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 ...
Will do...and more to come today.
Since we purposely can't see his face, why do you assume the expression on it is perplexed? Nothing about the position of his body says that. I think that the indications of "class" Rockwell gives us - his suit, his gloves, his hat - says he's learning something, and we don't know what the outcome will be.
I made a trip to Olana about twelve years ago, and managed to find subject material for several of my own paintings (in spite of not being allowed to take pictures inside of the house).
As a watercolorist, though, I do have to throw in a plug for William Trost Richards:
I guess depravity's in the eye of the beholder. I like the Sacred Heart piece, and would have it in my home. Adam and Eve would take up too much space. :)
His art is kitsch, but it's very high quality kitsch. And it's all very warm. There's nothing wrong with that. I'd take a thousand of his paintings over a single Picasso any day.
Actually, I have seen some beautiful hand-made paper created from cotton dryer lint.
But couldn't I just dump paint on the floor and save myself a trip to the museum?
The point isn't whether one likes Pollock's "schtick." (The essence of which is to offend and annoy many, which is still does, admirably.) The point is whether Pollock is/was a master at that genre, better than all the drop-cloth wannabees.
Hmmm... So your "ex" purchased the prints DIRECTLY from Kinkade??? Himself??? Unless you bought them direct, I cannot see how you can blame him for what a gallery owner did. I can't find a problem with his actions. (Winne-the-Pooh notwithstanding). It seems that he paints a picture, and a PRODUCTION COMPANY makes prints of it. Sells them to Independent (Note the word independent?) galleries that a license the Kinkade name... and then the manufacturer (artist) gets royalties. As far as I can see, it is capitalism at its finest.
It would appear that you have a sad case of sour grapes. Your "ex" got you to shell out for something that a gallery rep said would give you a return n your investment. Hmmm.. investment..... personally I don't make ANY investment without doing a little homework. You see, I bought an ORIGINAL Kinkade for my late mother. She enjoyed his work and said it gave her a lift because it reminded her of her childhood. I didn't buy the damn thing because some sleezy gallery owner said it was a "wonderful investment" I bought it to make my Mom happy.
The bottom line is that sometimes people buy stuff just because they like it. Not everyone has to have some ulterior motives in their purchases. Sounds to me like you are just bitter becuase that investment grade Yugo you bought isn't paying off.....
Semper Reflective
"They're just slandering Kinkade because he actually has talent, a rare trait in today's artistic world. You're not supposed to be successful unless you do something avant- garde, like bescumber a painting of Mary or pour paint haphazardly on a canvas from a ladder. The Dadaists' proclamation that "art is shit" turned out to be quite a self-fulfilling prophecy."
Speaking as an artist, I take GREAT exception to this - the guy is a hack. Great marketer, but a hack artist, period. His "art" is in the same vain as the guy who painted the "happy trees" - simplistic, mechanical exercises in fluff and cliche. His "art" is sappy, cliched, his colors atrocious, his skill at composition stilted and jueveniile, and his use of light and shadow clumsy and contrived. High school art students can outpaint him, and do.
There are real artists out there who should be wealthy beyond their means, but are ignored. Kinkade simply fills a niche, the "interior design art" field, ie. they're tailored to match your couch. He met the right market at the right time. He will never hang in musuems or galleries (that he doesnt own), and will never be remembered as anything more than a hack painter. His "art" is just offensive to the eye as the dung Madonna, because of how BAD it is, and how much attention he's stolen from real artists.
If you buy his prints, thinking you've made an investment, welcome to the 'A Sucker Is Born Every Day" Club - you been HAD.
I worked in the publishing field with companies that make similar products. These "limited editions" are a sham - they cost a couple dollars to print, and the "limited" nature is that they only print 10,000 AT THAT SIZE - you may have number 578 of 10,000 @ 18x24", but rest assured, they will print it at 5x7" or other sizes, thus dilluting your "limited edition". The even have techniques now to replicate brush strokes on canvas with lamination and inkjet technologies, and they sell these as "painted" by the artist.
I've also heard dark rumors about the guy, and his behavior, and the worst was a rumor that if you were'nt of his faith, forget working with him, or getting a license. Rumor, but from very respectable sources. I had very brief moments where I worked with licensees of his, and they all said he was extremely hard to work with, as he was rude, arrogant, if not downright mean. He puts forth a "gentle Christian" face to the public, but in business, he's a total #@#hole.
Telent, my @#$. He's done more to make art a joke than the fools in the liberal circles who put crucifixes in urine or dung on the Madonna.
Rockwell never called himself an artist. He routinely painted about fourteen hours a day. What I like about each of these people is that they ignored the conventions of their day, and did work that fit their vision. They also influenced others.
Every fine arts sophomore that reads too much Artforum has done a Jackson Pollock. Pollock has, IMHO, done a lot of damage to art, as he almost single-handedly created the image of the artist as a (con)artist, although Marcel Duchamp was the trailblazer.
Kincaid does one painting over and over. His light has no basis in any form of reality. I suppose it's okay, but I've never been a fan. That being said, a lot of people reject art because it looks like something that would be at a Sammi Show, but I've found that about 10% of almost any genre is great, the other 90% garbage. Like LeRoy Nieman, Kincaid as mastered the art of "Art as business for the masses." I don't think he's inherently any more dishonest than a William DeKooning or a Mark Rothko, who did the same paintings over and over, but called them a "series." The only difference, to me, is that Kincaid sells in malls, they sell in trendy galleries with white painted walls and staff dressed in black.
BTW, I missed a chance to buy a signed Norman Rockwell lithograph in 1978. It was "Shuffleton's Barber Shop." They wanted $2,000 for it then, and I was trying to put the money together when Rockwell died. The price went immediately to $10,000, well out of my range. I have no idea what it's worth now. The lithograph business is like anything else in the art world. 90% will lose value, 10% will go through the roof.
I love jigsaw puzzles and have a few of them with Kincade pictures, but the angle of light does not seem to be consistent. I am no artist so would value your opinion.
FRegards,
Bill Clinton, disgraced former President of the United States was accused and testified against by scores of witnesses on far worse charges and no one gave a crap.............
I like this Benton a lot.
(Warning, contains nudity)
Alfred Eisenstaedt: Thomas Hart Benton Painting “The Rape of Persephone.”
(click on small image to enlarge)
Can't agree.
Reminds me of Adirondacks. I've seen that kind of lighting outdoors a lot on east coast area hikes.
Isn't Olana terrific? What a wonderful home to visit! Just wish I'd had more time to wander in the gardens.
My mini-theory of art is that the artist's vision often reflects his environment. Church had those amazing views from his home of the Hudson River....how much did that inform his paintings? I know he bought the land and built the house when he was selling many of those landscapes with distant views, but still I wonder. (My art is often inspired by more close-up cliffs, because that's what I grew up near.)
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.
