My favorite is not a painter, he's a photographer, Galen Rowell (1940-2002):
The man was without equal. That photograph is unaltered.
I never got the whole Thomas Kinkade thing.
As far as painters of light go....I'll take Maxfield Parish hands down.
Well, that's really an unfair comparison.
The "master of light" seems to have totally neglected the parallel world of shadows.
He seems to have gotten to a point, technically, and then stopped learning.
And I'll take JMW Turner, but I agree with ya about Kinkade. I'm a firm believer that "de gustibus non est diputandum" , but eeeeeew already! Kinkade's trite mass-produced kitsch isn't art. It's unbelievably cheesy,clumsily amateurish graphic illustration.(not that there's anything wrong with that, lol!)
Another vote for Maxfield Parrish here.
My favorite is not a painter, he's a photographer, Galen Rowell (1940-2002):
The man was without equal. That photograph is unaltered.
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.
I like me.
putting those two names in the same vicinity is akin to blasphemy - KINKade may paint, but he ain't no artist
I'll take Vermeer.
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Hopper (another master of light, and yet another style):
He's the glowing windows, doors, skyscape guy, not the palette and brush equivalent of a high contrast photographer. It purposely looks other worldly. It is a wonderful effect in the right mood. Sort of reminiscent of the older bulb-lit Christmas scenes before it got all cutesy with fiber and LEDs and digitized angel voices and whatnot.