[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.

[veronica]

His work, while technically skilled on a certain level, suggests nothing deeper below the surface. It's purely decorative, as you state, and I can't see spending money for such superficial "art." Even illustrators like N.C. Wyeth and Norman Rockwell suggested something more profound with their art, meaning that can pondered within their works. Particularly as time passes. Kinkade's paintings look like the sets from Munchinland in the movie The Wizard of Oz, but not as interesting.