Thomas Kinkade's death

[BrianShaw]

perhaps i am an outlier...

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.


You are not alone. Me too, right down to the LF "profile" except I'm not pro and probably not as talented as are you. The person who got me interested in LF was a total AA groupie. I can appreciate his work but mine is very different... and always has been.

[sdotkling]

Ooh, good, a fight about "art"!
One can't deny that Ansel Adams created a new esthetic in his work: monumental landscapes rendered with great skill, with that American patriotic veneer so many have found resonant over the years. The rampant commercialization of his images followed widespread acceptance and admiration. That---and his undeniable technical chops---put him in a much different class than the cynical Kincade, who invented nothing and wasn't even very good at the exploitative hokum he was peddling. (Maxfield Parrish and NC Wyeth did the magical-fairy-dust thing so much better a hundred years ago, and Walt Disney's Snow White is the atelier of Rembrandt by comparison.) I always wondered how on earth the guy could stock all those mall stores with paintings, and I figured he had a Chinese factory cranking them out: assembly line 1 worked on foliage, assembly line 2 handled mountain peaks. But then I read that it was mostly prints with a few brushstrokes added on top to qualify it as "original." This was art marketing at its weirdest dollar-gushing apex, and now that Kincade is dead, I would expect that nothing will change. Except they'll raise the prices.
This is just the same thing as big-eyed waifs on black velvet in the 1970's. The ironists, of course, have made the originator of that schlock-art (yeah, seems there was one guy who invented it and was then ripped off by others) highly collectible...though with a smirk.

[BrianShaw]

This is just the same thing as big-eyed waifs on black velvet in the 1970's.

... so what are those selling for these days? I almost purged my memory of them until you brought it up. Gee, thanks. :laugh:

[MDR]

Adams is often called the last of the 19th century landscape photographers and that's what he is, the only thing unique to Adams is the overdramatization of the sky the rest is pure 19th century and even the sky isn't really unique to AA. To quote sdotkling ...he invented nothing... same thing could be said for AA. The zone system wasn't really something new btw. Both Kincade and AA are extremely important Artists AA popularized landscape photography and Kincade had huge success with his kitsch. Art is not the thing shown in galleries art can be anything see Duchamps. There is art for the masses something artist and critics often hate and bestow with demeaning comments and then their is gallery art often hated by the masses. So my question which is more important the thing created for a few hundred that often don't understand the art pieces content anyway or the thing that pleases a large amount of people and touches them on an emotional level. Imho both are important and both can be consindered art even if I or the critics don't like it. The funny thing is that if asked who they want to reach with their art a lot of artists tell the interviewer that they want to create art for the people, well Kincade and AA did Damien Hirst and some others didn't.

Dominik

[Mainecoonmaniac]

If you take a look at the world of commercial photography, it's mostly about creating images that will sell. Stock photography also. What also is in common with Kinkades work is that there's escapism and work that isn't challenging. For some, this type of art and photography is palatable. There are not right are wrongs here. I do cringe when Americans go to Paris and go to McDonalds. Those are the types that think Thomas Kincade is the cat's meow. Does anybody remember Burger King offering prints of Leroy Neiman? How many of those posters are still hanging on people's walls. It's probably landfilled decades ago. Like commercial photography, it's disposable art. I might be proven wrong, but I think Kincade's work will follow the same fate. We shouldn't shame those that love posters of poker playing dogs. What ever floats your boat.

[pbromaghin]

Ooh, good, a fight about "art"!
One can't deny that Ansel Adams created a new esthetic in his work: monumental landscapes rendered with great skill, with that American patriotic veneer so many have found resonant over the years. The rampant commercialization of his images followed widespread acceptance and admiration.

Right. The big difference is that AA was great before he was a commercial success. He really didn't make much money until Bill Turnage showed up.


I always wondered how on earth the guy could stock all those mall stores with paintings, and I figured he had a Chinese factory cranking them out: assembly line 1 worked on foliage, assembly line 2 handled mountain peaks. But then I read that it was mostly prints with a few brushstrokes added on top to qualify it as "original."

As I understand it, a lot of those brush strokes were done by starving art students he hired.

[Brian C. Miller]

Adams didn't create a new esthetic, and Kinkade wasn't a cynic. Adams created a dramatization of what he found, while Kinkade created a fantasy land out of his head. For a moment, compare Kinkade to Salvador Dali. Both painted essentially dreamscapes. Kinkade stretched and deformed light like Dali did with basic form.

There are lots of current photographers who are close to what Kinkade did. Look at any of the movie-esque things like "Diner" and you'll see plenty of light that's out of place. Everybody has an intangible light on them.

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Forget Kinkade. Digital photographers can to it to with HDR.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/makahiki/2676542006/

My teeth hurt just as much as looking at Thomas Kincade's stuff now :(

[BrianShaw]

I was about to introduce a new twist to the thread: Olan Mills. Portrait photography for the masses. But maybe I shouldn't.

[k_jupiter]

I was about to introduce a new twist to the thread: Olan Mills. Portrait photography for the masses. But maybe I shouldn't.

Did Olan Mills die too? What a great photographer.

Anyhow Mr. Shaw, your work is pretty darned good, I don't think you need take second seat to anyone.

I understand what jnanian is saying to a point. I don't like AA just because of the amount of manipulation it takes to create those prints, as if they aren't prints of those negatives, but fabrications for the lust of the general public.

But good expressions of what AA wanted to present. It just wasn't what AA shot.

That said, I do a bit of manipulation of my scenic landscapes, it's part of pulling in what I saw to the material I have available.

So, no, I don't put kinkade in the same level as AA, but there are similarities.

tim in san jose

[Chris Lange]

Kinkade and Crewdson are on the same level, visually for me.

Can't stand either of them, as far as their work goes.

[Vaughn]

Wallace Nutting (1861 - 1941) was an American (New England area) minister, furniture-maker and photographer. His furniture-making was of copies of older styles, expertly done.

At one time he hired up to 200 "colorists" to hand-color (and I suppose darkroom assistants to print) his photographs. Very popular as wedding presents. Sometimes the colorists would also sign Nutting's name on the print. He estimated that he sold 10 million prints. Sales geared towards the middle class.

I grew up with a couple of them on our walls. Not bad pieces, I preferred the two C. Watkins we had.

Tim -- I guess it was AA's musical background that influenced his printing (the old score vs performance thing). Oren Mills Sr died in 1978 -- his company of portrait studios and church directories was sold to Lifetouch last year.

[BrianShaw]

Oren Mills Sr died in 1978 -- his company of portrait studios and church directories was sold to Lifetouch last year.

I didn't know they were sold. Last week I was thinking of starting a separate thread because I, for the third time in this lifetime, participated in a church directory. Each time it was for a fairly large church (about 4,000 registered families) and the production-line aspect is quite impressive. The resulting portraits are somewhere between OK an ddreadful if you ask me. What I found interesting this time, though, is the sales aspect of their "free chruch directory". I always left that to my wife. I only saw what we bought, and what a few other families bought. In 30 minutes I think I saw each family buy between $150 and $400 worth of their product. The salesperson's opening salvo was a $350 package. "WOW, what a racket" was my first response adn I'm happy that I could keep that within the confines of my noggin without ever moving my mouth. I really wonder how much they make from these "free chruch directory" schemes. Must be a fortune... and most families seemed very happy with their work. The mass appeal and mass marketting analogy seems similar. I was wondering how many families will be replacing the Thos. Kinkade art hanging over hteir couch with a big Olan Mills framed portrait. :confused:

[Vaughn]

I didn't know they were sold....

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011/nov/09/chattanooga-based-olan-mills-sold-lifetouch/

[BrianShaw]

Thanks, Vaughn... I'm so far behind in reading the newpaper!

[jnanian]

Ooh, good, a fight about "art"!

naaah im not fighting, i am trying to figure out what i think as i write these posts... i am kind of "conflicted" .
part of me is inspired by kinkade, how he managed to create all these scenes
that people love/loved to buy ... and part of me wonders how people could buy
the stuff he is / was selling. i guess i was off the mark comparing adams to kinkade :whistling:
but sometimes one has to make an absurd comparison to figure out where you stand ...

i wonder who is going to be the next (self-)mass produced artist ..
and i wonder if whoever it will be, will have the stamina to create hundreds/thousands of paintings
and make millions from selling reproductions, and stay alive past 55.

[eclarke]

So...How many here have sold out by receiving money for things they do? Only people who get no money, food, clothing, shelter or anything else for any of their efforts at anything can truly call themselves "artists".. I put dirty words in quotation marks..They guy made a successful living..

[blansky]

I don't like AA just because of the amount of manipulation it takes to create those prints, as if they aren't prints of those negatives, but fabrications for the lust of the general public.



Interesting opinion.

Firstly I don't think he was making prints for the public, although that was done later.

The way I see it he was observing a scene and seeing or fore-seeing what he could do to "improve" it. That's part of the reason for having incredibly exposed negatives.

He was sort of a contradiction because he was part of F64 which was the antithesis to the pictorialists or romanticism he wished to replace. I think they saw their work as realism.

The irony is that his work is not really realism but maybe hyper-realism which could be described as a form of romanticism of a particular scene.

[Vaughn]

...But good expressions of what AA wanted to present. It just wasn't what AA shot.

That said, I do a bit of manipulation of my scenic landscapes, it's part of pulling in what I saw to the material I have available.

tim in san jose

Also this begs the question was AA (or you) totally color blind? B&W photography is one major step beyond what any of us see/shoot.

[ROL]

Reading many of these sour grapes posts referencing AA, I would simply suggest that it would at least be wise to spend some time actually reading about the man and his art before categorizing and judging him. There is one autobiography as well as the book "Letters...". And then spend some time in the Sierra Nevada, away from the burger joints.