Posted on 03/06/2006 8:18:41 PM PST by tbird5
Christian-themed artist Thomas Kinkade is accused of ruthless tactics and seamy personal conduct. He disputes the allegations.
Thomas Kinkade is famous for his luminous landscapes and street scenes, those dreamy, deliberately inspirational images he says have brought "God's light" into people's lives, even as they have made him one of America's most collected artists.
A devout Christian who calls himself the "Painter of Light," Kinkade trades heavily on his beliefs and says God has guided his brush — and his life — for the last 20 years.
"When I got saved, God became my art agent," he said in a 2004 video biography, genteel in tone and rich in the themes of faith and family values that have helped win him legions of fans, albeit few among art critics.
But some former Kinkade employees, gallery operators and others contend that the Painter of Light has a decidedly dark side.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
If you would like to learn more about art, I have done up a series of mini-lectures (with lots of pictures) and fun comments by FReepers.
You can click on them from my homepage. Enjoy. I am still open to comments on any of them.....
I agree, I guess they are okay in a doctor's office or something, but in my home NOT. I love modern art
How do you know? To me it looks like daybreak on a early spring morning when the sun is just starting to burn off the morning fog.
I happen to think the painting is beautiful.
You said it very well...he is using Christianity to sell works to those who don't know better and who are seduced by pretty colors. (No offense meant; there are lots of crooks out there and I believe he is one of them. This has been amply demonstrated in this thread: for his "limited" prints not being limited prints; the paintings that are just mass produced prints with some paint swiped across them, the lack of his signature, etc, etc.)
He's been making it into the news because his game is up. The galleries who sold his work and the people who bought it are realizing that they were ripped off. (If you bought a print of his for $100 because you really liked it, fine; any more than that is a rip off, in my opinion.)
I have no patience with those who lie and cheat when there are honest, hard-working artists with real vision who get no credit, no respect and few sales and still continue to create because they have to.
The more I found out about Kincade's character, the madder I am at the fraud he perpetuates.
I think what really drove the discussion is concurring reports from Freepers.
My knowledge of art and the gallery business does not come from there.
I just wonder whether any of the piles-on have ever been the target of any kind of a lawsuit, whether they've had any personal acquaintance with the throw-in-every-vicious-lie-you-can-dream-up vomit that court documents can be. I'll say no more than that.
Well, let's go back to "what I know" again. "What I know" is that fine art is a limited market, and you can't open gallery after gallery for the same product as if they were Krispy Kremes (Krispy Kreme itself expanded too quickly, and believe me there's a much bigger demand out there for doughnuts). The people who opened galleries with their own money should have known this beforehand as well. But that doesn't mean they WEREN'T defrauded, or undercut later by Kinkade's company, or anything else that they're claiming in their lawsuits.
These are kind of like divorce suits, in a way---they'll be about money, and they'll be very nasty. Some of it will be true and some of it will be lies.
I realize at first glance this looks like we are siding with the LA Times in an attack on a Christian, but Mr. Kincade has skirted the ethical line for years, and his paintings are formulaic. I especially object to his taking the SAME painting and marketing it under one title at the mall and another title (with attached Biblical verse) at a Chrhistian bookstore. That I have seen with my own eyes, and it told me that he is taking advantage of people.
LOLOLOL
I think Dan's point is 'those folks' who consistently distrust the LA Times...
..suddently take their word for this whole hit piece.
As Dan implied....good or bad, true or untrue....since when do we buy hook, line and sinker the LA Times?
My son, the artist :)
...isn't a great fan of Kincaid, but some folk love the work!...and are inspired by it.
If he's not a Christian but a charlatan, or terribly disingenuous he will be found out....
..but the LA Times?.....c'mon :)
Just wanted to add, that a lot of people on this thread who are commenting negatively about Kinkade's work or business practices are not relying on the LA Times for their basis of judgment either. And that about finishes what I have to say (unless something irresistible is waved in front of my face :D).
See, now I LIKE art that can be sweet and simple, and praising of decency, even if it is syruppy. Not everything should be syruppy (broccoli, etc.) There's nothing wrong with a little syrup on your waffles on a Sunday morning.
I LIKE the art that Bonfire linked to. But Dan, TK is just bad art. My grandmother could do what he does after watching Bob Ross about three times.
oh I knew I spelled his name wrong....Kinkade
Have you ever checked out the Museum of Bad Art? It's in Boston, but they have a LOT of their art on-line. It's atually rather educational, since you can learn what good art is NOT.
Exactly- these are fine examples of light in painting..
Kincaid is to art what Yanni (speaking of people in trouble today!) is to music. Commercial and too cute by half.
I didn't even read the whole article. I don't care what the LA Times thinks one way or another. However, it IS interesting to see how many people know things independently of the article.
And I don't like his paintings because they have no character; simply an inanimate cottage with some flowers; no humans.
"I LIKE the art that Bonfire linked to. But Dan, TK is just bad art. My grandmother could do what he does after watching Bob Ross about three times."
Boss Ross's schtick was to show that ANYONE could learn to paint. TK is proof that not everyone SHOULD paint!
I'm with you.
Linda, I thought it was obvious enough I was joking that I didn't bother with the (/joking) tabs. No, of course it isn't defensible. But borrow a sense of humor from someone*, look at the artwork, an then think what a piece of gum looks like...
(*Teasing)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.