[sinanju]

To induce vomiting.

For the only halfway-decent painting of his that I ever saw he was cribbing off one of the Hudson River School painters.

His assembly-line operation had him adding a few daubs of paint to these manufactured copies so they could be called “original” works.

Not that that makes him any worse than Andy Warhol, but still...

[oblomov]

At least some of Warhol's work made the viewer think a bit about the subject, or the process of producing art, or the interplay between high and low culture. What does Kinkade's product inspire, except a fleeting sentiment of "pretty house" or "nice landscape"? It's denatured art.

I loved this photoshop contest at somethingawful.

My favorite...sort of a pastiche of every Kinkade ever produced:

[Paved Paradise]

Years ago when he first came on the scene, I fell in love with a few of his paintings, especially the ones with gates or paths. I have a thing for wrought iron and gates especially. Anyway, once his art went “viral” and you could not only buy a bazillion paintings but it was on blankets, mugs, calendars, coasters, etc., that was just way too schlocky for me. I have one small picture, which is just a card I framed - about 3 x 5 (of a gate, natch.). I agree with what you say. Meanwhile, there are a lot of very famous “painters” who stink in other ways.

[Gil4]

I know he has been called the "painter of lite" (a mocking reference to his "Painter of Light" label) and is normally ignored or worse by those who take their art seriously.

I like his paintings. I know they are nothing more than a softened, idealized look at the world. I just find that appealing to the eye, and I don't really care if there is a deeper message within the painting.

I wish he was as idealized as his paintings. Apparently he is not. But when I look at his paintings, I see he paintings, not him. (And I see a lot of memories of time spent in England - scenic countrysides and beautiful villages.)