The Disney paintings and the NASCAR one remind me of something else awful about his style. They have far too many subjects, all crammed into every corner. Hey Tom, pick ONE and stick with it. There’s no crime in giving the eye a place to rest. The way they are now, it’s like listening to a radio that’s tuned into every station simultaneously.
I’m about to post shocking facts about myself. My house has Thomas Kindaide borders up next to the ceiling in the sun room and downstairs bathroom. Sun room has gazebos, bathroom has lighthouses. I didn’t put them there, but they don’t bother me. 
Kinkaide doesn’t bother me, sure he may be unoriginal and use too much color, but if you don’t like it don’t look at it.
I actually though the Pinocchio image was OK. Not great, and it needed to be toned down a good deal. The other, though… Ouch. Bad. Real bad!
Does he spit, pee, or bleed into it?
Keep going…
To follow up, I was able to print from the New Yorker “reader” to an Acrobat file. If anyone wants it, message me. It’s just this one article, not the entire issue.
:eek:
Oh, come on… 
Only on the truly exclusive Master Bates Editions.
The Master…
Goddamnit, you people are too quick.
Ahhhh… so, I stand corrected. Artists don’t hate Kincade for being successful- they hate people in general because so many like him!
That’s MUCH better than mere jealousy.
Kincade means nothing to me, esthetically. I THINK I may once have bought a pack of Christmas cards with one of his paintings on it years ago, but that’s the extent of my bond with Kincade. He’s one of a thousand artists I’m vaguely aware of. I couldn’t care less whether anybody loves his work or not.
I merely find the irrational hatred he inspires FAR more amusing than the (equally unmerited) love he receives.
As for musicians like you… I sympathize up to a point. But face it, you KNEW when you took up music what was most likely to make you popular. You CHOSE not to go in that direction! Don’t gripe that other guys took the supposedly easy way and attracted more money/girls as a result.
I say “supposedly” easy, because “selling out” really ISN’T that easy! If there were a magical formula to making platinum albums, don’t you think there are thousands of bands following that formula to the letter? Loads of Beatle imitators, “Next Dylans,” Zeppelin clones and Nirvana wannabes have tried very hard to sell out, and have failed miserably.
Pandering usually DOESN’T pay that well.
Nope, you’re still missing the point. It’s disgust at seeing someone adored who’s so obviously a charlatan. I think most artists are fine with well-adored artists who have actually earned that adoration.
Actually, I didn’t. I was well nigh clueless.
That would include me.
It’s a conundrum, isn’t it? How can we assert aesthetic standards while admitting that all taste is relative?
Here’s how I see it. It’s possible to interact with art purely on a gut level. You take each piece as it comes and either say “that’s pretty” or “that sucks” without giving it much thought.
There’s nothing wrong with approaching art this way. Lots of people do. But if you look at a lot of art … the gut approach gets *boring *after a while. So you start to look for patterns in what you like and dislike, ways to construct a critical framework that lets you talk and think about art. And as you develop your critical framework you discover that it opens up the possibility of new sorts of aesthetic experience. Instead of just responding to the immediate visual impact of a piece you have all sorts of other factors to play with: What does a work symbolize? How does it relate to other works? Why am I experiencing what I’m experiencing when I look at the piece?
The problem with Kinkade’s paintings is that they’re very “flat”. They’re like a single note hit over and over on a piano. If all you want from art is a “that’s pretty” moment they’re fine. But if you’re looking for the sort of mental play you get out of something like this, you’re shit out of luck. It’s like trying to play basketball with a soggy sponge.
I’d agree with you - to my mind taste is only somewhat relative, there exists an “objective” component to it, and a hierarchy; in essence, “good” art is art which tends to raise the conciousness of the observer - to create more mental play.
I disagree that it’s irrational. It’s actually very rational. For many truly talented artists, Kinkade’s success is really abhorrent, and violates everything they have dedicated their lives to creating. It follows rationally–from the basic principles of many devotees who value painting as a fine art, among other art forms–that the success of Kinkade’s smarmy, cloying art-product is a vile repudiation of everything they value about art.
I keep saying “they.” But, of course, I’m … uh … kinda one of them.
Kinkade doesn’t push the pour épater les bourgeoisie attitude and all of his stuff isn’t about colonialism. And he sells like hotcakes.
No wonder art critics don’t like him.
All he would have to do is position himself as all post-modern and ironic. Pee on a crucifix, talk down to your audience - you’re golden. The DNA is a start, but only if he is jerking off into the paint.
Regards,
Shodan
Well … I’m not really comfortable with the idea of a hierarchy. There’s nothing inherently inferior about interacting with art in a very simple and direct way. It’s just a different way of looking.
Wow, Shodan. That’s just … ugly. Really ugly. One of your ugliest posts ever. Even so, it’s higher quality than Kinkade’s painting. After all, you know something about the craft of writing, even if you do use it for dishonorable purposes.
What qualities about Kinkade’s work do you enjoy? He’s popular, obviously, but why? What makes his work so compelling to so many people?
There are lots of painters painting realistic/impressionist landscapes these days. Why is he able to charge so much for his work?
Bingo!
Kinkade is derided because he can’t show perspective very well (Knorf: “Notice how his inability to accurately realize perspective; he basically attempts to cover this up with the warm, gauze-like quality he smears over the entire painting. The castle, the bridge, the little trail, the road: none of it agrees.”) but when I brought up in another thread that painters in other cultures failed to show things with proper perspective, posters were all over themselves saying it is not important. Some of the reasons given:
- Why is realism important, that is, why should paintings have proper perspective?
- How do you know that they *wanted *to impart proper perspective? Can you read their mind?
- You can’t judge that, because you have to see it through the eyes of someone from that culture
Well, we can apply each and every one of those to Kinkade.
And even though he is American, he may be part of a culture you don’t understand, so you can’t judge him without being part of that type of culture (well you can judge him, but you’d be a hypocrite if you also say it’s wrong for people to judge art from other cultures when it lacks some sophistication or other artistic metric they think is important)