One time I read a posting (not on this message board) that showed a Kinkade picture and pointed out all the different sources of light: from the ground, from the top of the trees, radiating from the flowers, and so on. I’ve never stopped noticing that about his paintings since.
Sure, he has technical skills when painting flowers and cottages, but these are comparatively easy to paint. You can give a flower just about any shape & color you want and it’ll still be a recognizable flower. Have you ever seen one of his paintings containing living people or creatures? There’s a reason why he doesn’t push them.
On top of that, his paintings make zero sense. A tiny little wood cottage would collapse under all that snow. Trees don’t bend down like they do under heavy snow. Houses built 2 feet from a river. His rivers tend to look like the Exxon-Valdez sprung a leak in them, all that oily sheen. Ad infinitum.
I’ve got a very pretty flowery landscape over my fireplace, with a huge gilt frame. It has a Kinkade feel to it, so I have no room to condemn people for buying starving-artist mall pieces, but at least it’s painted right.
I know you know that I know that you think that I know that you think that one not so specified may not be an elitist, or possibly you think I know otherwise. Or not.
I do get sick of when someone expresses an opinion on art, some bozo has to come along and shout “elitist!” Yeah, must be because the observer wants to pump himself up, and not because the art sucks.
To be honest, I’ll give Kinkade props for being technically proficient (but Excalibre, you got a link to some of that bad perspective?), and the subject matter could be worse, and I have no moral issue with fleecing those with bad taste. But his paintings leave me feeling so flat. They’re all frosting and no cake. They are empty calories.
That’s the critical thing for me. I absolutely adore his style of painting (probably my second-favorite*), but he’s not even among the top artists in that genre. For me, it’s not the unrealism of the settings – they add some romanticism to it, if anything – but the inattention to lighting. Sure, each individual part of the painting isn’t too badly lit but when you look at it as a whole it looks even more jarring than the horribly-lit computer-generated SFX of mid-90s movies.
And for contrast, my favorite genre is pre-surrealism such as Bosch or Goya
I’m sure Kinkade’s pictures wouldn’t create such vehiment disslike if it wasn’t for the way Kinkade acts and the way he sells himself as a greatly skilled artist. The pictures are pretty and lots of people enjoy them. The problem is Kinkade over sells himself, and like anyone who does such a thing people like to knock him back down a rung or two.
If he was like J.K. Rowling, and admitted to making fun stuff for people to enjoy no one would have that much problem with him. Instead he is like a anti - J.K. Rowling who says she is the greatest living writer.
I agree with the criticisms: Kinkaide is a businessman, who mass-produces paintings for a relatively undescerning clientele. In this regard he is no different than many commercial artists. However, if people like his stuff, more power to them. One thing puzzles me: are there any standards for art? Can you pass off something as coming from your brush, even if all you do is sign the thing? oh, and : why do kinkaide’s house always look like they are on fire inside? Every window is illuminated by a brigh orange glow-as if the flames are about to break out.
I agree with the criticisms: Kinkaide is a businessman, who mass-produces paintings for a relatively undescerning clientele. In this regard he is no different than many commercial artists. However, if people like his stuff, more power to them. One thing puzzles me: are there any standards for art? Can you pass off something as coming from your brush, even if all you do is sign the thing? oh, and : why do kinkaide’s house always look like they are on fire inside? Every window is illuminated by a brigh orange glow-as if the flames are about to break out.
One can be a commercial artist and not suck. Norman Rockwell’s paintings were pretty cheesy sometimes, but sometimes they weren’t (I’m thinking of the little black girl walking to school next to some grafitti spelling out racial slurs). Kinkade has proclaimed himself the next Rockwell, but I don’t think Rockwell was ever the suckage that Kinkade is. One of my favorite artists is Alphonse Mucha, who did illustrations for ads, but they’re gorgeous.
And I like a lot of fantasy art like Amy Brown or Brian Froud, which tends to be somewhat cheesy, and mass-marketed. But I just plain old-fashioned like it, and I don’t claim it’s the next Michaelangelo. Kinkade’s problem is the fact that he’s a pretentious git, and seems to think he’s the second coming of Monet.
Oh, and even sven, he pissed on Winnie the Pooh. That’s even worse. Poor Pooh Bear. I say he should hire Tigger to go and maul the shit out of Kinkade. Or at least get Owl to poop on him.
That about sums up my criticism of Kinkade, too. His art is generally quite good, from a technical standpoint, but it’s also pretty bland. More landscapes. More cityscapes. More picturesque houses. I couldn’t be less interested.
That’s a question that’s debated quite a lot in the art world. Many of the great masters had apprentices who did everything from mixing paint and fetching supplies to actually painting large sections of frescoes for them. Some art historians spend their careers teasing out details that reveal whether Rembrandt, for example, painted a portrait himself or if it was one of his apprentices.
Media like bronze sculpture, printmaking and photography also bring up issues of what constitutes an “original.” It’s an interesting question.
But Kincaid’s stuff, IMO, isn’t worth debating about in terms of originality–it doesn’t have any. I don’t care that people like it or buy it, but those who wax poetic about his “art” and worship him are pretty nauseating.
I was curious enough to do a web search to see if I could find the painting you mentioned. This appears to be it, titled The Problem We All Live With. You do realize, that it is a social commentary, and it depicts the the results of Brown vs. Topeka Schoolboard right? It’s title says as much, notice the policemen behind her? Maybe the graffitti was edited out of the picture, but even so it (the graffitti) is a fair depiction of how certain people reacted, and in no way is it condoning the actions, rather airing them out. In other words, Rockwell painted what he saw, and showed it to the world for them to judge.
Upon closer examination I do see the faint partial word “Nigger” on the wall. It is just as I said then, it is showing the events as they happened, and the title shows Rockwell’s sentiments. I think it was a tribute to the little girl’s bravery. My mom spoke of seeing the girl going to school on newsreels, and she said that she was most impressed by the girl’s dignity and courage.
To the two posters above me (defending Norman Rockwell against Guin), either you or I have been whooshed here, because I took her statement as a defense of Rockwell. I thought she was saying “Rockwell was normally cheesy, but this particular painting was not.”
(I am only one person.) I read it more as she didn’t like that painting, but maybe not. She also doesn’t realize that he did quite a few other paintings that weren’t as “cheesy”. The one on this page, for the National Geographic as an example.
I was much mistaken, I thought since that image was on the Normam Rockwell Museum site it was his work. I am going to have to set my font size larger I think, and get in to the optometrist. I have noticed lately that these glasses aren’t helping me as much as they once did. No doubt it is time for new ones. (Don’t laugh, my vision is 20/400 uncorrected in my left eye and 20/200 uncorrected in my right eye with severe astigmatism. It had corrected to 20/25, and hopefully will do so again.)
:dubious:
Uh, Zabali, that’s exactly what I meant-Rockwell didn’t just paint happy teenyboppers enjoying an ice cream soda at the local soda fountain, or the girl fondly admiring her mother’s wedding dress. He also used his art as a way to express what was going on in society. That was just one example I thought of.
OneCentStamp-you are correct. I was speaking up FOR Rockwell. I think that particular piece is extremely compelling. Rockwell wasn’t just a hack, and that’s another reason why Kinkade pisses me off. He has stated in the past that he’s Rockwell’s Heir. No, no he’s not. Not at all.
I actually like his sentimental, corny work as well, btw.
(Don’t laugh, my vision is 20/400 uncorrected in my left eye and 20/200 uncorrected in my right eye with severe astigmatism. It had corrected to 20/25, and hopefully will do so again.)