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.

[TexasNative2000]

As always, his paintings lack logic.

Do you mean the farmhouse within 30 feet of the church, which is within 25 feet of the little red schoolhouse, all within 10 feet of the cute little stream which would flood them all after a good spring thunderstorm?

[razorback-bert]

Wasatch mountains as seem from Ouray Utah.

[Malacoda]

Why is that skinny guy carrying Marlon Brando on his shoulders?

[pollyannaish]

Beautiful. I can almost smell it.

[AnAmericanMother]

Amen! Preach it!

You can go to the students' art show at any decent university and buy off the rack original works by students that are a thousand times better than this awful Kinkade guy.

He is NOT an artist - he doesn't understand perspective, color, or the way light works. I particularly hate the way he lights a scene from 3 or 4 invisible light sources, none of which are coming from the apparent position of the sun. Calling him the "painter of light" is just insane.

He also has real difficulty drawing human figures, and animals.

But here is the definitive Kincade, courtesy of slowboat407:

[Hound of the Baskervilles]

LOL!!

[Rembrandt_fan]

You wrote, "However, I completely respect that others enjoy and find peace in them."

I don't. Kincaid plays people for sentimental saps, suckers, marks, and there's usually a backlash once folks know they've been had--especially when they realize that expensively framed monstrosity in the living room will never, ever appreciate. That backlash, when it comes, will be felt throughout the painting profession. I won't presume to speak for all artists everywhere, but from my perspective, the man is bad for business.

[woofie]

I can practically smell the pollution in the water.....and the Christmas lights flicker as they shine through the smog

[pollyannaish]

But aren't you comparing apples to oranges?

I completely agree regarding his business practices. I feel the exact same way regarding Beanie Babies and other assorted over-hyped and meritless "investment buying opportunities." While I am not sure that there was any illegality involved (this is from the LA Times after all) there is very little doubt that his work will not pad people's bank accounts in their retirement and to market anything in that way is really misleading. It is hard to predict what will appreciate. But one thing you can predict is that it won't be something everyone was told to "save because it will be worth something someday." That just screws up the whole law of supply and demand and defeats the purpose.

If you want your art to be valuable, it has to be timeless, excellent...and rare.

That said, if a card, bookmark, t-shirt, calendar, mug, reprint or original is bought because it brings a person joy...it most certainly is art. And to say someone is tasteless because they like that kind of decoration in their lives is unfair and elitist.

So...I stand by my original post. I don't care for his style and never have. People buying his stuff as an investment were, frankly, idiotic. But if you like it and it brings you joy...I respect that.

[NCC-1701]

Looter Guy is just passing out some holiday cheer. That is if the price is right. BTW, that was great. A new entry for LooterGuy.com.

[SlowBoat407]

AAM, thanks for the recognition!

My wife has a particular sore spot about TK, as she is an artist herself and objects to his sleazy marketing tactics - especially the way he runs off tens of thousands of copies of a piece, and then arbitrarily divides them into variously priced "limited editions". We learned this firsthand in one of his galleries here in Virginia, when a salesgerbil there admitted that the only thing distinguishing two editions was a mark on the back, even though they were from the same print run.

[pollyannaish]

BTW, I can also understand how you would be concerned about the effect of something like this on business. Much in the same way I am concerned about something like this reflecting badly on Christianity.

[woofie]

Its also fitting for Looter guy to arrive on Katrinamas

[NCC-1701]

Personally, The Guy who did this wasn't a bad artist Himself:

[FreedomCalls]

I don't believe that picture is set in England.

No one said it was. My point was that I have been in a place where those events could take place at the same time. I'm sure there are others.

The issue is not that the pictures lack internal logic.

From post #14, quote: "As always, his paintings lack logic" which is the statement I was responding to.

[AnAmericanMother]

I absolutely was floored when you posted that on the original Kincade thread.

PERFECT! And it remains perfect.

[Rembrandt_fan]

You wrote, "And to say someone is tasteless because they like that kind of decoration in their lives is unfair and elitist."

I don't think it is either unfair or elitist to objectively compare two different art objects and conclude that one has lasting merit and one is kitschy crap, or to draw conclusions about the taste of the person who prefers the kitsch. There is, for example, a vast qualitative distinction between, say, a Cezanne landscape and anything by Kincaid.

As I see it, the problem is one of arts education. We don't give our kids the basis upon which to make sound aesthetic judgments. If this country was doing right by its children, giving art the place it deserves in most grammar and high school curricula, con-men like Kincaid wouldn't have a chance.

[SlowBoat407]

At the risk of pushing my luck...

[Sam Cree]

Well, I may be at a disadvantage in arguing with an artist of long experience, but I'll give it a try.

"Is their "worth" less (pre Renaissance), because they don't hold to a "standard", which can and does change era to era?"

If you are referring to early Christian and Byzantine art, no, I think it is not worth less. I appreciate much of it and find it beautiful...but I am quite sure they had their own standards, different from other eras, but still standards. Yes, I would think standards have to change from era to era, school to school.

I also really like Australian Aborigine art, but assume that there are standards for it as well. For instance, the cross hatching and fine lines found in some of it take considerable skill. Very considerable.

"The incredible draftmanship of the romantic period (Waterhouse, Tedema) is superior to anything I've ever seen, so does anything less have less merit?"

I love 19th century art, and sometimes think that skills like draftsmanship reached a peak during that century. I'd have a hard time saying that everything else has less merit though, since that would exclude a lot of the old masters. However, the old masters were surely masters at draftsmanship too.

"You tread a slippery slope. What "standards" are you applying, and who decided them?"

Well you are right, although I am acquainted at some level with art, I would not put myself forward as an expert in a room with real experts. I was offering my opinion based on my experience, which while less than that of many, is real enough. However, regarding standards, I mentioned the technical standards that I am aware of, draftsmanship, handling of values, color, edges, composition. While I am not really talking about something as strict and arbitrarily decided as the rules set by the Academy of Beaux Arts or whatever, I still suppose there are people, such as yourself probably, who are able to judge competency in them.

"Art is ALWAYS subjective, because it's audience evolves and changes"

I admit that only to a partial degree, how else to judge great art from bad art? Or is there no bad art? This is one problem I have with modern abstract art...how do you tell if it's any good, since you can't judge the draftsmanship, for instance? Composition and use of color? I guess so.

"I challenge his ability as a draftsman..."

Well, here you are applying actual standards to him, far as I can see. But I appreciate your analysis, you articulated some things I couldn't put my finger on.

"Taste has everthing to do with the audiences subjectivity."

That's what I was trying to say when I wrote that taste does apply to subjectivity. Awkward sentence on my part, probably.

Yes, I understand that art, at least "art with a capital A, (being sardonic)" goes beyond the objective and the technical, or at least it hopes to. I think most who practice it hope to communicate something from inside themselves, something more than a just a plain copy of something else.

"Thats' why much of the nuance and meaning of Japanese art is lost on Westerners..."

Here I can't comment, being, as you say, ignorant of the whole thing. But I have read how the people in certain isolated primitive societies could not understand what a photograph was, not having lived where anything like that existed, which would be a parallel perhaps.

As for modern art, I don't have an intrinsic dislike for it, and there is much of it that appeals to me, for whatever reason. However, I find myself without tools to figure out "how good" it is, which makes it entirely subjective, which I stated somewhere in this thread, forgot where already.

"And as an artist, I cannot be objective when I lift a pencil or paintbrush. Everytime I draw a line or paint a stroke, my entire life and background and training and point of view is expressed. To be disconnected from that is simply not possible - to say otherwise says to me you are not an artist, and don't understand the artistic process."

That is well said IMO. But I qualify that by asserting that an artist must possess skills that can be analyzed objectively (for instance, draftsmanship) to express what is subjective.

"to say otherwise says to me you are not an artist, and don't understand the artistic process."

Hey, I don't really have a reply to that one. I hope it isn't true, but I'm not going to argue it.

As for myself, I've always liked to draw, which is fairly common, and hoped I had some ability...majored in art, specialty painting, in college many years ago...but went other directions most of my life, which has been a good one, thankfully. Now, later in life in my fifties, have gotten back to art these last four or five years, have worked very hard at it, found it to be both a struggle and a joy.

[Revolting cat!]

At the risk of pushing my luck...

Bravo, bravissimo! More Maestro!