Thomas Kinkade's death

[jnanian]

good points ...




In the end, even if millions of people buy and like something it can still be schlock. How many people bought and liked the "Velvet Elvis" paintings? If that isn't schlock I don't know what is.

i wish i had a"velvis", maybe a sad clown or two AND velvet dogs painting poker ...
better yet, i wish i had dogs trained to play poker ,,,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkB9OT2XVvA

[Gadfly_71]

good points ...



i wish i had a"velvis", maybe a sad clown or two AND velvet dogs painting poker ...
better yet, i wish i had dogs trained to play poker ,,,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkB9OT2XVvA

Funny you mention clowns. A late family member of mine (a cousin a couple of times removed) was "famous" for his paintings of clowns. I found them terrifying. :cool:

[Darkroom317]

Actually, Adams work is much more in the vein of 19th century landscape painting. It could very easily fit into the aesthetic of the sublime resembling the dramatic works of JMW Turner and Caspar David Friedrich. There is great difference between these artists (including Adams), and Thomas Kinkade. Even his nickname "the painter of light" was attributed to Turner long before Kinkade came along.

[jnanian]

Actually, Adams work is much more in the vain of 19th century landscape painting. It could very easily fit into the aesthetic of the sublime resembling the dramatic works of JMW Turner and Caspar David Friedrich. There is great difference between these artists (including Adams), and Thomas Kinkade. Even his nickname "the painter of light" was attributed to Turner long before Kinkade came along.


i'm not talking about the style of photography, but the actual part of making it ...
it doesn't matter to me what school of painting you claim he is able to become part of because of his "sublime landscapes".
some of the greatest copyists were great artists, even the people that fill in the dots in a lichtenstien painting or those who do coloring of
animation cells ... all artists ... but can they fit into a "style" ? ... style means nothing ...

kinkade created on a canvas with brushes and paints,
adams manipulated through technical means film and paper ...

i wouldn't say that kinkade wasn't an artist or that it is a crime to compare one to the other ... kinkade created things from a blank canvas,
adams interpreted his negative ... to me there is a big difference.

its obvious that you don't like kinkade for whatever reasons you have ...
but adams is pretty much the photographic version of kinkade as far as i am concerned ...
commercialized to the core, and even now, almost 30years after his death people are buying
posters of his landsacapes the same way people buy posters of kinkade's paintings ...
it wouldn't surprise me if the same people that buy kinkade's paintings also have posters of ansel adams on a wall in a different room.

[Darkroom317]

Adams certainly knew how to market himself much as Kinkade did, I will not contest this. You said something about Adams posters. Though they do exist online I have yet to see Ansel Adams coffee mugs, puzzles, mousepads and decorative plates in any brick and mortar stores or on the Ansel Adams gallery site. However, I have seen Kinkade on all these things pretty much everywhere that sells home decor. This is why his work can be described as kitsch based on his marketing alone regardless of his style. However, it is no doubt that Adams work has become over commercialized nearly to the extent of Kinkade. Perhaps, if Adams had lived in the 1990s and the 2000s, his story would be very much the same.

[rich815]

A......it is no doubt that Adams work has become over commercialized nearly to the extent of Kinkade.

What?? Kinkade's company was grossing $32M a quarter before it went private again a few years back. Every THREE months. I do not think Ansel Adams work was anywhere near that level nor ever will be.

[Michael W]

kinkade used his imagination and created from scratch
with brushes and paints ...
I don't see much imagination or originality in his paintings. Most of them look like scenes from some Disney film of Snow White, or Hansel and Gretel. Cosy cottages with warm, glowing windows set in a snowy, rural landscape.

[jesterthejedi]

My own .02 here, it is really easy to take a beautiful subject and just copy or reproduce it. Real artistry is taking the ordinary subject and transforming it into a thing of beauty (or any character) then also the transformation of something beautiful and making it ordinary.

There are no professional artists, we are all amateurs, our work is what may be the professional.

[gandolfi]

I'd say he's pretty much unknown outside the USA. I only became aware of him in recent times. It was also quite recently that I read about another very successful business that sells little model houses covered in snow. Both seem to be tapping into the same nostalgic fantasy.

Some of us do know about him.

we are told his story, and are ment to smile... maybe to shake our heads a little...

[jnanian]

I don't see much imagination or originality in his paintings. Most of them look like scenes from some Disney film of Snow White, or Hansel and Gretel. Cosy cottages with warm, glowing windows set in a snowy, rural landscape.

hi michael w

he was a commercial painter.
he knew what his client wanted and gave it to him/her.

dutch masters and 17th century rococo and renaissance painters
painted similar scenes ... but didn't sell millions of them
(i am sure they would have liked to )

i don't really see how any of adams work doesn't fit in that
category, he just reshot o'sullivans work but without the mule and portable darkroom ...

to be honest i don't like kinkade's work much, i find it to be kind of the same
as a curio cabinet filled with hummels ...
i am just arguing for the sake of arguing, sorry ...

but he knew his client ...

[ann]

Geddes an artist, what did I miss. A portrait photography who found a way to present children and babies in a new way, but not art in my opinion. Great at marketing.

Kinkade has made me ill for years, however, what can one expect from a nation that puts no value on art, either the understanding or study and appreciate of what is good, and / or bad. And just to be clear I am an American, live in the USA , and love my country, but the educational system drives me wild and oh by the way I taught for over 25 years. I would be in big trouble these days if I still taught in the "system"

[DesertNate]

If Norman Rockwell was an artist, then so is Kinkade. It may be milquetoast, but it pleases people. People don't want to be confronted in their living rooms.

[BrianShaw]

Kinkade has made me ill for years, however, what can one expect from a nation that puts no value on art, either the understanding or study and appreciate of what is good, and / or bad.

I feel the same way about Buicks!

[TheFlyingCamera]

One major problem I have with Kinkade, particularly the claim to be "the painter of light" (not to mention the rip-off of Turner, who COULD actually paint) is the fact that Kinkade seemed to miss the fact that when painting "real life", there is only one sun, one light source. If you look at some of his paintings, you'll see what appears to be multiple light sources illuminating the scene. We're not on Tatooine, this is still the earth, last time I checked, and we don't have two suns and three moons.

I think the difference between Kinkade and Adams, as far as commercialization is concerned, is that Adams didn't start cranking out images "in his style" to meet demand - he may have churned the milk a bit in terms of volume production of the same images, but he wasn't going around and shooting a new version of "Clearing Winter Storm" every winter so he could have something for the February page of that year's calendar. That was Kinkade - milk the theme for all it was worth, and then some.

As far as his mark on Art History and critical opinion, in 10, 20, or even 100 years, he may be studied, but he will not ever be regarded as high art. His work does not induce contemplation and thought in the viewer - it provokes a limited range of emotion in his fans (warmth, comfort, nostalgia, "all is right with the world") , and it does so through the repetition of facile, monodimensional symbols designed to reinforce that emotional response. Of course, to his detractors, he also provokes a limited range of emotion, quite in contrast to the one he engenders in his fans. It's throwaway art because it can be digested in a single viewing, and repeat viewings do not generate new insight.

[blansky]

If Norman Rockwell was an artist, then so is Kinkade. It may be milquetoast, but it pleases people. People don't want to be confronted in their living rooms.

Not to confuse the issue but wasn't Rockwell more of an illustrator. Maybe the difference is sort of moot but his work is more in the vein of commercial illustrators of his era. Some of that became sought after art, but initially wasn't meant to be "art" per se.

Kinkade, to me was an American artist who cashed in on the "simplicity" of the American market. In other words he made a fortune churning out schlock to an uneducated population who "knew what they liked". Sort of like the Sarah Palin crowd who are proud of their lack of education/knowledge/sophistication.

In short, a massive market.

[BrianShaw]

That was Kinkade - milk the theme for all it was worth, and then some.

As far as his mark on Art History and critical opinion, in 10, 20, or even 100 years, he may be studied, but he will not ever be regarded as high art.

He may be studied even more in business schools than in art schools. It is possible that he is an exemplar of "high business".

[dasBlute]

"but adams is pretty much the photographic version of kinkade as far as i am concerned ..."
- jnanian

Sure - to you - but I suggest you're an outlier; and to me, this is balderdash.
Ansel, contributed as much as *anyone* to the field, inspired countless
photographers, carved a wide swath that half the large format photographers
are still wandering through. One could only dream to be so 'bad' as Ansel.

[artonpaper]

My Mom's favorite artist was Walt Disney. Kincaid is Disney-esque in a way. I think people who buy his work would probably buy Hummel figurines, paintings of ''Nobel Natives'' staring out at a sunset, and other sentimental subject . . . kitsch. I won't miss him. But I think to compare Ansel to Kinkade is off the mark. I understand why one might see that connection, but I think Adam's photographs came from a deep personal aesthetic, one steeped in contemplation. Also his drive toward technical mastery, and the fact that he codified the mysteries of exposure and development and print values is a real legacy he has left us, whether one thinks that his work is deep or sappy. It's hard to look at Kinkade not feel cynical. Adams was always sincere. I would find it hard to make that statement about Kinkade, from looking at his work.

[BrianShaw]

Adams was always sincere. I would find it hard to make that statement about Kinkade, from looking at his work.

Interesting. How so.. how do you know "sincerity" from looking at their works?

[jnanian]

"but adams is pretty much the photographic version of kinkade as far as i am concerned ..."
- jnanian

Sure - to you - but I suggest you're an outlier; and to me, this is balderdash.
Ansel, contributed as much as *anyone* to the field, inspired countless
photographers, carved a wide swath that half the large format photographers
are still wandering through. One could only dream to be so 'bad' as Ansel.

perhaps i am an outlier, i am someone distant from the main feature ( adams )
the folks cutting kinkade down to size are outliers as well.
i have been doing large format work since the 1980s, and adams was never a photographer i looked towards
for inspiration or to follow in his path, so i suppose you are right.

i never said he didn't contribute anything to "photography" or "inspire people"
it just doesn't seem that adams really did anything different than o'sullivan and the others who documented the americanwest before him.
instead of wet plate or dry plate, he used film, and the zone system. compensating exposure and development for each scene had been around for a long time ...
adams made it popular it in the modern age ..

not really anything new, just re-birthing and re-creating modern genre of someone elses style.
it doesn't mean he is good bad it just means he is good at re-working someone else's style ... and in the end we are all guilty of that, except for painters, sculptors, architects, builders, photographers &c who go off the deep end
and invent their own style and language and technique and everything else.
kinkade wasn't doing anything new either, except making millions selling his work.