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.
"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!
Agree with your first paragraph, totally disagree with your second. Let's see your grandma's work. Wish I could paint like Kinkade.
This is -- believe me -- written conversationally, not angrily: how do you feel competent to define what is and isn't "art"? Having something you want to say, and being able to say it with skill and beauty and in a way that highlights some good aspect of God's creation -- that's not art?
I feel competent to say, "I like this, I don't like that." I feel competent to say, "This looks like it was done skillfully, in terms of saying what the artist wanted to say. This looks like it was done by a drunk three-year-old."
I feel far too hesitant to say, "That is done with skill and beauty, it accomplishes what the artist wants to accomplish, it brings out something good about God's creation -- but it isn't art."
If you say Kinkade doesn't fit the definition of the preceding paragraph, then I guess our contexts are too unrelated to carry much more conversation.
Dan