Painter Said to Be Focus of FBI Probe (Thomas Kinkade)

Los Angeles Times ^ | August 29, 2006 | Kim Christiensen

[Cecily]

The FBI is investigating allegations that self-styled "Painter of Light" Thomas Kinkade and some of his top executives fraudulently induced investors to open galleries and then ruined them financially, former dealers contacted by federal agents said.

Investigators are focusing on issues raised in civil litigation by at least six former Thomas Kinkade Signature Gallery owners, people who have been contacted by the FBI said.

ADVERTISEMENTThe ex-owners allege in arbitration claims that, among other things, the artist known for his dreamily luminous landscapes and street scenes used his Christian faith to persuade them to invest in the independently owned stores, which sell only Kinkade's work.

"They really knew how to bait the hook," said one former dealer who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the case. "They certainly used the Christian hook."

Kinkade has denied the allegations in the civil litigation.

Two former dealers told the Los Angeles Times that they had been asked to provide documentation of their business relationships with Kinkade's company. They said agents asked for copies of dealer agreements, retail sales policies, training materials from "Thomas Kinkade University" and correspondence, including e-mail.

[Artist]

The guy has problems. See the personal conduct section at the link.

[piasa]

"In that year a marble Cupid by Michelangelo was treacherously sold to Cardinal Raffaele Riario as an ancient piece: the prelate discovered the cheat, but was so impressed by the quality of the sculpture that he invited the artist to Rome..."

Did Michaelangelo do the selling or did someone else? The snippet above doesn't make that clear.

[Hound of the Baskervilles]

The issue is not that the pictures lack internal logic. Nor is it whether his work is art or mere illustration. "Even as illustration, the work is not strong. It would be possible for a real artist to take the same subject matter and do something original and striking with it. Kinkade advertises himself as the "painter of light," but compared to real artists he doesn't handle light well, much less in an original, insightful way. Even the draftsmanship is mediocre. He's just not a talented guy."

What do you mean by real artist? Of course he is a real artist! He is obviously talented. He handles light in an appealing way. He has an appealing palette and subject matter and he is a good draftsman. He sells his stuff hand over fist. People love it! I would say he is an excellent DECORATIVE artist. That is his niche. But the KEY word is decorative. It is for decoration, it is not art for the ages. All art does not have to be art for the ages you know. I like it but I would never buy one because he has flooded the market and become very trite. All creative endeavors do not have to be masterpieces in order to be worthwhile.

[pollyannaish]

All creative endeavors do not have to be masterpieces in order to be worthwhile.

I wholeheartedly agree. Excellent post.

[COUNTrecount]

Is that Marlon Brando?

[Hound of the Baskervilles]

"Okay Thanks, but Kinkaide is not art."

Of course it is art!!!! Don't be silly!!!! The person who designs a logo for a can of green beans is doing art!!!! A person who creates a kitty cat for a greeting card is doing art. A person who designs the pattern for Hallmark wrapping paper is doing art. The person who designs a flower pattern to be embroidered on bath towels for Canon is doing art! Kinkciade is a decorative artist. If you like his work fine, if not that is okay too. But at least understand that "art" covers a very wide gamut of creative endeavors from important to trivial.

[Sam Cree]

"Art is indeed quite subjective unless you show how standards are quantitated, which of course they can't be."

Well, I'll at least give you my take on it.

First, there is some truth to the idea that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, though that is really just another way of saying that we all have different preferences. This applies to not just painting, but to all art, music, poetry, prose, theater, etc. But it's plain enough that there are standards for those art forms that transcend personal preferences; there is good music and bad, good writing and bad, good acting and bad. You might prefer a paperback romance to, say, Huckleberry Finn, but you wouldn't think they are equal.

It seems only with "fine art" painting that the idea has taken root that it is all equal and not subject to objective standards.

I think I am right in saying that this idea dates strictly from the 20th century, especially the latter half. It's how stuff like Christ in urine (or whatever that was) gets justified as "art," for instance.

In any case, here are the five recognized (not by me, but by all artists who practice realism) quantifiers for judging the craftsmanship in realism in painting: skill in drawing, treatment of value (Kincaid's light), use of color, handling of edges, effectiveness in composition (referred to by commercial men as "layout").

FWIW, while I don't think Kincaid's work is great, it is not done without skill...I do find an insincerity and cynicism in it that is a real turnoff. It's like presenting a dish of icing and calling it a cake. Tastes sweet at first, but then you gag.

[Sam Cree]

Ack!

So, is that another picture of that sculpture of Hillary that we keep reading about on this site?

[the invisib1e hand]

I just find it disingenuous and shallow.

is that grounds for an FBI investigation?

No, we don't know all the facts or evidence, and the info in the article is all we have to go on at the moment.

The article said plainly that "they certainly used the Christian hook" which may or may not be true, and may or may not offend you, but it ain't illegal, and can never be.

Sounds like some disgruntled investors hooked up with some underbooked lawyers and knocked on the offices of some ambitious beaurocrats who are still looking for their "Enron."

[hellinahandcart]

Kindaide is successful for a reason.

And it's the same reason that people collect Precious Moments or Beanie Babies.

A. No taste, so they really like them.

B. Deluding themselves that the things will go up in value.

[the invisib1e hand]

Because I don't believe Kincaid's work is intended to be a tribute to the glory of our Lord.

So, is that grounds for an FBI investigation?

[Rembrandt_fan]

You wrote, "...his work won't be celebrated years after his death the way Rockwell's is."

I agree. Kincaid's work simply won't hold up over time--there's an underlying cynicism to his work, in my view: he plucks the heartstrings too loudly, thus, falsely. Rockwell's work, on the other hand, for all its sentimentality, rings true. It touches a universal chord and--in its way--resonates with the emotions Rockwell attempts to convey. 'Sweetness', for example, is just as genuine as angst and alienation, and just as universal. Would to God more artists were interested in evoking delight rather than anger and contempt.

[hellinahandcart]

Whatever happened to his Kincaid communities? They were actually building master planned communities based on his paintings...

You gotta be stinking kidding me. There were...ARE Kinkade housing developments?

You're actually telling me my nightmare was for real?

[Sam Cree]

"So, is that grounds for an FBI investigation?"

I gather that the company is not being investigated for selling insincere paintings, but for unethical business practices.

[Hound of the Baskervilles]

"I wholeheartedly agree. Excellent post."

Thanks. I say that if a person is a mere greeting card artist, then that person is an artist producing art. Charles Shultz who created the Peanuts comic strip was an artist. Peanuts is art. To say, Kincaide's work is not art means nothing. It is like looking at a pencil and saying it is not a pencil. Well what is it then?

[Sam Cree]

"Rockwell's work, on the other hand, for all its sentimentality, rings true."

Exactly.

[Richard Kimball]

I like Parish's work, but I was never that nuts about his use of light. Frederic Remington used to do some cool stuff, and I also liked Monet. I thought they were more subtle, but could catch the mood of light:

I always thought of Kincaid as greeting card art on steroids. Nothing to complain about, but it appeals to older women who are well off, and not particularly knowledgeable about art. I was somewhat surprised that anyone who could scrape together enough money and credit to open one of those galleries would be foolish enough to do so. They were probably very naive about the art world. I can't think of any artist, living or dead, that could support an entire chain of galleries dedicated only to one artist's work.

[pollyannaish]

is that grounds for an FBI investigation?

Absolutely not. I don't think, from reviewing my own posts, I have ever said that and I never intended to even imply it. My original point was simply that I am uncomfortable with the entire concept of "hawking" Christianity for profit because I believe it cheapens The Message.

You are also most likely correct that there are disgruntled investors and shady lawyers who may be mixed up in this. That does not mean that fraud was committed, and it does not mean that there was no fraud at all. That appears to be what the investigation is about.

If it was simply a case of "investor beware" we will know soon enough.

I think we probably agree on this more closely than it would appear.

[hellinahandcart]

So now, that he's out of vogue, everyone is going to pile on?

He's not out of vogue. He just oversaturated his market. His fans only have so much money and so many walls. Not to mention, there are only so many fans. :P

This is why the gallery owners are pissed. They thought they'd have an exclusive on a region, and then discovered that Kinkade wanted to put a gallery in every mall in America. Even one as close as five miles away that was opened after they'd plunked down their own money based on potential sales for THEIR gallery.

[ByDesign]

"I've always wondered about the sheer volume of paintings he's produced. Figured he must have a team of artists doing work under his name."

He does.

His style of painting doesn't that that long, either - sweat shops in China can crank one out in an hour - and do. And, it's not like his paintings require much research or prep. I won't go into the value of the paintings, or their quality, let's just say IMHO as a lifelong artist, he's the fast food of the art world. His stuff is created and sold to match your couch.

More to the topic, I've heard rumors about him ONLY working with Christians, for what it's worth - and Roman Catholics did'nt count. I'm not surprised by this story, I've heard lots of stories about him and him being a real slimebag over the years. I don't know if they're true or not, but he has a nasty reputation in the fine art publishing world. That's my opinion, of course, and has nothing to do with his potential use of lawyers to silence his critics.