If ya'll like this type of picture, you should take a look at Kincaid pictures. I think some of the larger malls have his galleries. He specializes in pictures with unual lighting. When you go into his galleries, they have it lighted to get the full effect of the picture; but what I love is the casual seating throughout the gallery, making it comfortable to take the time to sit and stare at the paintings. It's a lovely reprieve from the world.
His pictures just seem to be alive. My very favorite is a painting of the steep and narrow road which curves down a hill in San Francisco - the scene is at the top of the hill, with a breathtaking view of the skyline and the Golden Gate Bridge - I just can hardly take my eyes off it.
I'm sorry, but I absolutely despise Kinkade. Like I said in a post above, his pictures "go no deeper than the paint." The lighting may be dramatic, but it's not accurate or realistic. By the time you have enough contrast to see that much light from within a house, you have lost the colors outdoors, and you don't lose colors in the same order - the bright ones go first. Go out into a sunset and look at an illuminated house from 100 yards down the road, and you'll see what I mean. Kinkade hasn't LOOKED at what he's painting. Here's a good (or bad) example:
Here's the effect that you REALLY get. "Carnation, Lily, Lily, Rose." Note how the reds have dropped out, and how dark the shadows are. John Singer Sargent could only paint for 5 minutes a day on this picture, when the light was exactly right.
The thing that disturbs me the most about Kinkade is his inconsistent lighting, but he also has trouble with inconsistency in paint handling between the building and the landscape, with perspective (his view is flat and "scrunched") . . . and I notice that his later paintings are becoming imitative of a wide variety of artists, from impressionistic to HRS.
Here's an example of Kinkade TRYING to paint like Hudson River School:
Now here's the real thing (probably the picture he copied):
The unrealistic lighting and flat perspective of Kinkade are very noticeable.
Sorry for the art lesson . . . but there ARE "good" and "bad" in art, and they CAN be distinguished rationally.