[AnAmericanMother]

It's not that it's fakey; it's that it doesn't succeed in what it sets out to do.

It seeks to portray an romantic "English cottage" environment. Fine. But he should not violate the laws of perspective or physics. Especially since he bills himself as "The Painter of Light" (like Vermeer or Rembrandt were chopped liver.) Even a romantic/idealistic painter who doesn't aspire to "photographic realism" (something I hate, btw, if I want photographic, I'll go look at Ansel Adams) has to acknowledge reality.

Dyce is relevant here only because he shows how light works. And he isn't like photography - a photograph could never capture that light because of film saturation. His work is very detailed and realistic, I'll admit. But not photographic.

Now here is some guys who knew how to handle the "English Cottage" look in a fine and very professional style:

Constable.

Cottman. Watercolor in this style is unbelievably difficult, the man was a master hand.

Morland.

The truly sad thing is that Dyce is a fairly run-of-the-mill Victorian painter, good but not great. How far we have fallen in terms of artistic craft!

[Sam Cree]

The thing about Kincaid's lights is that they are as intense as a fire...if you went into one of those houses you'd be burned alive in seconds.

All painters are painters of light, since that's all there is... the title he chose to market himself is misleading. "Painter of orange lights" or something, maybe. Or "painter of home sweet home."

[ArrogantBustard]

Those artists accurately capture the gritty, used-but-not-worn-out, practical character of rural life.

Kinkade wouldn't recognise that if you slapped him in the face with it.

In an entirely different realm, it's what makes "Star Wars" look right, and "Star Trke" look fake. "Trek" was just too darn clean.