Truthfully, art is not so subjective, except for "modern art," which is not what Kincaid does. Realism is very much a craft which has actual standards.
IMO Kincaid has ability as a craftsman, but my feeling is that his stuff is not straightforward or honest. This seems to be born out by various news stories and anecdotes about him.
The word subjective does apply to taste, on the part of both the craftsman and the viewer.
"Truthfully, art is not so subjective, except for "modern art," which is not what Kincaid does. Realism is very much a craft which has actual standards.
IMO Kincaid has ability as a craftsman, but my feeling is that his stuff is not straightforward or honest. This seems to be born out by various news stories and anecdotes about him."
Disagree with your note on the definition of subjective. Art is indeed quite subjective unless you show how standards are quantitated, which of course they can't be. Who set the standards and how did they arrive at the objective standards for art? I am open if I have missed something.
"Truthfully, art is not so subjective, except for "modern art," which is not what Kincaid does. Realism is very much a craft which has actual standards."
Depends on what era you are talking about - early art, before the Renaissance, were clumsy and lacked a little thing called "perspective", and their techniques and rendering were crude compared to later work - but compare to earlier eras, could be considered realistic. Is their "worth" less, because they don't hold to a "standard", which can and does change era to era?
The incredible draftmanship of the romantic period (Waterhouse, Tedema) is superior to anything I've ever seen, so does anything less have less merit?
You tread a slippery slope. What "standards" are you applying, and who decided them?
Granted, I'm not much of a fan of modern art myself, but your concept of art is hard to apply, over time. Art is ALWAYS subjective, because it's audience evolves and changes.
"IMO Kincaid has ability as a craftsman, but my feeling is that his stuff is not straightforward or honest. This seems to be born out by various news stories and anecdotes about him. "
I challenge his ability as a draftsman, I find little talent at all in his work. And yes, i am an artist who works in oil and acrylic, in the style of realism. His perspective is sloppy at best, his composition stilted and cliched, his sense of depth almost neligible, and his colors are a riot and unbalanced and annoying to the eye. He takes advantage of the fact that the eye cannot focus on that many bright colors at once, and it gets a "sparkle" effect that he calls "painting with light". His use of light, however, is the worst of the lot - it's overdone, has no semblence to realism, is badly done, and is overused to draw away from the utter lack of talent in all other areas.
His work, in my opinion, is not honest, in that we agree - he seeks to dazzle the eye away from his lack elsewhere.
"The word subjective does apply to taste, on the part of both the craftsman and the viewer."
Nonsense. Taste has everthing to do with the audiences subjectivity. How can you say that someone's point of view has nothing to do with their taste? If you were correct, Maplethorpe's "Piss Christ" would be held to worldwide acclaim, because no-one would bring their Christianity to the table when viewing it. I've never met anyone who could be completely objective when ciewing art - in fact, I would find that viewing art completely and utterly objectively to be a barren and sterile experience - it's our lives, and our viewpoint that makes us relate to a work of art.
Thats' why much of the nuance and meaning of Japanese art is lost on Westerners, because we do not have the upbringing and point of view as a Japanese to truly appreciate it.
That's also why i cannot truly appreciate much modern art - I cannot relate to it, as I don't immerse myself nor have I lived in the culture it speaks to. I have my opinion of it, and it's entirely subjective from my life as an artist and admirer of other schools of art, and a different background of politics, sexuality and ethics.
I don't like modern art. Some of it actually inspires hatred in me, for it's mocking of traditional values and the abandonment of the more dedicated side of art that values technique and study and knowledge. But I can't claim it's not art, simply because i don't like it.
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. It's not a criticism, but I dare say you should not say things like that if you have not toiled as an artist, and understand what happens everytime we pick up our tools and apply ourselves to the piece before us.