If you've ever noticed the paintings of Thomas Kinkade, you've probably blanched at his sugarbomb shlock. He pretty much defines kitsch. And yet, as Joe Carter points out, to my great surprise, Kinkade used to be a pretty good artist. What happened? I think it's more than that he sold out for popularity. You can't be an artist grinding out such vapid dreck when you have it in you to create something really beautiful without having killed something vital within yourself.
It's odd how some artists mysteriously lose what they once had. Remember when Gary Larson of "The Far Side" took his sabbatical, and when he came back, he wasn't funny anymore? Remember how Berke "Bloom County" Breathed lost his mojo after he had that near-death experience? This is probably not the same thing as the Kinkade abdication of his talent, but still. Do go read Joe Carter's blog -- you'll be startled by how talented Kinkade really is, or was.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I'm SO not of the visual art world, and I can't draw worth a darn--in fact, I'm so removed from the visual art world that I had no idea everyone hated Kinkade's work. And from reading the comments, it seems everyone needs to make sure we all know how much they hate the guy's work. That's the notable part and it does come off as somewhat snobby even if nobody actually IS. I hadn't really thought much about his stuff for years, and all I knew was that he sold the heck out of his paintings. So I actually believed that he was popular. Who knew? This is quite the revelation to moi. Comes from not paying attention, I suppose.
Of course someone isn't automatically a snob just because they don't like SOMEthing. That's rather reducing the whole thing down a little too much, isn't it?
I don't necessarily consider Kinkade's art specifically "christian" (although didn't he sort of sell it like that, or is my memory just bad?), but others seem to, so I'm just using the label that others seem to use.
I must really be a rube, because I thought his paintings were kind of sweet and pretty. I don't fault anyone who wants one in their house. And I guess I'll just have to be an "enemy of the people" because I wouldn't buy socialist realism stuff. I consider that eery Obama poster its own form of socialist shlock art. Yuck. Creeps me out.
My favorite wall "art" is quality photography of family members (the best "art" spend of all!), and that's what you'd see on my walls if you came to my house.
Since you brought her up, many critics of Sarah Palin DID come off as snobs, because they used here in Seattle of her living in a trailer, casting her as an idiotic redneck because she actually has the nerve to know how to shoot a gun and can hunt--horrors!!-- {never mind that John Kerry went into a store and asked "can I get me a hunting license here?", !!! etc). It was hard not to notice. I still like her. And while not liking her doesn't automatically make one a snob, it was hard NOT to notice the many put-downs during the campaign that WERE in fact snobby and had nothing to do with a poltical view. There were so many snobby put-downs of her that it seemed to automatically brand anyone who didn't like her as snobs. That's really more the doing of the snobby put-downers; not people who noticed the snobbery.
I would never pay good money for a reproduction of a Kinkade, much less big money for an original. I did enjoy watching his stuff on another person’s screen saver when I was bored and waiting for an appointment. It was really relaxing, but I think owning one might wear on me. Having said that, let me offer up some observations.
First of all, I heartily second Rod’s enthusiasm for Jacob Collins. Go back upthread and click on the link; you won’t regret it. I may be barking up the wrong tree completely (I’m no art critic), but Collins’ paintings (at least his portraits) evoke those of David. I would pay good money for his work.
Second point, one of Kinkade’s earlier paintings, those that Joe Carter liked, put me in mind of an early Kandinsky painting. I wonder if Joe Carter is as angry in retrospect with Kandinsky when he started his cubist work. Sorry folks, I have a rule: if I can do it, it ain’t art. And I can paint red squares and blue circles and green triangles. So did Kandinsky sell out? At least Picasso made us feel something with paintings like Guernica.
Third, Pentamom had a fantastic point when she cited the critic who argued that Kinkade offered up *sanitized* life and not *redeemed* life. That is a valid criticism, far more profound a criticism than the usual class-based, snobbish criticism we hear.
Lastly, a significant part of the problem is that those who hate Thomas Kinkade tend to be so vociferous in that hatred that it is never good enough to not like Kinkade, one must also hate him. There really is a lot of anger directed at him. If you don’t like Kinkade, then go look at a Renoir or, for that matter, a Jacob Collins, and calm yourself down.
I agree precisely with pentamom and would merely add that I suspect Kinkade of Docetism. It's not just schlock, it's heresy.
To the extent that he has sold out, go for it. Now, at least if he is smart and true to himself he can pait what he wants, how he wants it, and stack it up in the basement or whatever pleases him.
Per Sturgeon's Law, 90% of everything is schlock.
There's more than a little snobbery roaming around here. Kincade does some things well and others poorly. He does address a deep, innate hunger for beauty in ordinary people who shop at Wal-Mart. That makes him one of the good guys, amid so much ugliness that passes critics' gaze as art.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.