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.

[pollyannaish]

Sigh. I think we are talking over each other.

Let me be completely concise. YOU ARE OBJECTIVELY CORRECT IN EVERYWAY. There is OBJECTIVE beauty. There is stunningly bad art. In fact, it is everywhere. There is most certainly completely irrefutable GOOD ART and BAD 'art'.

There are without question basic measures of proportion. Color is emotive. I actually teach many students all of these things, over and over each year, so I KNOW what you are saying instinctively and educationally and experientially. While I teach design, which is not art, I am constantly immersed in and amazed by the entire study of aesthetics and their effect on our lives. I espouse and educate and uphold those standards in my students. I believe in objective beauty. I eschew the entire concept of "cute." But I also understand and embrace subjective beauty for entirely different reasons.

While Kinkade's work is objectively horrible and what he does is objectively crappy...I am not going to condemn people for enjoying kitschy crap...because there is some kitschy crap I enjoy myself. We all have our "aesthetic weaknesses." I prefer diet coke to good wine. Is one intrinsically higher value than the other. ABSOLUTELY. One takes craft, time, observation and experimentation. It is aesthetically more important. But I don't care. I like diet coke a whole lot more. I have no illusions that attitude would irritate the heck out of Winemakers and connoisseurs alike. So be it.

Here's the basic rub for me. I absolutely hate elitism. I hate the fact that purists dismiss the joy Granny gets from her paint by numbers, and the sentiment behind it when she passes it on to her family. She and her family have no illusions that this is high art. They appreciate and embrace the sentiment. I respect that. I am irritated by the fact that art appreciation sometimes means that the simple joys of "intent" are dismissed and those that perceive them thought of as somehow aesthetically challenged. Instead, I find that those intangibles are essential to and individual soul, no matter what objectivity might say. I hate the fact that everything has to be objectified and quantified. I understand it intellectually, I realize it is a necessity but I hate it's uppity exclusivity. Different people have different priorities.

Crying while viewing a Rothko shows that art really moves you personally. That is admirable and wonderful and I am genuinely moved by your experience. But are you going to condemn those who do not have the same experience as tasteless, uneducated boobs? Or do you accept that while they do not emotionally connect to objectively good material, they can find joy in other creative endeavors?

Some people cry at the ending to a Harlequin romance or a Hallmark movie. Some may cry when they see a Thomas Kinkade painting? IT IS SOMEHOW MEANINGFUL TO THEM. It still isn't high art, but that doesn't make them second class.

While one's reaction to a work does not intrinsically give it value, it does give it value to that individual. That is ALL I am saying.

FWIW, this is a conversation I have regularly. While I am not in the fine arts area, and while the purpose of my teaching differs wildly from those who teach fine arts...it is often frustrating to me that my students are put down by the elites because they are not fine artists.

Their purpose is to communicate and/or make functional while making it as aesthetically pleasing in the process. Some, are exceptionally talented and head for graduate work at schools like Parsons. Most are simply competent. That does not make what they do art, but it also does not make what they do valueless.

You are correct that there is absolutely nothing elitist about knowing the difference. There is something elitist about not accepting that some people choose to surround themselves and enjoy things that don't fall into the "good art" category.

I have to apologize to you for ranting about this. As you can see, it is one of my buttons and something I have spent many years working through. While I only started teaching exclusively last year...and part time for a few years before that...I have been in the design industry for almost 20 years now.

Elitism, egoism and condescension are horrible side effect of this business. Those art culture characteristics often become a hindrance to those willing to learn and embrace objective beauty. They put good and decent people off, and do more to destroy our ability to "educate" than they do help it. In addition, imo, they are morally reprehensible. I can not embrace that kind of world because I really believe that every person can grow in their aesthetic appreciation.

Even if their personal taste never leaves the Kinkade gallery.

[pollyannaish]

Thanks for the personal story.

[pollyannaish]

One final thing. I went back and read my posts, just to make sure that I wasn't missing something.

I have said several times on this thread that I respect the fact that people enjoy Kinkade paintings. Not the work, but the fact some people enjoy them. It is respect for what makes others happy, not for the artwork itself. Hey, I respect the fact people love Elvis on velvet. That does not mean I respect "Elvis on Velvet."

Second, just for clarity sake...Art is that which is objectively valuable, while I have used the term "art" in a much more conventional sense. Just wanted to make that clear.

[restornu]

So you own photo shop who cares!

Who needs to see that evil witch!

[restornu]

Excuse me aesthetic judgments comes from within!

I am not talking about humanist art....

But there are things for whatever reason will touch one or bring a lovely memory alive into one life!

[FreedomCalls]

An AGA is perfect for the UK. They're also great to cook with once you get the hang of it. It's not a case of "still using" because it's all you can afford either, they're expensive.

I only saw one once at a B&B I was staying in. The hostess said she loved hers and explained how it worked with visible pride.

[Rembrandt_fan]

I don't condemn or look down upon those who enjoy or even make, say, Elvis on black velvet. Actually, I kind of like Elvis on black velvet, probably because my mother was crazy about Elvis when I was growing up, and would dance and sing along to Elvis songs on the radio or the record player, so whenever I see one of those kitschy Elvis objects, I think of my mother and get all sorts of warm associations. So I'm not decrying that stuff, far from it. All I'm saying is that it doesn't (or shouldn't) take a graduate degree to recognize good when good is experienced. Lower the bar low enough and people will start thinking gaudy, garish color tricks that were old when the pre-Raphaelites were young is the stuff of genius.

Too late.

[CaliGirlGodHelpMe]

~LOL~

!

[neb52]

The first and every time I hear Kinkade's name is from people saying "hey look at this Kinkade painting, he's a Christian" or "lets go into the Kinkade store, he's a Christian". I about gag every time. I think to many people buy his stuff solely because his is a "Christian" then the quality of his art.

[Rembrandt_fan]

You wrote, "Excuse me aesthetic judgments comes from within! I am not talking about humanist art...."

Aesthetic judgment is an aspect of critical thinking. Critical thinking is taught--from without. One isn't born with the ability to evaluate artistic merit. Unlike artistic talent, another thing entirely, aesthetic judgment is a learned attribute.

I don't know exactly what you mean by 'humanist art'. If you're saying that religiously inspired, spiritually oriented art is somehow held to a different standard, you're mistaken. El Greco's work, for example, is deeply religious, largely intended to bring those viewing his pictures closer to God. Even so, El Greco adhered to the same classically inspired, 'humanist' standard of his more secular contemporaries.

[maine-iac7]

I never got the whole Thomas Kinkade thing. As far as painters of light go....I'll take Maxfield Parish hands down.

putting those two names in the same vicinity is akin to blasphemy - KINKade may paint, but he ain't no artist

[CaliGirlGodHelpMe]

"Ick. I hope you're being sarcastic."


Go back to post 63 and take another look. {:D

[maine-iac7]

but Kinkaide is not art

His stuff is an assault on the senses - below motel art...

[CaliGirlGodHelpMe]

Hmmm I just noticed something. The front door of this house is badly drawn; it appears to directly face the viewer when it should be obliquely angled to the left. I guess it was too much trouble for him to fix the damn thing.

Funnily enough, every time I look at something from Kincade, I feel the same as the Lebanese woman.

[restornu]

I have no idea what you and your aesthetic judgments are getting excited about!

As for me I know if something is beautiful it moves me just like certain Music...

some things on this earth just elevate ones senses to such pleasure and appreciation!

[restornu]

Kinkaide had an over price gimmick!

Maybe he had comtempt for art!

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

Improving on the definitive :-)

[Rembrandt_fan]

You wrote, "Aesthetic judgments come from within!" and I countered your argument. Just as with music, the more one knows, the more one can appreciate what one is seeing and hearing, making the experience richer and more fulfilling.

If you make a definitive claim, back it up.

Lastly, exclamation points don't reinforce the truth of a statement! Unwarranted exclamation points are annoying to read! Stay away from unwarranted exclamation points!

[Pro-Bush]

Kincaid is creepy.

[Twinkie]

I like Jim Gray's paintings. He has done a lot of paintings of the Smoky Mountains, but also some abroad and seacoast related. He is very prolific, but I don't really know much about him; have wondered how he turns out as much as he does.