Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,197   Posts: 1,531,422   Online: 811
      
Page 4 of 19 FirstFirst 1234567891014 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 181
  1. #31
    ann
    ann is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,866
    Images
    26
    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"
    http://www.aclancyphotography.com

  2. #32
    DesertNate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    New Mexico
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    42
    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.

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,014
    Quote Originally Posted by ann View Post
    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!

  4. #34
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,298
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    434
    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.

  5. #35
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    Quote Originally Posted by DesertNate View Post
    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.
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,014
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera View Post
    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".

  7. #37
    dasBlute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    159
    Images
    21
    "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.

  8. #38
    artonpaper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    325
    Images
    135
    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.

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,014
    Quote Originally Posted by artonpaper View Post
    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?

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    local
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,036
    Quote Originally Posted by dasBlute View Post
    "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.
    im empty, good luck

Page 4 of 19 FirstFirst 1234567891014 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin