Oh gosh, I really tried to like his paintings... I hate to criticize another person's artistic work, but I guess I am with the "stuffed shirt swollen headed artistes" and the members of the "superior/elite class" too.

I was not familiar with Thomas Kinkade's work before. His career is an interesting phenomenon, but really in my view it is a career in marketing more so than a career in art. But of course the market is our God, and if something sells it must be good, and any one who says otherwise must be jealous. "Hey, if yer so smart why aren't ya rich??" It is kinda too bad that he is successful, because were he not I think people would be more willing to consider to what I'm about to say. But, since he is successful and we are so unwilling to challenge the basis for success in modern society, we look for reasons to justify that success. "He must doing something right, after all he's sold a lot!" Then there is the notion that if we snuggle up close to the successful person, successful financially, that some of that magic might rub off on us!

Credit is due to him for his workmanship, prolific output, and for his marketing savvy, and may the road rise up to meet him, may the wind be always at his back, may the sun shine warm upon his face, may the rains fall soft upon his fields and until I have to see his work again, may God hold him in the palm of His hand.

I struggled to find a way to talk about his work without being critical or creating controversy and upset, but that may not be possible. His work is so nice, it is all so cozy and friendly - what sort of monster would criticize it?? Besides, there is nothing that upsets Americans more than being told that there is anything wrong with Miracle Whip, Wonder Bread, Cheetos and Velveeta cheese. "Hey, I like 'em! What makes you think yer better than the rest of us??"

To my eyes the paintings, and I thoughtfully looked at several dozen today, are just crammed full of the most cloying and predictable cliches. Damn! Now I am sounding like a member of the "superior/elite class!" But really, I am not! There is nothing there that could possibly offend, or challenge, or inspire anyone that I can see. I find it very disturbing in the way that much of popular culture is, as there is not just a lack of meaning and substance, but there is an aggressive assault on meaning and substance - everything is arranged so as to not offend anyone or disturb anyone's preconceptions. "Lullaby, and good night, may you sleep well my darling..." Perhaps people want to retreat from meaning and substance, to escape from reality. since they find reality too disturbing. It is too disturbing, after all. Kincade's painting are very soothing, very pleasant, provided that you are not looking for any meaning in them. I fully realize that looking for meaning has fallen out of favor.

I think that what is at issue, and it is the cause for the polarized reactions to his work, is summarized in this question: are we attempting to go from heaven to earth or from earth to heaven? That is to say, are we looking for nature and reality to reflect the perfect ideal that exists in our minds as an abstraction, or are we looking to exterior objective reality and reflecting that in our expression and in our thinking, and letting that direct our imagination? Is reality subservient to our idealized fancies, or is there more power, beauty and meaning in going the other direction? Look at Minnie's dam birds. That is a brilliant example going from earth to heaven, in my opinion, drawing great beauty and meaning from the seemingly mundane. She created heaven from concrete (literally) reality. That is in opposition to trying to take elements of reality, put them through some sort of process of smoothing all of the "rough edges" from them, and then forcing them into some preconceived idealized form.

1. What do you think of the painting? Composition? Subject matter? Lighting? Color? Level of detail? Mood? Would you want this on your wall? Why or why not?

I find it all extremely predictable and boring, a poor substitute for reality rather than offering any insight to or better understanding of reality. I would not want the image on my wall as it would be a distraction and a disturbance.

2. What is your opinion of Kinkade’s body of work? Classic or kitsch? Why?

Of course it is kitsch - something that appeals to popular or lowbrow taste and is often of poor (primitive?) quality - which is not necessarily a bad thing, in my opinion. Much that is primitive and appeals to popular or lowbrow taste is meaningful and therefore worthwhile. I find Kincade's work devoid of meaning.


3. Do you see any indication of influence of the Kinkade style on modern landscape photography?

Yes, some HDR photography is reminiscent of Kinkade's treatment of light and color. It

4. Some critics that cross the boundaries of painting and photography have ventured that HDR is the photographic expression of the Kinkade style. What are your thoughts on that “accusation”?

Maybe, eh?

5. Any of us would probably have screeched to a stop if we passed such a scene as this on our travels, intent to capture it. Have you run across similar scenes? Share one if you will, and tell us about your experience and your editing. Then tell us if the Kincade approach might have influenced your choices. (Extra points if you create a new Kinkade-ish image using the suggestions he gave in the Vanity Fair article)

I don't think I have ever done that, nor would I. Many do, as can be seen by the photos posted online. Some scenes have been photographed thousands and thousands of times, all pretty much the same. There are spots in the park near here where any day during the season you can watch a steady procession of people racing up, pulling out their phones or cameras (more and moire it is phones) and taking the same photo from the same vantage point, posting it online as often as not, and then racing off. I am not sure I will love long enough to fully understand that phenomenon, or perhaps the problem is that I have lived too long?

Mike

Oh gosh, I really tried to like his paintings... I hate to criticize another person's artistic work, but I guess I am with the "stuffed shirt swollen headed artistes" and the members of the "superior/elite class" too.

I was not familiar with Thomas Kinkade's work before. His career is an interesting phenomenon, but really in my view it is a career in marketing more so than a career in art. But of course the market is our God, and if something sells it must be good, and any one who says otherwise must be jealous. "Hey, if yer so smart why aren't ya rich??" It is kinda too bad that he is successful, because were he not I think people would be more willing to consider to what I'm about to say. But, since he is successful and we are so unwilling to challenge the basis for success in modern society, we look for reasons to justify that success. "He must doing something right, after all he's sold a lot!" Then there is the notion that if we snuggle up close to the successful person, successful financially, that some of that magic might rub off on us!

Credit is due to him for his workmanship, prolific output, and for his marketing savvy, and may the road rise up to meet him, may the wind be always at his back, may the sun shine warm upon his face, may the rains fall soft upon his fields and until I have to see his work again, may God hold him in the palm of His hand.

I struggled to find a way to talk about his work without being critical or creating controversy and upset, but that may not be possible. His work is so nice, it is all so cozy and friendly - what sort of monster would criticize it?? Besides, there is nothing that upsets Americans more than being told that there is anything wrong with Miracle Whip, Wonder Bread, Cheetos and Velveeta cheese. "Hey, I like 'em! What makes you think yer better than the rest of us??"

To my eyes the paintings, and I thoughtfully looked at several dozen today, are just crammed full of the most cloying and predictable cliches. Damn! Now I am sounding like a member of the "superior/elite class!" But really, I am not! There is nothing there that could possibly offend, or challenge, or inspire anyone that I can see. I find it very disturbing in the way that much of popular culture is, as there is not just a lack of meaning and substance, but there is an aggressive assault on meaning and substance - everything is arranged so as to not offend anyone or disturb anyone's preconceptions. "Lullaby, and good night, may you sleep well my darling..." Perhaps people want to retreat from meaning and substance, to escape from reality. since they find reality too disturbing. It is too disturbing, after all. Kincade's painting are very soothing, very pleasant, provided that you are not looking for any meaning in them. I fully realize that looking for meaning has fallen out of favor.

I think that what is at issue, and it is the cause for the polarized reactions to his work, is summarized in this question: are we attempting to go from heaven to earth or from earth to heaven? That is to say, are we looking for nature and reality to reflect the perfect ideal that exists in our minds as an abstraction, or are we looking to exterior objective reality and reflecting that in our expression and in our thinking, and letting that direct our imagination? Is reality subservient to our idealized fancies, or is there more power, beauty and meaning in going the other direction? Look at Minnie's dam birds. That is a brilliant example going from earth to heaven, in my opinion, drawing great beauty and meaning from the seemingly mundane. She created heaven from concrete (literally) reality. That is in opposition to trying to take elements of reality, put them through some sort of process of smoothing all of the "rough edges" from them, and then forcing them into some preconceived idealized form.

1. What do you think of the painting? Composition? Subject matter? Lighting? Color? Level of detail? Mood? Would you want this on your wall? Why or why not?

I find it all extremely predictable and boring, a poor substitute for reality rather than offering any insight to or better understanding of reality. I would not want the image on my wall as it would be a distraction and a disturbance.

2. What is your opinion of Kinkade’s body of work? Classic or kitsch? Why?

Of course it is kitsch - something that appeals to popular or lowbrow taste and is often of poor (primitive?) quality - which is not necessarily a bad thing, in my opinion. Much that is primitive and appeals to popular or lowbrow taste is meaningful and therefore worthwhile. I find Kincade's work devoid of meaning.


3. Do you see any indication of influence of the Kinkade style on modern landscape photography?

Yes, some HDR photography is reminiscent of Kinkade's treatment of light and color.

4. Some critics that cross the boundaries of painting and photography have ventured that HDR is the photographic expression of the Kinkade style. What are your thoughts on that “accusation”?

Maybe, eh?

5. Any of us would probably have screeched to a stop if we passed such a scene as this on our travels, intent to capture it. Have you run across similar scenes? Share one if you will, and tell us about your experience and your editing. Then tell us if the Kincade approach might have influenced your choices. (Extra points if you create a new Kinkade-ish image using the suggestions he gave in the Vanity Fair article)

I don't think I have ever done that, nor would I. Many do, as can be seen by the photos posted online. Some scenes have been photographed thousands and thousands of times, all pretty much the same. There are spots in the park near here where any day during the season you can watch a steady procession of people racing up, pulling out their phones or cameras (more and moire it is phones) and taking the same photo from the same vantage point, posting it online as often as not, and then racing off. I am not sure I will love long enough to fully understand that phenomenon, or perhaps the problem is that I have lived too long?

Mike

Nah... cover portions of his paintings and you can see he can paint. And he isn't any Norman Rockwell, who was an especially rare and talented visual poet- A one-of-a-kind master illustrator able to tell an entire story that reached right into peoples heart in a single image. (I had the pleasure of having dinner at a house of a lady who as a youngster, would pop into Normans studio, called him Uncle! her dad was even a model for some of his paintings. She has some original studies and tracings etc. of his stuff on her walls- I was floored as she never mentioned any of this before I arrived. We may never see his kind again. Anyways I digress...) Norman never considered himself a fine artist- wasn;t trying to be. Remington is a fine artist- case closed there- doesn't belong in the same discussion, neither do any of the Wyeth's.

Elvis paintings on velvet, state fair spray paint paintings and Bob Ross are fascinating and fun to watch... but I don't think I'd hang any of them in my house- maybe a Bob Ross original- because of the signature, but not of the subject.

However, in an actual image, it is totally different. You are capturing a slice of time that actually happened and that in itself has value. Like i said about his painting, cover the house, and look at the mountains alone.. Good, hangable painting... beautifully done- (same goes for the same sort of look in a photo). Cover the dock and ignore the spread out things floating on the lake.. maybe just the house itself... good painting, all together its a children's book where you point out the stuff and have the kid say its name. If you take a real photo and retouch things in, like his ducks and boaters and stuff all spread out, in a equal-distant fake fashion... you will have likewise lost me.

So he was a very good artist who painted stuff i don't particularly appreciate- he could have... and far be it from me to argue tha fact that he apparently had a market, and there are a lot of very good artists who lack a market- most of them in fact... until they die of course.

2 cents worth. :)

Miniev.. recognize the attached? It isn't quite finished, but this thread seems to be as good a time as any. :)

Seems to me honest and objective. I especially liked your looking at how people in general determine success, without forming their own honest opinions based on the quality of the object.

As to "elite, superior," I don't see anything wrong with have superior knowledge or expertise, whether a superior mechanic, hamburger, or artwork. Merit should be honored, and judgment is not a bad word in a democracy. However, I do understand the dislike of snobbish elites, who very often themselves do not judge a work on its objective quality, but rather on its monetary and tribal worth.

Thanks for the look into your ideas.