Stanley Spencer is about as modern as I get . . .
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 ...
Have you been hanging out at the Tate Modern? I visited there a couple of years ago; great space, but most of the content, well....
While we may disagree on whether Frankenthaler's abstract requires more talent than Kincade's "kisch", I certainly understand how some people may prefer the abstract. What I don't understand is the value given to the abstract. Even if you like it, it certainly isn't worth $20,000 (no painting is), let alone $1.5 million. I submit that you could find 20 art students in any art class that could create an abstract that couldn't be differentiated from Frankenthaler's work by 99.9999% of art affecianadoes, let alone the viewing public. Rather than spend $20,000 repairing a quarter size mark on this piece, give each of the art students one grand to do an abstract. It would be money better spent, IMHO.
when painting scenics - like mountains - light has ONE source, the sun. It therefore all comes from the same direction, hits the same plane - in painting, everything is to do with light - if you put it in the wrong places - it wont ring true - and your eye tells you, even if untrained, that something is akilter. Trust your instinct - we all have it - you don't have to be a 'trained' artist to know good art when it's front of you - and you don't need an 'expert' to tell you :O)
Stanley Spencer is about as modern as I get . . .
What is something "worth"? You say no painting is worth $20,000. What you mean is, no painting is worth $20,000 TO YOU. That's not the way the market works, though.
In 1925, a book was published, a very popular one, which sold for about $2.50. In 1976, I paid $75.00 for it. This weekend, I was offered (and will probably not accept) $3000 for it. Who, if anyone, overpaid? The market decides.
Yes, the Blake water colors are astonishing.
The Tate Modern is relatively recent. They took over a power plant and filled with the sort of "installation art" that you described in the post that I replied to. The space is amazing, and there is some good stuff, but you need to wade through a lot of uh, pieces, that I, to put it politely, don't get.
And I love modern art. There just has to be some standard of skill, talent, and execution. Merely having an "original idea" doesn't cut it, in my book. Especially when all of the original ideas look vaguely the same.
Perhaps his beggars and peasants are a little too clean . . . but they're beautiful. Perhaps members of the middle class in fancy dress? Or maybe they bathed before sitting to the artist?
Anyway, his technical facility is astounding. The foreshortening of the sleeping boy is perfect.
It's a museum, not a gallery. They're not planning to sell it.The value assigned is an indicator of the historical importance of that piece and that artist, in the context of 20th-Century American art, and of their collection of same.
WOW!! Thank you --- that made a beautiful wallpaper for my puter.
Well, I'm certainly aware of market forces. But you're missing the point. WHY does the museum claim a value of 1.5 million for a painting like this? Unlike the painting by Bouguereau in post #325, this painting required no special skill, no unique materials, and doesn't present any unusual aesthetic qualities. Like I said, there are probably hundreds of thousands of artists that could reproduce this painting with the same materials for $50 and there would be no qualitative difference. There is nothing unique about it except the name. Indeed, I would submit that you could put "The Bay" by Frankenthaler and 5 other abstracts by art students side by side on ebay (without any names being mentioned) and the students' paintings would do as well as "the Bay".
I guess what I'm really saying is, although I certainly understand differing values for different paintings, etc., I think that it is ludicrous for any person to pay $1.499 million for the "name" of an abstract painter. Sorry, enough ranting.
The worst I've seen are "Glade" scented candles - little glass globes with decals of Kinkade scenes pasted on the outside and a votive candle on the inside. Spare us!
Right! I forgot about the crap in the grocery stores too!! Wonder when he'll start showing up at truck stop stores??
I wondered why he had taken off one of his gloves and was holding it in his hand with his hat. Had he touched the Pollock to feel the bumps and clumps and swirls of oil paint?
Dryer lint also can be modeled into exquisite miniature sculptures, such as for doll's houses. A little gesso or hardening medium and it looks like rare marble.
I beg to differ. There is a great deal behind abstract art, but one does need to learn about what's going on. Always Learning...I hate to repeat myself in all these threads. But if you are interested, you might check out my home page. I've written up some mini-art-history lectures. Then we can argue about any art student creating a work of Frankenthaler's complexity and skill. Yes, I said complexity and skill, and on a large scale.
I will do so. Thank you.
I don't know if you saw one of the earlier posts re the bubble gum boy and Frankenthaler, but on post 143 there I explained a bit about the derivation of her work (and actually how it was unfairly viewed by critics....quite differently from what you might imagine.)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1587236/posts?q=1&&page=101
Nothing like simultaneous clicking.
I'm open for more discussion later....
Your home page looks fascinating. I hope you don't mind, but I've bookmarked for a later read. I'm looking forward to discussions with you. I always enjoy learning, especially about modern art.
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.