That is totally not the same thing, since a nation-wide restaurant consists of many different chefs, but a single artist can sell many copies of his paintings. But I’ve never been disappointed in Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse, so yes, a nation-wide restaurant can provide (relatively) high cuisine consistently.
The thing is, fine visual art such as paintings and sculpture have little narrative by themselves (as opposed to music, books and films). Much of the interpretation falls onto that of the viewer. If the viewer doesn’t come from a framework or context the artist has been immersed in while creating a work, they’re just going to judge it on superficial, technical merits alone, or at the very least, on a shallow emotional response.
The thing with Kinkade, is he’s all superficial. His work isn’t trying to accomplish anything outside of trying to create a collectible brand for himself. Like Precious Moments™, or Beanie Babies™.
So, it’s about honesty. Disney was about entertaining. He was successful in that regard, and made a crap-load of cash. But for him, it was always about the entertaining first. Look at any successful artist, and their legacy, and ask yourself what their motive was. Was it to just get rich, or because creating was in them in a profound and important way.
Maybe there was a time when Kinkade was sincere about his art, but I think it’s become painfully obvious that that time has well past. He chose a life of avarice and it’s only destroyed what little credibility he ever had in the first place.
This, I think, sums up Kinkade best. It’s especially apt IMO because Kinkade’s work is much like the food at McD’s: it’s ostensibly art/food, but it’s more a simulacrum than the real thing. A quick, cheap, and easy product designed to cater to the lowest common denominator. If you enjoy it, more power to you, but it’s by no means quality work.
To be honest, I like some of this stuff. It makes me feel peaceful. However, I was not really that familiar with him and having gone out to some of the links here, I now understand a lot of the opinions.
Beyond that, it is just a bunch of silly pigments on a canvas. I can’t get too excited about it.
I’m not uncomfortable about there being a hierarchy, but I’m always open to the notion that I may be wrong about any particular works’ position on it.
Every time we say that X work is “crap”, we are in our minds creating a hierarchy, as presumaby some other work is “not crap”.
Take Kinkade and (say) the Sistine Chapel - I have no hesitation in saying that the one is inferior to the other. Tastes may vary, but there are limits.
That reminds me of an argument a bunch of friends of mine got into. “I Think I Love You” vs. “I Wanna Hold Your Hand” Remove the cool aura of the Beatles and the nerdy aura of The Partridge Family and you know what you got? Two songs of the same quality.
Oh god no. Someone was using “I Think I Love You” in a commercial, and it sounded pretty good. I tracked it down online, and it turned out they used all of the good parts in the commercial, and there was lots of sappy yuck they left out. I don’t even like the Beatles, but “I Wanna Hold Your Hand” is far superior.
Le Roy Frakking Neiman is better at conveying speed, drama & excitement. (Although he’s never done NASCAR–Lemansis more his speed.)
And I’m definitely not a fan. But Neiman isn’t sanctimonious–he’s just made his fortune painting bright pictures of things people like to see. Like sports & exciting parts of the world. Despite serious artistic training, he got his start as a commercial illustrator & still works for hire.
–Actually, researching his work has changed my opinion a bit. I could imagine one of the Mad Men becoming an early collector. Or maybe I just approve of how he’s spending his fortune (along with serious philanthropy):
I’d encountered the Kinkaid name on the web and in advertisements. I connected the name with the “Painter of Light” tagline.
My thoughts were, Painter of Light, huh? Well, that sounds like he’s a popular artist doing slightly kitschy paintings in the tradition of Monet… only less fuzzy. And I’ll bet he’s a very good artist, because most artists who get famous beyond the art world are pretty good… Dali, Leroy Neiman, Rockwell.
When I actually saw a Kinkaid it brought me up short. “My ghod, this guy is pretty much working in the Starving Artist school of painting: the people that knock out 12 pictures of sunsets and palm trees in a day’s time. Except maybe he spends 6 hours on a painting, instead of 45 minutes.”
He really didn’t seem to have any artistic skill beyond what hundreds and hundreds of “starving artists” had.
So, yeah art is subjective, as is music and pain and pleasure. and good and evil. But if someone thinks Kinkaid is anything special, then I believe that they are just not very visually aware.
Yeah, I see what you mean. It’s interesting to comparethis painting of Le Mans with Kinkade’s NASCAR painting: a similar treatment of the same subject - a packed grandstand watching cars speed past - and the composition is almost the same, but this one just works. I don’t think I’d hang it on my wall, but Neiman definitely succeeds at evoking the noise, speed, colour and excitement of a big car race, whereas Kinkade just embarrasses himself.
I love my Mom. I LOVE her. She never beat me, or let my uncle screw me, or anything. She did GREAT by me.
But when she said “I hope Dad gets me a Kinkade print for our anniversary - they’re expensive and very collectible,” I died a little inside. Would she even get the joke if I gave her this?