“Thankfully, I have no idea who Thomas Kincade is, Cranky. But I agree with you wholeheartedly about Limp Bizkit and Korn.”
—I am also mercifully innocent of Kincade. But “Limp Bizkit” and “Korn” sound like what you’d find in a bedpan at a nursing home . . .
I had not heard of him and so decided to do a little searching on the net. VERY SORRY that I did that.
And I am sorry to the people who say “oh well he can paint better than I can!” Do not underestimate yourselves, I could throw something better out at age 7.
Kinkade’s home page made me gag, seriously.
::shudder::
You are blessed, Eve, to not know of the evil, corporate art of Kinkade. His subliminal messages of a utopian world have grasped far too many of the weak-minded, sitcom-saturated Americans that inhabit this country.
My mother *loves * his “work”. She has it all over the house. Even down to the little refrigerator magnets, and notecards, and picture frames, and desk calendar–his stuff has invaded the home I grew up in.
It’s all overly sentimental schlock that will never grace the wall of any museum, except for the museum of bad taste. Better paintings can be found at “Art Expo 2000” happening in the Airport Hilton, where all paintings go for $25 or less.
Whenever I walk by one of his stores, or see one of his ads, I mutter “Yeah, Thomas Kinkade, Painter of Light As Seen Only on the Covers of Bad Fantasy Novels About Cute Elves.” Feh.
For a painter of light, see Vermeer, or Rembrandt, or Monet, or any of the Plein Air folks. Sheesh.
Looks like I can cratch PL off my list of potential dates for the upcoming Rothko exhibition.
I know a woman who works in a Kinkade wharehouse in San Jose. I was talking to her last week, and she told me somthing that shocked the shit outta me.
Thomas Kinkade has about 10 artists that work for him, cranking out these bullshit, contemporary, plain-jane, every picture looks alike, crappy, muddy colored pictures!!
I hereby request a vote to change him to…
-Sam
ponch opines,
Quite a bit, actually. That’s what’s most aggravating about “artists” like Kinkade: people buy the pieces of shit that he sells as “collectable” “paintings” rather than looking for real art.
There’s plenty of galleries where you can buy a real, original piece of art by a relatively unknown painter/sculptor/artist for a couple hundred bucks. Granted, Lisa, not every person is going to like every piece, but Christ! take a look at least. There’s thousands of completely different things to choose from.
I kind of fail to understand why anyone would plunk down good money for mass-produced pabulum. I mean, if you’re buying art, you should buy something that reflects your individuality, that’s interesting, that sparks conversation, that you think is cool, and appreciate the effort and vision of the artist. Your art doesn’t have to be edgy, or Picasso-ish, or even hip, but it should be art, and it should reflect you. That’s what art is for, fer Chrissakes!
If you’re gonna buy a boring, massed-produced cutesy piece of shit “art,” you might as well buy wallpaper instead, because there’s just as much art in the wallpaper design (if not more) as in a Thomas Kinkade.
And Silo? A hundred thousand dollars? That’s just sad. I probably ought to make fun of that, but I haven’t the heart.
Lazy-boy is selling funiture that matches the Kinkade prints WTF???. What kind of idiot would go out and buy a piece of furniture and a matching “painting”. God I hate that crap. I mean what real artist is proud that he has sold over x copies of his work. Popularity doesn’t mean it’s good dickwad. Art should challenge you, art should enlighten you, art should inspire a strong response in you. Art shouldn’t exist just to give you warm fuzzies. Ican forgive the masses for eating this stuff up, but I can’t forgive serious collectors for buying the originals because they should know better. After all, Mr. Kinkade is the purveyor of the modern equivalent of those big eyed chidren paintings of the 50’s and 60’s. What kind of artist needs a registered trademark phrase like "painter of light anyhow? It’s all marketing and hype NOT art.
Oh yeah, did I mention I didn’t like his stuff :rolleyes:
Keith
I’m with you Nacho. I could maybe, maybe almost tolerate Kissmyasskade if it wasn’t for his fundamental christian ramblings.
Yes, yes! I’ve been nauseated by Kinkade for years!
Thomas Kinkade is split-level, peach-coloured berber carpet, ceramic kitten figurine kitsch suburbia at its worst.
Behold America’s most collected artist (or so he says).
says Kinkade, oh so modestly. Isn’t he aware that Precious Moments has been purveying this sort of tripe for years? It’s nothing new.
Heil Kinkade! Beanie Babies and Furby are wildly embraced by our culture (the gullible part), but I don’t see them being added to museum collections around the world.
This man is an egotistical, power-hungry freak. He even sinks so low as to use his religion to market his mass-produced drivel. Any bible-book store you go in has a prominent corner devoted to Kinkade. Christians seem drawn to it because it’s more “spiritual” than secular art. What on earth does a quaint cottage have to do with CHRISTIANITY?! I’m a Christian, and this kind of thing just infuriates me. It’s like the money changers in the temple.
I don’t usually act this way about art. I like Van Gogh and other postimpressionists, but I’m not an arrogant art/theatre major (see: http://www.lileks.com/institute/dorcus/husky.html ).
I rarely use the word “kitsch”.
But Thomas Kinkade just irritates me.
“From the Husky Bastard Collection” LOL.
I never considered until a couple short years ago that I could possibly enjoy Impressionist art. Seeing Painter Spice (ROFLMMFAO) work initially cemented the thought, but it also made me look around a little and check out what I might be missing in the world. So (and I shudder to give him ANY credit), maybe he at least serves as a good yardstick of what’s BAD.
Agreed. And as long as we’re throwing out names, try Henri le Sidaner. Not quite as well known, a little harder to find, but O! the beauty. “Table in the Sunlight,” IIRC, particularly.
I’m fairly neutral on his paintings, they certainly aren’t anything to get excited about.
What really pisses me off is how damn many galleries this guy has. They are EVERYWHERE.
Nacho4Sara you are my new hero.
But you know, one day my dad and I were touring the Museum of Modern Art in San Francisco and we walked into a room with nothing but empty canvases on the wall. We asked the guard if this was a room under construction. Nope.
“White on White Canvas.”
And there were like 20 different canvases hung up there with nothing on them! Sigh.
-S
They just opened up one of his franchises in this town, I couldn’t believe it. I am tempted to go inside and laugh but I can barely stand to look at that crap sideways. Flowery vines growing over gazebos, brrr
He may think he is the forefront of some great movement in art but the art world has the last laugh on him already. None of his pieces will ever be shown in a legitimate, accredited museum. Everybody knows it exists solely for the benefit nouveau riche white trash who have delusions of upscale tastefulness. Props to Kinkade for successfully marketing to a specific, narrowly defined target audience, but that is all he is ever going to get in reality. His Shatner-ish pontifications over his role as an important artist in history etc. is just so much price-tag-padding horseshit.
Another artist in that vein is P. Buckley Moss. Her work is “Holly Hobby”-esque, Quaker-ized, calico-covered, sugar-coated heinousness incarnate. Loathsome, I hate it precious yes. And these hicks eat Mosses up like they were Princess Diana beanie babies still in the wrapper.
Believe me folks: if you want to spend $100,000 on artwork you can get a hell of a lot nicer stuff than that overpriced pablum. Stuff that will actually appreciate in value, say.
(the discussion about Silo’s parents and apples falling in proximity to trees is hereby omitted.)
I’d heard of Kinkade but never actually saw his stuff until I read this thread and searched some out. Hoo-hah! I’ve seen better stuff on black velvet! I’m betting this guy will soon have his very own special on the Home Shopping Network.
A Rothko exhibition? Really? Where? When? Can I go since PL is out?
I had never heard of Mr. Kinkade until a few months ago when I went shopping with my friend. I should mention that my friend and I agree on absolutely nothing. We have no idea why we’re friends, we’ve actually tried to figure it out, but haven’t yet. It’s kind of strange. Anyway, she wanted to go shopping at the Kinkade gallery in the mall, and I’m looking at the pictures in the window thinking “WTF? This is an art gallery?” I managed to talk her out of it.
However, did not escape another couple hours of letting her drag me around while she looked at useless tchotchkies. (“Oooh, glass kitties! A little statuette of a bunny!”) Ugh…
I did not realize the extent of Mr. Kinkade’s popularity until reading this thread, and now I am kinda scared.
ROTFLMAO!! Eve, you rock.
I see his work at ebay.com a lot & ewanted.com too. I think I see him around here too sometimes on the news, must be his home area? Mid California?
Reminds me of galleries in Carmel, California. Sometimes they buy street market pictures in Europe & bring them here and slap on $20,000 price tags. lol.
Kinkade cries all the way to the bank.
1)The very first time I ran across TK was in a full color full page ad in a Sunday supplement. In normal times plates with big eyed droopy dogs and children appear there.
In older times Black Velvet paintings appeared there.
2)The second time I ran across TK was late at night on TV just before sermonette. There was the “painter of light” with his 1-800 number and have your credit card ready.
Right off the bat what does this tell you? Here is a commercial painter. He knows his audience and he markets to that audience. I am not part of that audience…I’ve ignored his tripe for years. But the mention of his name suddenly has people here chomping at the bit for his head.
If everyone here hates commercial artists so much, why not trash Norman Rockwell? Or Currier & Ives?
Maybe, just maybe, and I’m getting the feeling from this board…it’s the way Kinkade has chosen to market himself.
Somehow he’s coming off as a sleazy TV preacher who is taking advantage of a group who don’t need to be parted from their money. Is that a proper reading?
Well, I think you’re oversimplifying. Most of us weren’t even around during the Norman Rockwell era, but I happen to know that the critics trashed his stuff as kitsch back then, too. And even then, I highly doubt Rockwell’s work was ever the sleek, mechanical, calculated commercial machine that Kinkade’s is now. Rockwell didn’t have stores with little fake gas fireplaces in malls across the country. It’s really no comparison. But yeah, the sleazy preacher aspect is definitely extremely irritating, but it’s not the only thing that makes people angry.
I liken Kinkade’s little racket to the whole Garfield Industry, but at least Jim Davis isn’t trying to con people into believing that his comic strip is valuable, meaningful “high art”.
I love you, Bill Watterson.