http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/04/06/the-painter-of-light-goes-dark Comments On: The Painter of Light Goes Dark by David Schmader en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Mon, 20 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Mon, 20 May 2013 17:00:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss
There are a couple of Kincades within spitting distance of my cube at work and I noticed that he often depicts his cozy cottages dangerously close to raging seas or tumultuous rivers. Perhaps this is an allusion to some roiling internal conflict the suppression of which led to his alcoholism and early demise?
Posted by Rhizome]]> Tue, 10 Apr 2012 22:33:36 -0700 The Stranger
Q: Who misses Bil Keane?
A: "Not Me"
Posted by capicola]]> Tue, 10 Apr 2012 03:24:29 -0700 The Stranger (X) Thomas Kinkade
( ) Jon McNaughton
( ) Jim Davis
Posted by Knat]]> Sun, 08 Apr 2012 17:34:26 -0700 The Stranger Posted by daveb604]]> Sun, 08 Apr 2012 09:24:15 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Yoder]]> Sat, 07 Apr 2012 18:55:01 -0700 The Stranger
To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen: I've seen Vermeer, and you, Mr Kincaide, are no Vermeer.
Posted by Jared Bascomb]]> Sat, 07 Apr 2012 18:53:56 -0700 The Stranger Posted by floater]]> Sat, 07 Apr 2012 17:32:57 -0700 The Stranger
But he made "Jesus Mountain" or whatever it's called, so we have to be nice to him.

Franklin Mint has lost a Titan
Posted by HellboundAlleee]]> Sat, 07 Apr 2012 16:21:36 -0700 The Stranger
I suppose it's too bad that it took death to make that happen, but what else could have stopped the man? Realistically, his greed was never going to be sated. He had to die; it was the only way. It's good news and it only takes a smidge of courage to tell that truth.

All you "don't speak ill of the dead" fuckers need to nut up. His poltergeist is not going to come haunt your ass. His fucking paintings will, though.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn]]> Sat, 07 Apr 2012 15:47:26 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Proteus]]> Sat, 07 Apr 2012 13:46:03 -0700 The Stranger Posted by You can't call it art if it ain't got that schwing!]]> Sat, 07 Apr 2012 13:25:20 -0700 The Stranger Joe Carter.
What interests me is that Carter points out that Kincaid's earlier stuff had some artistic merit. His descent into utter schlockiness occurred later in his career.

Posted by Joe Glibmoron]]> Sat, 07 Apr 2012 12:42:46 -0700 The Stranger Posted by thatsnotright]]> Sat, 07 Apr 2012 12:28:53 -0700 The Stranger
But he did have something with both rokoko and the baroque because he followed in their path. You can argue that its not enough unless its a plain old jesus standing in the middle getting nailed to a cross but that would basicly just rip the map of art history apart since it would be excluding most of the classical baroque artists.

You can call it kitsch if you like - but essentially your doing exactly the same thing as post-rokoko artists did when calling rokoko artists "rokoko". Same with the baroque. "Malformed pearl"? That was not something nice. It was an insult.
So I consider him as being in the vein of baroque art but done in the style of rokoko - you could, perhaps call him a "late romantic" but that would miss out a few things:

1) He had, according to himself, a moral agenda with his images based on christian teaching which is the guidelines for art set down by the council of Trent, under supervision of the Jesuits that actually started the baroque. Of course one could argue that unlike the Baroque his images aren't made to establish wordly power aswell or point out the global spread of the catholic church but that is fine detail if anything.
2) His style is influensed by rokoko paintings. I can honestly not see how you can disagree with that. For example those velvet paintings of Elvis are often considered to be "in the vein of rokoko" part due to the imagery but mostly the choice of colour scale.

Kitsch is often art, presented, preserved or made to be kitsch. When the artist and the buyers and those that present it don't think its kitsch - its not. It COULD be if you buy it and present it with a glow-in-the-dark frame or something but Kitsch is (like for example north european realism) something self defined or not at all.

But it is interesting that you use the word as an insult - because that is just what rokoko and baroque where (and in a way still is).

I agree with many here, I probably wouldn't hang any of these on my walls (because they do look like shit) - but to pretend that this man is isolated from both inspiration and art history as a whole is ... well its just not true. Your making up things to fit your ideal if you claim that.

That he was a dick - fine, no disagreement, but if that is the quality with which we define art we are in deep shit. Michelangelo, Van Gogh and Zorn to name a few would be "dick art" and nothing else.

He is a part of your art history now - no matter how you feel about it.
He will have inspired countless of artists, no matter how you feel about it.
He was inspired by certain pieces of art which shows in how he desired his art to be, what he chose to do (or get done), how he wanted it to be seen by others, what he decided to do it with - no matter how you feel about it.
All these form what one could say about his artistry - whether his art was subjectively shit or not is besides the point (I think Michelangelo and Davinci's art is shit - it doesnt make them any way less relevant or in any way less "high reneissance south of the alps")
Posted by JensR]]> Sat, 07 Apr 2012 12:17:56 -0700 The Stranger
my mom liked kincaid - as do my conservative catholic relatives. the images appealed to her sentimental vision of a country retreat, in some hazy american past before the 60's. even though she had a country retreat and knew better. the reality was a constant battle against bore bees, hornets, mice, snakes, invasive plants, and humidity.
Posted by Max Solomon]]> Sat, 07 Apr 2012 11:43:40 -0700 The Stranger
You simply don't understand his production methods. There was no "workshop". The "paintings" were done by him, but what you typically buy in his stores are ink-jet prints on canvas, which are then, for an astronomical fee, dabbed at by his salesmen to add the white specks that were his trademark -- the "light" that he claimed to be the painter of. None of these dotters are artists, nor would they even claim to be. If the specks were applied by Kinkade himself, the price would be multiplied by ten.
Posted by Fnarf]]> Sat, 07 Apr 2012 10:43:57 -0700 The Stranger Posted by catsnbanjos]]> Sat, 07 Apr 2012 10:34:03 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Ernie1]]> Sat, 07 Apr 2012 10:26:52 -0700 The Stranger
Kinkade didn't have anything to do with the Baroque or Rococo or any classic art style. He was kitsch, more in keeping with Bob Ross than and Dutch classicist. Even Norman Rockwell had a style that was his own and a vision; Kinkade just had a tiny back of tricks. All of his paintings look exactly the same. And the only idea behind them is an utterly bogus nostalgia for a time that never was -- comforting but ignorant.

And what @24 said.

@29, your class argument might hold water if it wasn't possible to buy all sorts of art originals, or prints of expensive paintings, for far, FAR less than Kinkade's stuff sold for. You can even buy "Kinkade style" paintings that are just as good as his, if that's your thing, for much less than his. Kinkade was above all a ripoff artist taking advantage of the uneducated. Most of the people with his pictures on their walls have been fooled into thinking they were making an investment. More than a few put their retirements into them.

The closest analogue to Kinkade's empire is not any kind of artist at all but of Ty, makers of Beanie Babies.
Posted by Fnarf]]> Sat, 07 Apr 2012 10:19:23 -0700 The Stranger
Thanks for the art history, Jens, but I just can't. He may be a (forgettable) part of our artistic heritage, but I can't appreciate his place in art enough to make his works interesting. Good example with The Swing, though. You're right. I do hate that frothy piece for the very same reason I hate Kincade's work.
Posted by floater]]> Sat, 07 Apr 2012 10:00:43 -0700 The Stranger Posted by MichaelPgh]]> Sat, 07 Apr 2012 09:54:28 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Matt from Denver]]> Sat, 07 Apr 2012 09:52:56 -0700 The Stranger stuff but the only comment I'll make is that I'm surprised he was so (relatively) young.

Posted by Helenka (also a Canuck)]]> Sat, 07 Apr 2012 09:32:48 -0700 The Stranger Posted by dwightmoodyforgetsthings]]> Sat, 07 Apr 2012 09:21:58 -0700 The Stranger Art is in the eyes of the beholder...

The paintings of Thomas Kinkade are not art.

This is art.
Posted by Roma]]> Sat, 07 Apr 2012 09:18:12 -0700 The Stranger