrane and think they have made some kind of point.
Hey, at least he didn’t draw inspiration from M. C. Escher. “Every time I go upstairs in this damn house I end up in the basement!”
Who said they were? I think the point is that there’s sort of a spectrum of aesthetic judgements, from the hotly-disputed to the near-consensus. Sometimes they’re completely subjective (is Picasso a better artist than Monet? Who knows? What do you mean by “better”?).
Sometimes, on the other hand, they involve such huge differences of technical skill, or originality, or innovation, or some other identifiable feature that they get pretty close to objectively true. (Is Picasso a better artist than I am? Yes.)
Methinks you are a dumb ass. I can’t stand the fuckers work. But I also get tired of the OMFG Kincade is so bad, can you believe those idiots like him. Aren’t we cool for not liking him? I don’t like it. I don’t buy it. But I am not going to make fun of people who do, or worse look down on them for it.