Merged: Dreadful "Artist" Thomas Kinkade Mercifully Dies At 54

[AvalonXQ]

I don't think the lines are any fuzzier than I imagine, as I think the lines are pretty fuzzy.

I don't deny that the definition still has corner cases; any reasonable definition does. What I like about this definition, at least as a jumping off point for discussion, is that it places anything that people would reasonably call art squarely into the category of art, and does so in a way that isn't changed by later public perception by focusing on the disposition of the artist, not the audience.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I don't think the lines are any fuzzier than I imagine, as I think the lines are pretty fuzzy.

I don't deny that the definition still has corner cases; any reasonable definition does. What I like about this definition, at least as a jumping off point for discussion, is that it places anything that people would reasonably call art squarely into the category of art, and does so in a way that isn't changed by later public perception by focusing on the disposition of the artist, not the audience.

I can live with that.

[TimCallahan]

Now that it's come out that, according to the responders to the 911 call about Kinkade, he had been drinking all night, Kinkade's wife is seeking a restraining order against Kinkade's girlfriend. It sounds like damage control; but it's not going to work. Eventually, the tox screen from the autopsy is going to be made public. People don't just up an die at age 54 these days without some cause.

[TimCallahan]

Here is a painting by Victorian painter Ernest Normand. It's realistic, romantic, based on a biblical narrative. It's also rich and juicy. Again, this is the sort of painting Kinkade could easily have done had he not been caught in his treacle rut.

[TimCallahan]

As I said earlier, there are two issues regarding Thomas Kinkade. One is whether or not his art is worthwhile. The other issue is Kinkade the man. As to that second issue This site reported in 2009 on some of his legal problems, to whit, that he was successfully sued for over a million dollars (from the site):

Now two former gallery owners have won a judgment from Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that forces Kinkade to abide by a 2007 arbitration decision that awarded the former owners $860,000 in damages and more than $1.2 million in attorneys' fees and arbitration expenses.

This is from the San Francisco Chronicle, also quoted at the site:

In its February 2006 decision, the arbitration panel said Kinkade and other company officials used terms like "partner," "trust," "Christian" and "God" to create "a certain religious environment designed to instill a special relationship of trust" with the couple.

What the company didn't tell them, said their attorney, was that they would have to sell Kinkade's works at minimum retail prices while the artist undercut them with discount sales, some of which he made himself on cable television.

It was part of a plan, they claimed, to lower the value of the publicly traded company before Kinkade bought it in 2004, at steep losses to many investors. Hazlewood and Spinello put their $122,000 savings into galleries in Charlottesville and Fredericksburg, Va., that opened in 1999 and 2000 and closed in 2003.

This is just plain sleazy.

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

As I said earlier, there are two issues regarding Thomas Kinkade. One is whether or not his art is worthwhile. The other issue is Kinkade the man. As to that second issue This site reported in 2009 on some of his legal problems, to whit, that he was successfully sued for over a million dollars (from the site):

Now two former gallery owners have won a judgment from Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that forces Kinkade to abide by a 2007 arbitration decision that awarded the former owners $860,000 in damages and more than $1.2 million in attorneys' fees and arbitration expenses

Classic.

Really Classic

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by rwguinn

Classic.

Really Classic

I disagree.

Read his post again; he properly separated the issues, and made no claim about the quality of Kinkade's art based on his shady business practices.

So, neither an ad hominem nor a non sequitur, but simply a second line of discussion already explored on the thread and properly reflected upon following the man's death.

[Ian]

Thomas Kinkade's widow has filed a restraining order against his girlfriend:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...,2543252.story

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I would disagree, but it's a matter of definitions.

Originally Posted by -Fran-

Hmm... could it be both??

The reason why I prefer the audience's interpretation is twofold. 1) You have a bigger sample, which is more useful and 2) often there's no way to know how the author intended it, while knowing how you interpret it is far easier.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Belz...

The reason why I prefer the audience's interpretation is twofold. 1) You have a bigger sample, which is more useful and 2) often there's no way to know how the author intended it, while knowing how you interpret it is far easier.

The problem is that it makes the definition of "art" beholden to the times and the audience, which seems silly.

It's one thing to say, "I don't like his food; he's not a very good cook". It's another to say, "I don't like his food; therefore he doesn't cook". Defining art such that a failed attempt isn't art at all is, I think, much less useful.

And again, a definition that relies on the artist's intent is useful because it separates art from beauty/aesthetics. Art is anything that is trying to be beautiful (or some other aesthetic). If it succeeds (which is related to the audience), then it's "good art".

[TimCallahan]

Thomas Kinkade did what he did quite well. I would complain about the treacle level in his work and its repetitive nature. I won't say, however, that it's "bad art." I seem to remember that, at one time, the works of Alma-Tadema were reviled. Yet, there is, or at least should be, a place for realism in the art world.

My main quarrel with Kinkade's work is that he had the talent to do so much more. As examples to which he could have aspired, I've already cited Ernest Normand, Albert Bierstadt, Thomas Moran and Kinkade's own contemporary, James Gurney.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

The problem is that it makes the definition of "art" beholden to the times and the audience, which seems silly.

It's one thing to say, "I don't like his food; he's not a very good cook". It's another to say, "I don't like his food; therefore he doesn't cook". Defining art such that a failed attempt isn't art at all is, I think, much less useful.

Your analogy is a bit silly. Nobody's saying "I don't like this painting therefore it is not art" but rather "this painting is art, although I don't like it."

Quote:

And again, a definition that relies on the artist's intent is useful because it separates art from beauty/aesthetics. Art is anything that is trying to be beautiful (or some other aesthetic). If it succeeds (which is related to the audience), then it's "good art".

So you prefer a definition that makes some works impossible to identify as art or not ?

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Belz...

So you prefer a definition that makes some works impossible to identify as art or not ?

You mean where the intent of the person who made it isn't known?

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Your analogy is a bit silly. Nobody's saying "I don't like this painting therefore it is not art" but rather "this painting is art, although I don't like it."

If you're not saying the former, then explain what definition you're using for art that relies on the audience.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

You mean where the intent of the person who made it isn't known?

Yes.

Quote:

If you're not saying the former, then explain what definition you're using for art that relies on the audience.

Well, since it depends entirely on the observer, why does it matter which definition I'd use ?

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Your analogy is a bit silly. Nobody's saying "I don't like this painting therefore it is not art" but rather "this painting is art, although I don't like it."

Pretty sure a few people in this thread have indeed implied that Kincade's work was not art.

[TimCallahan]

What I'm trying to figure out now at this tie is why it's taking so long to determine the cause of Kinkade's death. It seems to me that the results of blood and tissue tests should have come in by now. Is anyone reading this thread knowledgable about these sorts of tests?

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Well, since it depends entirely on the observer, why does it matter which definition I'd use ?

If we want to talk intelligently about a subject and avoid word salad, we need to have concrete definitions. What definition are you using for the word "art"? It apparently depends on the observer in some way, but you haven't explained how (except that it does not depend on the observer's aesthetic judgment).

[xjx388]

How about Art is anything that a person creates that is intended to be a creative expression beyond simple communication.

If I draw something on a paper that is intended to be a creative expression, then it's Art whether or not anyone else likes it. I may never sell my Art and a critic may say it's crap but it's still Art.

[AvalonXQ]

That's pretty much exactly the definition I use, although I subtitute "intended to communicate an aesthetic" for "intended to be a creative expression". Basically the same idea.

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

That's pretty much exactly the definition I use, although I subtitute "intended to communicate an aesthetic" for "intended to be a creative expression". Basically the same idea.

Agreed, it's the most workable definition. My only quibble is that "an aesthetic" is a vague concept but I guess "creative expression" is too!

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

If we want to talk intelligently about a subject and avoid word salad, we need to have concrete definitions. What definition are you using for the word "art"? It apparently depends on the observer in some way, but you haven't explained how (except that it does not depend on the observer's aesthetic judgment).

I agree with your first statement, but I still don't understand how I need a definition. Your definition of art can be different from mine, and you're still quite capable of determine by yourself if you think it's art or not, irrespective of my definition or the opinion of the author.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Belz...

I agree with your first statement, but I still don't understand how I need a definition. Your definition of art can be different from mine, and you're still quite capable of determine by yourself if you think it's art or not, irrespective of my definition or the opinion of the author.

That's true, just as I can determine by myself whether I think something is a cat or not. That doesn't change the fact that if we are going to converse on the subject of "cats", we should probably try to arrive on some criteria that define what the word means. Even if we then argue about which things are cats or determine that whether some things have cat qualities is subjective judgment, at least we're talking about the same thing.

Throwing up our hands and saying, "Who can say what a cat is? A cat is whatever you think it is!" isn't at all useful.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

That's true, just as I can determine by myself whether I think something is a cat or not. That doesn't change the fact that if we are going to converse on the subject of "cats", we should probably try to arrive on some criteria that define what the word means. Even if we then argue about which things are cats or determine that whether some things have cat qualities is subjective judgment, at least we're talking about the same thing.

Ok, fair enough.

I don't know exactly how broad I'd make art... but I'd be tempted to say that it can be anything which is beyond pure function, or anything which produces entertainment, which is pretty broad.

[devnull]

I just came across this, and it reminded me of this thread and gave me a good laugh

http://theworstofperth.com/2012/01/0...art-with-this/

BTW, worstofperth.com (perth is my city) is a cracking site...... if you need a good laugh or are interested in what it's like to live in a massive mining town, have a read

[alfaniner]

I'm seeing a lot of "any 5-year-old could do that!" comments on articles on the sale of Munch's The Scream.

[steve s]

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

Now that it's come out that, according to the responders to the 911 call about Kinkade, he had been drinking all night, Kinkade's wife is seeking a restraining order against Kinkade's girlfriend.

He had a wife and a live-in girlfriend? Wasn't this guy supposed to be a Christian?

Steve S

[TjW]

Oh please. She wasn't a girlfriend, she was a concubine. Lots of good guys in the bible had concubines. It's practically required.

[TimCallahan]

Originally Posted by steve s

He had a wife and a live-in girlfriend? Wasn't this guy supposed to be a Christian?

Steve S

He was in the process of getting a divorce. His wife had moved out. Apparently, his infidelity was part of the reason for the divorce. Both from what I remember when working with him on Fire and Ice and what I've gleaned from newspaper articles on his business dealings and the resulting successful lawsuits brought against him, Kinkade did what he wanted without regard for any Christian scruples.

I've found this pattern often: Those who wear their Christianity on their sleeve are more apt to act in an obnoxious, unethical manner. I have number of Christian friends who "walk the walk." While they make no bones about being Christians, they are less likely than the Kinkade types to "talk the talk," i.e. every other word out of their mouths isn't, "Jesus."

[TimCallahan]

Well, it seems to be official. Kinkade died of an overdoes of valium and alcohol. Here's a quote from the site:

The [Santa Clara County coroner's] report listed Kinkade’s cause of death as “acute ethanol and Diazepam intoxication.” Diazepam is the active ingredient in Valium and is sometimes used to treat agitation caused by alcohol withdrawal, as well as anxiety, muscle spasms and seizures. The coroner listed the manner of death as “accident,” according to the local NBC affiliate, which posted a portion of the report to their website on Monday evening. Also contributing to Kinkade’s death, the report said, were “hypertensive and atherosclerotic heart disease.”

[BenBurch]

Almost nobody takes that much booze and pills accidentally.

[Ian]

I am shocked, shocked I tell you, that another religious profiteer has been proven to be a hypocrite and a loser.

[TimCallahan]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Almost nobody takes that much booze and pills accidentally.

Yeah, it would seem self-destructive, if not outright suicidal. I'm of two minds (or, more properly, two hearts) on this. Part of me wants to say, "Yahoo! You deserved it, you S.O.B.! Yet, another part of me says, "How sad!" Here was a guy with lots of bucks, a multi-millionaire. He could have said to his public, "I've explored this venue long enough. I need to do something new." He could then have painted whatever the hell he wanted. He certainly possessed the talent to do that. Yet, he kept turning out the schlock.

Here was a guy who married his teen sweetheart and sired four daughters on her. Then, apparently, he was unfaithful, a blatant betrayal of the values he regularly touted. It would seem that commitment wasn't his strong suit. That in itself is sad. It is as though he came to a point in life where he said there was nothing worth living for. That is really sad.