I agree, but one man's kitsch is another man's living room. I find Kincade's style too predictable, but if it's popular, he deserves to be successful, and more power to him and those that like him. For me, the closest thing to what Kincade was doing that I like are Maxfield Parrish's landscapes.
I've never particularly liked Kinkade's work. I've spent the past 23 years living among and with people who earn 100 percent of their income as artists (painters and designers) in the free-market system -- in other words, these artists are not making a living from government grants, but from free people who like their work enough to pay hard-earned money for it.
Few of my professional artist acquaintances like Kinkade's work, either, BUT EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM understands that Kinkade had a helluva lot more than simply "a knack for handling light." As for considering his work "vulgar," a person who would call it such is either an extraordinarily brilliantly skilled Michaelangelo/DaVinci in one, OR an art snob who couldn't paint his way out of a paper bag.
There's art, and there's bullsh*t art. Here's a simple test: look at "piece" and ask yourself: given the materials and time, could you reasonably reproduce it in a day, a week, or even a year? If the answer is yes, then it's bullsh*t art that, while it may be attractive, is at best "sentimental art." Andy Warhol, and much of the "modern art" of the '60s and '70s, come to mind. Audacity, not skill, was the active ingredient in THAT "art."
Hinckley Buzzard, unless you are a professional artist (and you may be, for all I know), in 50 years, given the paint and the canvas, you couldn't reproduce, let alone create out of white canvas, a single one of Kinkade's works, and neither could I.
I am very sad to hear of Kinkade's passing. He was a gift from God.