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

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by Tatyana

His prints could still be produced without him.

I am quite sure they will be, just as Coulter's books would go on being printed without her. Ayn Rand showed us that.

I can barely imagine a more dreaful piece of poo than "Anthem" remaining on the shelf for any great span of time before being remaindered out. But people still buy it, many to give to friends whom they think need to read it.

I am quite sure that a lot of Kinkade works are bought by people trying to look more sophisticated than they really are, or by people who want everybody to share their approach to art criticism, and who will give everybody they can think of some Kinkade artifact or another.

They are, in a way, propoganda tracts, the same as Coulter's or Rand's books.

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

They are, in a way, propoganda tracts, the same as Coulter's or Rand's books.

What exactly was Kinkade propagandizing?

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

That's the one! Excellent work, Lefty.

I wonder what other posters think of it. Are there similarities? Waterhouse's paintings seem more genuinely haunting. There's more going on in the picture. What's she up to? Is the lady a bloke? etc...

Can I put this here:

http://www.jwwaterhouse.com/painting..._shalott02.jpg

Waterhouse continues to influence modern art. The Magic Circle, for instance would look quite appropriate today on the cover of a swords and sorcery novel. I am sure that his use of light and his dramatic posing of figures influenced such artists as Vallejo.

The Pre-Raphaelites may have also influenced Kinkade to some degree. He seems to have learned from them how to manage light.

Composition and vision are quite another matter.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

What exactly was Kinkade propagandizing?

Popular if not mediocre art? Beware, if the masses get the art they want social progress will cease.

[Pardalis]

What's this propagandizing?


Christmas?

And this?


Propagandizing cottages?

You think those pictures are equivalent to Ann Coulter?

Seriously lefty, you need help.

[Pardalis]

Watch out, the Evil Rockies propaganda, or is it Native Americans, or small rivers?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a1...s/tk2g-05b.jpg

Watch out, the Evil Rockies propaganda, or is it Native Americans, or small rivers?

Looking at that makes me want to vote for Romney and even considering joining Storm Front. Jawohl herr kommissar.

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Looking at that makes me want to vote for Romney and even considering joining Storm Front. Jawohl herr kommissar.

Then this will make you want to invade Iran:



This kind of propaganda should be banned! It's EVIL!

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

Then this will make you want to invade Iran:

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a1...kwell_want.jpg

This kind of propaganda should be banned! It's EVIL!

It's funny. I've thought about bringing up Rockwell on a number of occasions during this thread. Overly sentimental. He could fit.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by RandFan

It's funny. I've thought about bringing up Rockwell on a number of occasions during this thread. Overly sentimental. He could fit.

Rockwell was technicly flawless. His works reflected a keen sense of humor. He connected with people and expressed some actual emotions.

Kinkade is candy floss, rooted in a world that really never existed.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

What exactly was Kinkade propagandizing?

The world of the 40s and 50s that existed on family "sit-coms" but not out in the real world. (here fuelair suggests once again a book that covers this brilliantly and accurately (having lived through the period and having been an observant little bugger even then): http://www.amazon.com/The-Way-Never-...4111180&sr=1-1

A world that was mostly white and protestant - though tolerant of those who weren't but weren't annoying about it. A world that largely saw the world as obviously ready to be made in it's happy, prosperous, democratic, xtian vision. (this is the heart of it.....but there is much more, thus the book). That is the Thomas Kincaide propaganda and, with no offense, it is a fraud and was a fraud and lot's of changes proved that - but the people who still believe it was really that way love anyone who will help them feel how they felt then...........

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by fuelair

The world of the 40s and 50s that existed on family "sit-coms" but not out in the real world. (here fuelair suggests once again a book that covers this brilliantly and accurately (having lived through the period and having been an observant little bugger even then): http://www.amazon.com/The-Way-Never-...4111180&sr=1-1

A world that was mostly white and protestant - though tolerant of those who weren't but weren't annoying about it. A world that largely saw the world as obviously ready to be made in it's happy, prosperous, democratic, xtian vision. (this is the heart of it.....but there is much more, thus the book). That is the Thomas Kincaide propaganda and, with no offense, it is a fraud and was a fraud and lot's of changes proved that - but the people who still believe it was really that way love anyone who will help them feel how they felt then...........

Well, couldn't you more charitably say that he painted fantasy images? Idealized worlds rather than actual real worlds...

Most people don't seem to have a problem with fantasy paintings. Is there something wrong about Kinkade or Rockwell's paintings?

I'll admit that they are not my cup-of-tea. I think they are twee, folksy, schmaltzy, sickly, saccharine, earnest and dull, but I don't see anything morally repugnant about them (unless you have a Wildean sense of ethics).

The only possible way in which such fantasies could be considered "bad" is if there was some kind of insidious effect on the viewer. Rockwell's paintings always looked to me like Socialist Realism paintings. Happy earnest farmers toiling for the Motherland-type scenes. Everyone is earnestly happy, wholesomely happy. That kind of thing...

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by fuelair

The world of the 40s and 50s that existed on family "sit-coms" but not out in the real world.

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Well, couldn't you more charitably say that he painted fantasy images? Idealized worlds rather than actual real worlds...

I agree with Angrysoba, I like the movie Pleasantville because it confronted head on the fantasy of the golden age. I accept that too many people buy into the fantasy. But I don't mind the fantasy. I like Harry Potter I just don't like people who claim that magic is real. I think we can have both. Norman Rockwell straddles the fence but not often enough. I like his art. I like Garrison Keller's Lake Wobegon. Perhaps we can have a bit of reality and fantasy.

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by fuelair

The world of the 40s and 50s that existed on family "sit-coms" but not out in the real world. (here fuelair suggests once again a book that covers this brilliantly and accurately (having lived through the period and having been an observant little bugger even then): http://www.amazon.com/The-Way-Never-...4111180&sr=1-1

A world that was mostly white and protestant - though tolerant of those who weren't but weren't annoying about it. A world that largely saw the world as obviously ready to be made in it's happy, prosperous, democratic, xtian vision. (this is the heart of it.....but there is much more, thus the book). That is the Thomas Kincaide propaganda and, with no offense, it is a fraud and was a fraud and lot's of changes proved that - but the people who still believe it was really that way love anyone who will help them feel how they felt then...........

It's not propaganda, it's Americana, it's the artist's own personal idealized world where he would like to live in. Artists are allowed to do that, aren't they? Aren't artists allowed to paint about their own culture and religion anymore? Is it taboo to have a star on a pine tree and a church in a painting about Christmas?

Lefty keeps bringing up J.W. Whaterhouse, he did alot of "propaganda" too in that case. Most of his work consists of beautiful Greek and Levantine-typed women put in romanticized Greek and medieval themed settings that have barely anything to do with what really went on in these historical periods. The Middle Ages and ancient Rome and Greece were bloody and fraught with religious savagery.

Should we call Waterhouse a "Classical-fascist" while we're at it?

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Well, couldn't you more charitably say that he painted fantasy images? Idealized worlds rather than actual real worlds...

Most people don't seem to have a problem with fantasy paintings. Is there something wrong about Kinkade or Rockwell's paintings?

Rockwell at least dealt with the human experience to some degree. Kinkade seems to go out of his way never to paint a human face.

"Everything will be just fine as long as you stop thi nking and put your life in the hands of Jesus. You don't even have to fully understand Jesus. Now, isn't that just a whole lot less stressful?"

[Pardalis]

Might as well accuse Bing Crosby of being a "Christofascist":

http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/polar...echristmas.htm

All this talk about "may all your Christmases be white" and "sleighbells in the snow", that's cryptic White Supremacist propaganda right Lefty?

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Rockwell at least dealt with the human experience to some degree. Kinkade seems to go out of his way never to paint a human face.

Neither did Jackson Pollock and Kandinsky.

Quote:

"Everything will be just fine as long as you stop thi nking and put your life in the hands of Jesus. You don't even have to fully understand Jesus. Now, isn't that just a whole lot less stressful?"

Is being Christian a crime now?

[Pardalis]

Let's have a go at Caravaggio while we're at it:

Beware, close your eyes, it's a scene of conversion! Christofascism of the worst kind, click at your own risk!

I can almost feel my brain slowly being brainwashed right now... it hurts, no... noo... I'm slowly becoming Christian... Keep away!

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

It's not propaganda, it's Americana, it's the artist's own personal idealized world where he would like to live in. Artists are allowed to do that, aren't they? Aren't artists allowed to paint about their own culture and religion anymore? Is it taboo to have a star on a pine tree and a church in a painting about Christmas?

Lefty keeps bringing up J.W. Whaterhouse, he did alot of "propaganda" too in that case. Most of his work consists of beautiful Greek and Levantine-typed women put in romanticized Greek and medieval themed settings that have barely anything to do with what really went on in these historical periods. The Middle Ages and ancient Rome and Greece were bloody and fraught with religious savagery.

Should we call Waterhouse a "Classical-fascist" while we're at it?

Actually, I was the one who brought up Waterhouse and asked for others to chime in on a comparison between him and Kinkade.

Whether he was a classical fascist I have no idea although apparently Thomas Carlyle was an influence on that generation of painters and Carlyle probably was a classical fascist.

[SezMe]

Here's some fun Kinkade parody.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Originally Posted by Lithrael

Not exactly, I'm saying "I like it for these reasons" contains an objective component.

Even if you only have one criterion and it's 'more red is better' then you can objectively say this piece here is better than that piece there, by that standard, because it has got more red in it. Whether 'more red is better' is a useful criterion or not remains a matter of opinion.

But, from individual to individual, the quantity of red that differentiates good from bad is itself entirely subjective. Someone else could easily think that the more red in a painting, the worse it is.

I'm looking for non-personal criteria that can be used to say, "This is a good work of art; this piece will be admired by the masses for many decades." For example, a statement along the lines of "this specific amount of red makes a work of art good". I'll even accept probabilities: "this specific amount of red gives your work a 37% chance of being good."

A number of people have either implied or outright claimed that these mysterious properties exist and that they have been used to declare Kinkade's work "crap", but absolutely no one seems capable of defining those criteria.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Whether he was a classical fascist I have no idea although apparently Thomas Carlyle was an influence on that generation of painters and Carlyle probably was a classical fascist.

Oh, Carlylye did have a great influence on the Pre-Raphaelites, especially Ford Madox Brown.

In this work of Brown's, look at the two elegant figures at the extreme right side. One of them is Carlyle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(painting)

The attached article refers to Carlyle as a "Christian Socialist." I do not know much about the movement, but it does not seem at all what we would today call "fascist."

I have always admired Brown's technical mastery as well as his sense of humor. His works make a statement about the way his society was ordered. In these three aspects, I think his work far surpasses a Kinkade or a Rockwell, although he would probably be more sympathetic toward Rckwell had they been contemporaries.

[Tatyana]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Except of course, that you talked about proveable facts that could objectively distinguish between good art and bad art.
.

No I didn't.

[Tatyana]

Originally Posted by Nogbad

As far as I can see that is exactly the argument. There is no objective qualitative difference between a Barbara Cartland and a Margaret Atwood, or for that matter say The Sopranos over Charlie's Angels (2011 remake) or a glow in the dark plastic saint over a Faberge egg. Only the subjective response of the viewer is in a position to say whether something is good or not. There can be no definitive external definition of taste, execution or content. The poo Christ (or whatever it was) is every bit as good as an El Greco painting if it has an audience. It is a point of view.

I beg to differ of course. I do think there is a difference but I don't think I'm going to convince anyone any time soon and on reflection does it really matter? In saying there is a difference I am not saying that people can't like the poo Christ or Kinkade. What I am saying is they are both very much pop art and a product of their time, they are both unlikely to endure.

The most famous of that series of photographs by Andres Serrano, a devout Catholic, is called the Piss Christ.


It wasn't an anti-religious statement, but more of a commentary on the cheapening of religious iconography.

If you didn't know it was a plastic crucifix immersed in urine, it would probably have an entirely different effect on your visual experience.

[Tatyana]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

What's this propagandizing?
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a1...-christmas.jpg

Christmas?

And this?
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a1...as-cottage.jpg

Propagandizing cottages?

You think those pictures are equivalent to Ann Coulter?

Seriously lefty, you need help.

Originally Posted by Pardalis

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a1...s/tk2g-05b.jpg

Watch out, the Evil Rockies propaganda, or is it Native Americans, or small rivers?

To me, all of those images look like the type you would find on Christmas cards in a pound store/dollar store, after Christmas.

Two boxes of 25 cards for £1/$ 1.

[Jekyll's Guest]

Originally Posted by Tatyana

To me, all of those images look like the type you would find on Christmas cards in a pound store/dollar store, after Christmas.

Two boxes of 25 cards for £1/$ 1.

I wish!

The Piss Christs always go first, and you end up getting Poop Santa.

[leftysergeant]

Part of my problem with the sort of kitch that Kinkade produced is that it is designed not to challenge the viewer or to take a position of any sort. It is to be decorative only, and that is that.

'Now how," you might ask me,"does this advance the needs of the Christofascists?"

I say that the first thing they need to do in their campaigns to conquer the Seven Mountains, is to convince the rest of the sheeple that their mountains are not under attack. Thus the need to get the art afficiandos comfortable with unchallenging dreck.

[Kotatsu]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

What's this propagandizing?
Christmas?
And this?
Propagandizing cottages?

Well, OBVIOUSLY he is doing pro-electricity-company propaganda. By lighting all lamps in all rooms in all houses all the time, whether you are indoors or not, you are not wasting electricity and speeding up global warming; you are creating a cozy (1) atmosphere, reminiscent of half-forgotten childhoods and the warmth of a fire after having played in the snow. He could have shown some environmental responsibility by turning the lights out in some unoccupied rooms, at least, but I guess the picture would be quite different if he did.

Originally Posted by Pardalis

Then this will make you want to invade Iran:

This kind of propaganda should be banned! It's EVIL!

It is the evil she-devil-child who stares straight at the viewer who is the murderer, am I right?

---
(1) And, to me, also cloying.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Nursefoxfire

His artwork was not only bland as oatmeal, he also pioneered a "cloning" process whereby he suckered people into buying artwork that he classified as being painted by himself.

He had over 400 employees working for him; the paintings would roll off an assembly line where the lesser "artists " would paint the majority of the canvas, then he would daub a brushful of paint on each canvas, thereby classifying them as "authentic" Thomas Kincaide paintings.

I thought that this scheme was disingenuous at best, or outright prevarication. Either way, he charged a crapload of money for paintings that he barely touched with a brush.

It was sort of a cottage industry. . . .ahem.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Oh, Carlylye did have a great influence on the Pre-Raphaelites, especially Ford Madox Brown.

In this work of Brown's, look at the two elegant figures at the extreme right side. One of them is Carlyle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(painting)

The attached article refers to Carlyle as a "Christian Socialist." I do not know much about the movement, but it does not seem at all what we would today call "fascist."

I have always admired Brown's technical mastery as well as his sense of humor. His works make a statement about the way his society was ordered. In these three aspects, I think his work far surpasses a Kinkade or a Rockwell, although he would probably be more sympathetic toward Rckwell had they been contemporaries.

Thanks again.

Aside from a bit about the French Revolution, I don't really know much about Carlyle, but he was mentioned in an Orwell essay I read once in which he said that there is something fascistic about Carlyle. I don't mind using Orwell as an authority on these things.

It also seems that some of Carlyle's later thoughts tended towards a certain kind of fascism, according to Wiki:

Quote:

Heroes and Hero Worship

These ideas were influential on the development of Socialism, but – like the opinions of many deep thinkers of the time – are also considered to have influenced the rise of Fascism.[6] Carlyle moved towards his later thinking during the 1840s, leading to a break with many old friends and allies, such as Mill and, to a lesser extent, Emerson. His belief in the importance of heroic leadership found form in his book "On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History", in which he compared a wide range of different types of heroes, including Odin, Oliver Cromwell, Napoleon, William Shakespeare, Dante, Samuel Johnson, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Robert Burns, John Knox, Martin Luther and the Prophet Muhammad.

Carlyle was essentially the popularizer of the "Great Man Theory of History".

[/Massive digression]

I also quite like some William Holman Hunt now that I think of it.

This one has some interesting ambiguities to it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wi...n_Hunt_001.jpg

I don't know what Kinkade would think of it but it does have religious undertones to it that aren't immediately obvious (at least to most of us these days).

[Lithrael]

Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd

But, from individual to individual, the quantity of red that differentiates good from bad is itself entirely subjective. Someone else could easily think that the more red in a painting, the worse it is.

Yes, I said that.

Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd

I'm looking for non-personal criteria (...)

There aren't any. I've said that several times now I think.

Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd

A number of people have either implied or outright claimed that these mysterious properties exist and that they have been used to declare Kinkade's work "crap", but absolutely no one seems capable of defining those criteria.

What there are are criteria generally agreed upon and used by students and professionals who study art and they have been used to declare Kinkade's work "crap." You are free to ignore them and hang anything you like on your wall. The art police will not come for you. If you are really worried that some 'art snob' will hear about it and poo-poo your taste, I don't know what to tell you. Have some confidence in yourself.

To point out to everyone that art criticism is 'just an opinion' is not to yank the foundations out from under the world of art scholarship. No one is interested in defining these criteria in this conversation - partly because they are not set in stone or objective or universal anyway. Different criteria are used by different people in different discussions of art. The same as, for example, dramatic or literary criticism - and partly because then you would just (pointlessly) ask what makes them objectively correct when we've been saying that's not even the idea.

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Part of my problem with the sort of kitch that Kinkade produced is that it is designed not to challenge the viewer or to take a position of any sort. It is to be decorative only, and that is that.

I thought you said it was propaganda art, now you're saying it has no position and no ideology and is just decorative.

Make up you mind!

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by Tatyana

To me, all of those images look like the type you would find on Christmas cards in a pound store/dollar store, after Christmas.

Two boxes of 25 cards for £1/$ 1.

That's because they are.

Not much propaganda right?

[Bikewer]

One of my favorite Calvin and Hobbes strips has Calvin proclaiming that his "D-minus" puts him on the cutting-edge of the avante-gard.... He's at least escaped from the "pablum regurgitated for the masses...."

[xjx388]

When I went to Moma, they had a room full of lint and called it art.

Kinkade gets a pass in my book.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Originally Posted by Lithrael

Yes, I said that.

Yes, but you insist on calling it objectivity. It isn't. It's just plain old subjectivity.

Quote:

There aren't any. I've said that several times now I think.

That's actually my point. Others here have claimed to have objectively determined Kinkade's work to be "crap", implying that there is no logical reason for anyone of intelligence or taste to have a positive reaction to his work. They claim to be able to determine good art from bad art using criteria beyond personal taste; criteria that anyone should be able to use to determine for themselves whether a piece of work is good or bad.

I've repeatedly asked if anyone could actually list the criteria used in this determination. Not one person has done so. Most of them have simply fallen back on "well, he's a terrible businessman and/or person". For me, that's good enough reason not to reward the man by purchasing his work, but that's about it.

Then you jump in with this bizarre idea that subjectivity can be objective because sometime it's just the result of an individual's preference for certain values on a known scale of measurement. That's exactly what subjectivity is. "Too crowded", "too loud", "too much color", "too little color"... All of those can be given a value on a scale, but they're all still subjective because those values don't apply beyond the individual.

Quote:

What there are are criteria generally agreed upon and used by students and professionals who study art and they have been used to declare Kinkade's work "crap."

Wait, wait, wait... You just got done telling me that there are no non-personal criteria by which one can judge the "goodness" or "badness". Now you're telling me that there are agreed-upon criteria?

I'm asking, and have been asking for most of this thread, what those criteria are. How difficult is that to grasp?

Quote:

The art police will not come for you. If you are really worried that some 'art snob' will hear about it and poo-poo your taste, I don't know what to tell you. Have some confidence in yourself.

I honestly don't care what they think. It doesn't bother me in the slightest that I think some of Kinkade's work is somewhat impressive while others think it's crap. Van Gogh doesn't impress me, but I accept that a lot of people disagree. My opinion, their opinion. That's good enough for me.

What does bother me, however, is this insistence from certain people that the quality of a work of art can be determined by any objective measurement whatsoever. What bothers me further is the total inability of these people to support the idea. Spend some time in the Conspiracy Theories subforum and you'll see a similar inability among 9/11 truthers.

Quote:

To point out to everyone that art criticism is 'just an opinion' is not to yank the foundations out from under the world of art scholarship. No one is interested in defining these criteria in this conversation - partly because they are not set in stone or objective or universal anyway.

But you just got done telling me that there are criteria that have been defined and are in use by students and professionals to distinguish good art from bad art. Further, you claimed that these criteria had been used to determine that Kinkade's work is objectively crap.

And that was after you first told me these criteria don't exist, which you're now repeating. Holy crap... Could you please make up your mind?

Quote:

Different criteria are used by different people in different discussions of art. The same as, for example, dramatic or literary criticism - and partly because then you would just (pointlessly) ask what makes them objectively correct when we've been saying that's not even the idea.

Therefore, art is entirely subjective, which has been my point this entire time. Thank you.

[Complexity]

Originally Posted by Bikewer

One of my favorite Calvin and Hobbes strips has Calvin proclaiming that his "D-minus" puts him on the cutting-edge of the avante-gard.... He's at least escaped from the "pablum regurgitated for the masses...."

Love Calvin and Hobbes.

Hate Kincaid.

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by Complexity

I never liked his work.

I love Monet and Van Gogh.

The wrong people make money.

Over the weekend I visited Monet's house outside of Paris. He did okay.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Hawk one

So yeah, a person that paints some pretty pictures in order to make a living is vilified and his death celebrated, for no good reason except people being pretentious hipster douchebags.

You got it all wrong;Kincaid was so generally disliked outside of his following that the hispster douchebags are defending him because is it so "Edgy" to do so in Hipster circles.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

An apologist for what?

Kinkade didn't do anything Lefty is accusing him of. Leftysergeant is the one who needs to stop accusing people gratuitously.

I think Kinkade was a hack who never had a original idea in his life,but Lefty's rant was just plain crazy.