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.

[Aquinasfan]

I guess that's his artistic license to demonstrate the "Painter of Light" thing.

Or the painter of kitsch. Anyway, I'll take a Thomas Kinkade painting over any modern "art."

[ArrogantBustard]

In the Lowerarchy of Bad Art, Kitsch is not nearly as low as Nihilistic Nonsense.

[FreedomCalls]

And here they cost about $12000 to start with!

Whoa! I didn't know they were that much.

[GretchenM]

Glad to read others write things similar to what I have always thought about Kinkade's paintings.

I prefer simpler paintings with more drama and less fluff (although the one posted atop this thread is one of the less fluffiated of his paintings and therefore easier on my eye).

It may seem a contradiction but I love Monet's works. I read that he had astigmatism and when given a pair of glasses, reportedly said if that's what the world looks like, he'd go back to his former way of seeing things.

[Darnright]

>I would LOVE to have these SomethingAwfuls for my wall.<

They're great, aren't they? Of course, there would probably be copyright fights galore, if they tried any marketing.

I'd never seen somethingawful.com before. It's a hoot!

[Tailback]

RE: #95

That's incredible.

[AnAmericanMother]

I disagree. If you look at the woman in the left foreground, she's wearing elaborate sleeves with enormous puffs, set well down off the shoulder -- basically Italian Renaissance in style.

What looks like the left shoulder joint in the woman in red is actually the top puff of the sleeve, slightly flattened.

So Rembrandt is safe -- he painted what the sleeve actually looked like, bent across and crushed by the movement of the woman's arm inside.

[Aquinasfan]

My tacky-meter just redlined. Why ARE their eyes shaped like raindrops?

An attempt at an explanation... Teddy bears make us feel warm and fuzzy because their proportions are the same as a baby's. So...

A baby's eyes are probably larger in proportion to its body than an adult's, which may explain the "warm and fuzzies" many people feel with "big eye" art.

Alright, it's the best I can come up with.

[martin_fierro]

This is fast becoming one of my Top 10 Threads Ever.

Mama and Babe
Acrylic on canvas by Sarah Irani, 1995
24"x30"
Donated by the artist

The flesh tones bring to mind the top shelf liqueurs of a border bistro. With an astonishing emphasis on facial bone structure, the artist flirts with caricature and captures features of Mamma's face which remind us of a former First Lady. The upright marionettish pose of the babe hints that the early bond between mother and child is as formal as it is familiar. Good old fashioned parental respect is at the center of this celebration of color and contour.

Y'all come on over to the Museum of Bad Art!

[Tijeras_Slim]

Did ya ping you-know-who?

[martin_fierro]

Naaah.

He wouldn't know from Bad Art if he ... well, drew it.

[GretchenM]

The difficulty with appreciating Monet's art on a PC monitor is you're so close to it. Nevertheless, I wanted to post this beauty, "The Thames at Westminster." Larger version. When you see the larger version, the majesty of the composition, drama, and light are truly appreciable.

[GretchenM]

One of my favorites of Degas:

[Aquinasfan]

In the Lowerarchy of Bad Art, Kitsch is not nearly as low as Nihilistic Nonsense.

Especially pretentious nihilistic nonsense. Excuse me while I scream into a paper bag.

[GretchenM]

Another Degas, excellent for its use of light, formation (composition), sense of movement while almost everyone is still.

[AnAmericanMother]

I'll take a Thomas Kinkade painting over any modern "art."

I'll call you on that one! I'm not a big fan of "modern art", but some of it at least is honest work.

Georgia O'Keeffe

Here's one I found on art criticism . .. made me laugh.

Mark Tansey, The Innocent Eye

[Xenalyte]

Oh, I'm a MoBA gal from back in the day, yo. "Sunday on the Pot with George" is my favorite.



"Can the swirling steam melt away the huge weight of George's corporate responsibilities? This pointillist piece is curious for meticulous attention to fine detail, such as the stitching around the edge of the towel, in contrast to the almost careless disregard for the subject's feet."

[AnAmericanMother]

Another splendid painting of the Thames, by another true "master of light".

J.M.W. Turner

[WolfRunnerWoman]

Why are all the lights on in his houses and lamp posts lit in broad daylight?

Why is it simultaneously fall (see tree leaves) and spring (see flowering bulbs)?

[AnAmericanMother]

Wow, putting that next to a Turner is lese majeste, or sacrilege, or SOMETHING.