Who's the "troll"? One with something positive to say about another person... or one with something negative to say?
Originally Posted by Sirius Glass
I think O-N-F is the reincarnation of TK.
Personally, I have said not much about the poor bastard. His work sucks, his business plan sucks. Period.
Me? I have achieved partially what I wanted to do.. I please MYSELF. Partially? I ain't dead yet.
And yes, his family will laugh all the way to the bank. But his crap is still crap.
tim in san jose
Where ever you are, there you be.
Credentials? In the case of Kinkade, the "absence" of credentials makes one more qualified to pass judgment than being a credentialed critic. After all, he was fond of doing a Palin-esque "oooh- look at the liberal establishment, oppressing the masses" plaint whenever anyone challenged his work on artistic merits.
As for credentials for myself to critique, well, I've spent quite a bit of time looking at original works of art in places like the National Gallery of Art (DC), The Metropolitan Museum of Art (NY), the Prado (Madrid), the Uffizi (Florence), to name a few. I also did a series of studies of Renaissance painting and drawing as part of my interdisciplinary Renaissance studies program at Johns Hopkins University, where I got my bachelors degree, and completed seven graduate-level courses in photography at Maryland Institute College of Art.
I think Thomas Kinkade went to UC Berkeley and to the Art Center in Pasadena. The Art Center, correct me if I'm wrong is primarily a school for commercial art. I worked for a few photographers that went there. It's an excellent school.
Originally Posted by 1330349
Originally Posted by blansky
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I can't believe* we have here a 17-page thread on whether Kinkade was "Art" with a capital A. From the Saltz/Vulture piece:
Can we not separate the concepts of "painting" and "art"? He sold interior decorations and he was highly successful at it; just because he sold paintings doesn't mean he meant for them to be capital-A Art. He didn't claim to be breaking new ground or anything, he painted (or had people paint) things to make his customers happy, and it worked extremely well for him. What amuses me is that this so offends the self-proclaimed "art world", that someone dare to use a medium they hold dear for something other than pushing an envelope or whatever, that there is a collective urge to hate on Kinkade and his output.
The reason the art world doesn't respond to Kinkade is because none — not one — of his ideas about subject-matter, surface, color, composition, touch, scale, form, or skill is remotely original. They're all cliché and already told.
And why the hate here? I see a hell of a lot of cliched barn / lighthouse / sunset photos even on APUG that fall way short of the standards that people seem to want to apply to Kinkade (seemingly only because he chose paint as his medium), yet we don't beat up on APUGgers in the gallery because why? Because they're not financially successful and therefore worthy of jealousy? We recognise the Art-vs-interior-decoration distinction in considering our own work and deciding what to put on the loungeroom wall, why get angsty when someone else does the same?
* yeah OK, this is APUG. I believe it.
The difference is that those amateur sunset/lighthouse/barn photos here are never put forward as "art" with or without a capital A. However, when you title yourself "The Painter of Light" or some such pompous nonsense you had better be able to back it up. The only thing Kinkade was able to back up was the truck he used to haul off a lot of unwise people's cash. He sold his "paintings" as "art" to people unsophisticated enough to think that what they were buying was investment grade - they had heard the terms "limited edition", "original oil" and "collectible" before and when they were tacked on to what he was pumping out, they thought they were not just buying a pretty poster for the wall, but something they could pass on to their kids who would get not only aesthetic benefit but financial benefit as well. There was an implicit association between his work and other actual investment-grade art (Picasso, Van Gogh, Vermeer) - it had to be "art" to make it investment grade. So he himself created the false impression that what he was producing was "art". The reality was of course a different matter altogether. As you said before, he was making home decor at best.
The massive hate-on for Kinkade has nothing to do with jealousy - it has to do with the combined effects of his incredibly disingenuous and/or corrupt business practices and the butchering of actual art that he executed. It's not because his work fails as "modern" art, therefore isn't "art". For me, painting starts losing steam somewhere around post-impressionism and by abstract expressionism I'm about disinterested, and most truly contemporary work leaves me antarctic-grade cold. If Soviet Realism had a torrid affair with Impressionism, and the love child that was born showed that in actual fact they were first cousins by combining the worst sins of both, that would be Kinkade: "It's fuzzy, has dramatic light that makes no sense, and spouts dogmatic, 'uplifting' propaganda at every turn!".
Amen. Strikes me as a new low for APUG.
Originally Posted by polyglot
Well if we didn't have "new lows" how would we be able to recognize the new highs?
Besides, we've always discussed to death various works and their perpetrators here. Nothing new.
If the thread offends someone, don't read it.
I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.