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"
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.
I feel the same way about Buicks!
Originally Posted by ann
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.
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.
Originally Posted by DesertNate
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.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
He may be studied even more in business schools than in art schools. It is possible that he is an exemplar of "high business".
Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera
"but adams is pretty much the photographic version of kinkade as far as i am concerned ..."
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.
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.
Interesting. How so.. how do you know "sincerity" from looking at their works?
Originally Posted by artonpaper
perhaps i am an outlier, i am someone distant from the main feature ( adams )
Originally Posted by dasBlute
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.