Bottom line - schlock sells. If the segment that responded to schlock marketing would respond to sex like the rest of the population, Kinkade wouldn’t be in business. Or we’d be looking at some God-awful garishly painted nudes.
I’d never heard of this guy until this thread, but I am pretty sure I know who everyone is talking (shrieking, spewing, ranting, etc.) about.
Sounds like the Rod McKuen of visual art.
My old creative writing teacher used to turn cobalt blue at the very mention of Rod’s name. I used to tell him I thought R. Mc. was cool just to see him strangle.
Ah…this brings back the good ol’ days…
This guy’s paintings aren’t so bad! 
:ducks and runs:
You do know he doesn’t paint them himself, right? He has people working in factories painting them.
Can I please use this as a sig line? Pretty please?
FYI, I still think he sucks. This is coming, of course, from the girl who used to watch those Bob Ross (was that his name?) painting shows religiously. I still think the “happy little trees” are better than this mass-marketed tripe. And I still haven’t forgiven my mother for that screensaver. “Look! Another cottage! Another pretty wooden picket fence! Another hillside! And a Psalm! GASP John 3:16! I think I just has an orgasm!”
Blow me, Mr. Kincade.
Yes, that was his name. And there is some definite thematic similarity and predilection for luminous pastels in both sets of work. However, the late Mr. Ross did not market himself as an artistic genius. In fact, it was rather interesting to watch him take a low-key “anybody can do this stuff - just have fun with it” approach to the process of painting, as well as realizing how quickly he could turn out one of those things.
I remember the “happy little trees” guy! He was great! One of my grandmothers watched him all the time. What she liked about him was precisely what *yabob said. Non-pretentious, decent fellow who was happy to teach you some painting tips.
What I’d really appreciate now is for someone to tell me why I’m supposed to like Kinkade. Is it because he’s titled himself? The “Painter of Light” thing, like no other artist in the history of the world has ever painted light? Would I gain a cult following if I titled myself something like “Persephone, Wearer of Panties”?
Whoops. Should some kindly moderator choose to take pity on me and my atrocious coding, I would forever be in your debt.
Mirroring the current political climate in general and the Bush administration specifically, it is safe to assume that a certain degree of Kinkade’s success is due to his swaddling himself in a religious mantle. By pilfering Bible passages he has attempted to give his work a veneer of timelessness that would normally require having them embedded in concrete.
It all depends upon the panties, my dear.
Only if you’ll let me use the “fuck me in the ear with sandpaper” remark whenever I want to. 
Well, why don’t we just go ahead and embed his work in concrete, then? Of course, we’d have to use several layers to properly shield future generations from contamination, but I’d be willing to kick in a few bucks on the cost.
I had the misfortune of being given a cross-stitch kit of a “Painting of Light.” This wasn’t just the diagram, but the kind that comes with all the floss you need and the cloth, etc. Some of the floss was of the “glittery” variety, I suppose for the optimum reproduction of the masterful usage of light in the original :rolleyes:.
The crowning touch, though, was a little slip of paper, printed with a Bible verse, meant for you to include when ready to mat and display your masterpiece. :rolleyes:
Bob Ross! Sure, they were all alike. But that was the thing-he was teaching technique! And he was cheerful, unpretentious, and BOY could he paint fast! And I liked how he’d make up little stories about his paintings, like, “And here’s the barn-gotta put a window in, for the little cows in the barn to look out.” And he’d show clips of his pet squirrel!
Bob Ross was the man!
But Kinkade? Ick ick ick. His paintings are fine for little greeting cards and puzzles. NOT for an artist. If HE likes what he paints, fine. I paint bloody shitty paintings, but they’re INTERESTING. (They suck in composition, but make up in subject matter-try a faceless girl in a tie-dyed shirt and shorts doing yoga while sitting on a giant sunflower, holding a huge feather.)
I mean, c’mon, Kinkade-I can crap bigger than your paintings.
Hmmm… in that case, I guess I’m about to come WAY out…
I actually own two canvas Kinkade prints, including this one.
(EGADS!!! FLOG HER!!!)
So… lay the spoiled fruit of this cultural cancer at my feet – I am the droid you’re looking for.
Actually, I just love rainy cityscapes with lots of cars, people etc. Don’t hate me, but I’m likely to pick up one or more of the SF and Paris ones at some point, too!
Guess I identify with meara and zette…I have a couple of TK’s prints as well. I also have a few by Terry Redlin.
Never got into Jesse Barnes, though; don’t know why. Or Kim Jacobs.
There are a whole bunch of artists out there on prints and calendars and plates that you probably wouldn’t like, either.
Kinkade paints greeting cards.
It’s the marketing that made him successful.
When his stuff was being hawked in the Sunday supplements next to the wide-eyed little babies I had no problem with him.
In the last 10 years he’s started to drape his stuff in a religious mantle. But it’s still the same stuff he was selling before. Now is the time I get peeved. He’s stopped being a commercial artist (“I laughed all the way to the bank” - Liberace) and moves to the pulpit of the religious huxter.
Is that the feeling I’m getting from several others here?
I’m so sorry. I hope you could exchange it?
I wish. A relative had purchased it for herself, opened it up, looked at it, and then decided it was too challenging for her skills. I didn’t want to hurt her feelings by expressing my opinion of her taste or by running away screaming.
As an artist myself, I’ve had to give some thought to what it is that I find so annoying about Kincade’s work. I even went so far as to examine all of the pictures linked to in this thread. I will go on to say that the pieces linked to are more acceptable than the usual quaint-structure-next-to-the-quaint-bridge-over-the-quaint-millpond-near-the-quaint-forest subjects.
That said, I am nonetheless struck by an almost Rockwellian content in Kinkade’s work. The one enduring definition that has stuck in my mind for the last few days is the word, “caricature”. There is a degree of oversimplification, especially in the Paris and San Francisco scenes, but most profoundly noticable in his quaint-structure-next-to-the-quaint-bridge-over-the-quaint-millpond-near-the-quaint-forest images that is quite irritating, detail notwithstanding.
As someone who strives for content in my art it is appalling to see works that yield no challenge to the viewer. There is little impressionism or interpretation in what I see of Kinkade’s work. It is void any subtle manipulation of tone and hue or substitution of chromatic elements for lighting factors. I refer you to the Spanish artist Royo for a splendid modern reinterpretation of classic techniques. Royo uses depth of coloration to establish illumination and impressionistic interpretation of paint texture to create dimensionality. Please check this picture for an idea of what I am talking about. Any lack of detail is more than made up for by deft manipulation of brush strokes and pigments.
For a less traditional artist who has all of the detail of Kincade I refer you to Eyvinde Earle.He was a Disney animator who worked on such classics as Snow White, Fantasia and Sleeping Beauty. Given only the title of “Color Coordinator” in the credits, his imprint on both the vivid chromatic tones and superb quasi-geometric backgrounds shaped the entire format of these timeless animation pieces. I refer you to the serigraph “Blue Fog” which I own a print of. Earle combined the brilliant colors of Maxfield Parrish with the geometricity of M.C. Escher to compound a superb amalgamation of detail and composition.
Sadly, neither image that I have linked to are displayed in their proper brilliance of color. You will have to take my word for the rich tonalities of these pieces. Both of these artists have their own distinctive styles yet evoke many classical and traditional elements in their work. It is for this reason that I find such derivative no-brainers like Kinkade so repulsive.
[hijack]
I would appreciate any comments here or via email about your own assessment of Royo’s and Earle’s work. I find them to be some of the better modern painters who combine the best aspects of classical tradition with distinct and unique personal touches. The art of Royo and Earle is immediately assimilable yet allows room for personal interpretation. The amount of effort made by both of them is directly appearant with none of the contrived aspects of Kinkade’s work.
[/hijack]
PS: I hope you enjoyed this little critique. I just pissed away my entire lunch hour composing what I hoped would be a more cogent reply than my preceeding rants.
It’s not the paintings. IF someone likes his paintings, fine. There are a few I think aren’t so bad. They’re kind of pretty. BUT, it is HIM and his whole franchise thing that I don’t like.
If you like his paintings, there is nothing wrong with that. Whatever floats your boat.
But I’ll stick with my pre-Raphaelites, thank you very much.
(John W. Waterhouse, anyone?)
Clips, hell. Some episodes the damned thing would be running around, twitching in and out of his afro while he painted. Bob Ross was most definitely the man, I agree. His voice and manner were soooooo soothing. Like televised lithium.
As for Kinkade, well… It’s a weird, subtle feeling that I can’t clearly articulate, but his colors, and composition, and the way he crowds up the perspective so everything looks small and cozy (even fucking Yosemite!) just make me want to produce some of Lamia’s aforementioned Froot Loop art. And he’s pretentious about it, to boot. He’s what would happen if Windham Hill put out graphic art collections.
If he’s not already doing it, I predict that at some point, he’ll begin offering prints in frames with actual lightbulbs in or behind the myriad light-points in his paintings: “Now you can have actual light vomit forth from the every available window on your copy of Thomas Kinkade’s mass-produced accessories to your white leather living room set.”
Lux, you’d better sit down and put your head between your knees. Something very similar has already happened.
Avon is offering a collectible figurine based on one of his paintings…and it lights up.
Sorry, man.