General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The pile-on on Thomas Kinkaide - it's not about the art - [View all]Atman
(31,464 posts)You may hate it and refuse to eat it, but it is still "food."
I reiterate that Kinkade was talented. And to say his paintings lacked depth or veracity -- whatever it take for a painting to have veracity, or what that is important -- is just nonsense. Although I'm assuming you are speaking about their creative and emotional depth, as opposed to the pictures themselves showing physical depth. In regard to physical depth, he was actually quite good, and demonstrating a keen understanding of perspective. He was quite adept in his use of color, even though you may hate the palette he liked to use. Your preference doesn't make him any less skillful in the way he was able to execute his craft.
Time for another disclaimer, just so everyone is clear: I can't stand his work. I find to be the ultimate in tacky schlock, just behind big-eyed puppies and velvet Elvisi.
So, we get back to his talent, his skill, and "what is art." His composition, his use of color, his ability to appeal to viewers -- the latter clearly a niche market, but a large one -- really, imho, shouldn't even be open for discussion. It brings to mind a painter I used to have my studio next to. Her style leaned toward impressionist and abstracts. She has become quite popular, and has gallery deals and poster contracts with several major players in the art "industry." I'm sure she is make a healthy six-figure income now. But she paints lilly pads at Giverny, and fields of Texas wildflowers. Many of her paintings she takes straight out of Time-Life nature books and the like. But her originals command thousands of dollars, and she is in several private collections. And also in hospital lobbies all over America. That is the kind of art she does.
I was working with her when she got one of her first offers from a poster/print company like Art.com or Deck The Walls. They offered her insane money, but she really was torn because she thought it would mean she was "selling out." I counseled her, basically, so what is it about becoming popular that means you've "sold out." If you're doing the same paintings people like, but more people get to see them and own them, and you make money off it, what is the problem? You get to pay your mortgage without worry and you get to put your kid through a good college. I'm not crazy about her art, although it is nowhere near Kinkade's on the Schlock-O-Meter, but the big difference is that she is genuine and is not out making fake prints, using factory painters, and calling them "originals."
I don't ever want a picture of lilly pads at Giverny (unless it's an original Monet), but apparently lots of people like her stuff. It is no less "art" than Kinkade's. Again, why most people with any real understanding of what he does truly despise Kinkade is because he was a scammer and a rip-off artist. But I still contend that it is just plain ridiculous to say that he had no talent and that his paintings, no matter how much you despise them, are not "art."