Shlock shock! Thomas Kinkade wasn't bad

At one time I bought a calendar with some of his early plein air stuff, painted down by the beach in Monterey and environs. He was a very decent painter, with the potential to be even better.

Remember the term "sold out"?

This is what happens when you combine capitalism with art. Art, creativity in general, really, loses. There is nothing that capitalism won't try to reduce to a commodity, whether it be art, culture, or men's souls.

A starving artist learns quickly how to paint for the paying customer. But there is often, somewhere in a back closet, some of the work they wished they could get paid for. Kincaid has always betrayed the eye of a Hudson River Landscape painter. I am glad to see he knows how to do that, but pays the rent with his other stuff. I expect that someday there will be a posthumous auction of his actual art, and his schlock stuff will degrade in value. This was a good article - thanks for the link.

Take a deep breath, everyone. Does it really matter that much? Try to think of Kinkade's work as decoration instead of art. Do you feel less threatened, now? If Kinkade lost his fine art mojo and had to do something else to support himself, then I'm glad he had something to fall back on, something that brings joy to millions of people. Even if he simply made a choice, I have no problem with that.

Fine art prints abound, but they don't sell what Kinkade does. I think that fact reveals a certain innocent yearning in the human soul. Now, if Kinkaid is laughing about the spam-sucking trailer trash that gonna make him rich buying his latest piece of expensive trademarked excrement, I would have a vastly different opinion about the man and his paintings, but I don't think that's the case. At least, I hope it's not. Surely he knows his work is not fine art, but so what?

Lord knows, I find Kinkaide's stuff repulsive, but really, why do we hold artists to higher standards than we hold ourselves. Are all of us really doing the absolute best and highest thing we could with our gifts? I mean this quite seriously - the world is full of people who pay their rent by working for Walmart or Wall Street, and most of them are not making the best possible use of their gifts, because, well, they want to make as much money as they can. Why hold artists to a higher standard than anyone else?

Sharon

The early Kinkade works are lovely.

I have to wonder, though, how much of his "sell-out" is due to the times. I've known a few artists and heard about others who paint in very traditional styles like the early Kinkades represent. Generally, they get told that their work isn't dark or edgy or controversial enough to be interesting--it's too safe, too grounded in the aesthetic conventions of the past, and so on.

I think it's likely that at some point Kinkade had to make a choice: keep painting as he was and work full-time elsewhere, and hope that someday some descendants of his would appreciate his art; change direction and start painting darkly ironic street scenes in which the placid buildings reflect the rain-splashed image of a brutally-murdered partially-clothed gay prostitute, which would be enthusiastically received by the powers-that-be who schedule gallery showings and review art in the media; or do what he did, commercialize his work and make it a nice thing for the living room that the masses could afford. The funny thing is that the second option would be just as much a sell-out as the third, but he'd have been praised for taking it, and would probably be defended by everyone here who was defending Eminem the other day.

Your Name: I get sick of all the Kinkade bashing. His stuff sells for a reason, obviously. His stuff is not crap,

This is the argument that Conradg person was making for the artistic excellence of Eminem: if it wasn't any good, would so many people like it? Popularity is only a judge of popularity, not artistic merit.

Erin: I think it's likely that at some point Kinkade had to make a choice: keep painting as he was and work full-time elsewhere, and hope that someday some descendants of his would appreciate his art; change direction and start painting darkly ironic street scenes in which the placid buildings reflect the rain-splashed image of a brutally-murdered partially-clothed gay prostitute, which would be enthusiastically received by the powers-that-be who schedule gallery showings and review art in the media; or do what he did, commercialize his work and make it a nice thing for the living room that the masses could afford.

I think that's a false choice -- and I say that as someone who usually finds very little interesting or alive about modern art. Ben Wattenberg did a PBS special a while back about the new American artists who are painting in a more realistic vein, and creating stunning paintings that are selling for lots of money. Transcript here.) I once visited the atelier of Jacob Collins, one of the leading lights of this movement, when it was near the Brooklyn waterfront. The artists at work on that cold Sunday inside that dank warehouse space were doing absolutely stunning work -- and I couldn't have afforded to buy anything they were creating. But if I had had the money, I absolutely would have purchased as many paintings as I could afford.

Spend some time on Jacob Collins' website and marvel at how deeply beautiful this work is. One doesn't have to choose between sugary shlock and ugliness.

Rod, I agree that it's a false choice, but I know from a handful of artists that it's a choice they're often pressured to make (granted, a handful of peoples' stories isn't data).

To take one example, I read about a talented young Catholic artist whose religious-themed paintings and sculptures were very traditional, very skilled from a technical perspective, and went way beyond schlock in terms of the power of the images etc. But he almost had to give up his art altogether--he couldn't show or sell it in secular venues because it was respectful of religious images, and he couldn't sell it to churches because, regrettably, Catholic churches at the time were into postmodern stuff and didn't like the realism and sincerity of his work. Luckily he found a traditional parish who loved his stuff just in the nick of time, and he was able to go on to sell more, etc. (I don't think the story I read is available online, but if I can find it later I'll post a link to it.)

For every artist like that young man, though, there are tons of others who do give up, and either sell out in some way or stop creating art. It's pretty hard to put in the hours needed to create something beautiful after working a full day elsewhere, and without some financial resource which makes an income unnecessary (a luxury few artists ever have) this is what most artists have to do.

Now, I agree that the scene looks brighter for the new American realists and others who create traditional art--today. But how did things look one or two or three decades ago, or even a little further back than that? I suspect the Catholic artist whose story I mentioned quite likely believes that if his art hadn't coincided with a renewed interest in traditional Catholicism (albeit from a small group, so far) he'd be selling shoes or something for a living. The choice I mentioned isn't, so often, sadly, between the artist continuing to produce the good stuff and selling out to either schlock or ugliness; the choice, for far too many artists, is between selling out or no longer attempting to be artists at all.

At best a person could say that Kincaid's commercial work is illustrative or nostalgic fantasy. In no way is it very interpretive of the modern ethos, pathos, or cosmos. But it does express the desires people have for a certain calm and delight in the Disneyesque world. There crime is elsewhere, worries are about the weather, and the economy is no larger than the neighborhood in the picture. He clearly has some skills that he can employ in both commercially viable projects for easy and cheap reproduction, and some better, more carefully executed works that approach more traditional definitions of "art".

Many artists have painted for money. But I hope the paying projects allow the artist - whoever that may be - to do some of their better works too.

Some government sponsored art is indeed wonderful (WPA mural projects for instance, as well as some of the CCC bridge projects like the ones on the Connecticut Parkways).

I’ve never understood the concept of “Christian art” beyond what might be properly called “liturgical art” (such as stained glass or iconography or statuary). I’ve also never been a Kinkade-lover or a Kinkade-basher. So I really don’t have a dog in this hunt. But this post is absolutely fascinating. Anybody with a remotely developed aesthetic can appreciate the dramatic change of style in Kinkade’s work over the years. He went from being a realist with a very fine technique to being…something else. Hell, I expect Papa Smurf to pop his head out of one of Kinkade’s cottages. It’s truly the work of two different people, and it demands an answer to the question, “why?” Is it because he thinks the new style will appeal more to Christians? Is it because he thinks the new style will appeal more to the unchurched? Or is it truly because his own vision has changed? For the most part, I hope it’s the latter, because at least that’s not so marketing-driven, but then one has to wonder what happened internally to create such a shift. Here’s the thing: One’s concept of beauty is intrinsically linked to one’s concept of God, and when the former clearly changes, you just have to ask WTF happened. Please, nobody tell me what a snob I am or how much you love the post-mushroom Kinkade. I’m glad his stuff brings you joy. But we’re talking about the CHANGE here, and Rod is spot on as usual.

"What is so dispiriting about this painting is that rather than being created in order to be challenging or even inspiring, it’s intended only to be comforting."

That is from Joe Carter on this topic. It really makes me question instead what is going on with the people who have such criticism of a style of art that does make people feel comforted and peaceful and happy. Call the one side shmaltzy and shallow, fine. But there is nothing ugly, violent, or harmful in these paintings. If this is the further change of direction Kinkade's work has taken over the years, I still do not understand the criticism.

I think what is interesting is that a lot of Kinkade's art is houses and little towns, surrounded by trees, babbling brooks and flower gardens. I wonder if the popularity of his art is related to the dissatisfaction people have with their own communities/suburban homes? By and large Kinkade's paintings are of smaller homes too. So is it that when people fantasize about an ideal home/community they don't want what they have - the impeccable front lawn with the vinyl clad super sized bi level but would rather have cottage style gardens, smaller houses made with stone, little towns?

Recently on a trip to the Berkshires and we stopped at the Norman Rockwell museum. I had been inclined to perceive Rockwell as being rather schlocky and nostalgic but was pleasantly surprised by what I saw. He was certainly technically very skilled and had this capacity to capture important moments in people's lives. One painting of a kid going away to college, waiting for the train with his hard working farmer Dad and dog was very striking. I would think Rockwell was perhaps the Kinkade of an earlier generation - but the difference between Rockwell and Kinkade - is that Rockwell painted people, Kinkade's stuff is noteable to me for the lack of people.

I can't believe I'm the first to mention this, but the LA Times has reported "Painter Said To Be Focus of FBI Probe."

The FBI is investigating allegations that self-styled "Painter of Light" Thomas Kinkade and some of his top executives fraudulently induced investors to open galleries and then ruined them financially, former dealers contacted by federal agents said.

Investigators are focusing on issues raised in civil litigation by at least six former Thomas Kinkade Signature Gallery owners, people who have been contacted by the FBI said.

The ex-owners allege in arbitration claims that, among other things, the artist known for his dreamily luminous landscapes and street scenes used his Christian faith to persuade them to invest in the independently owned stores, which sell only Kinkade's work.

"They really knew how to bait the hook," said one former dealer who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the case. "They certainly used the Christian hook."

What?! You mean, the "Artist of Light" is not necessarily a moral, upstanding human being? I'm shocked, schlocked . . . I mean, shocked!

To those who say something along the lines of 'it doesn't matter; people like it," I would give you this quotation of Hans Urs von Balthasar: “In a world without beauty… the good loses its attractiveness, the self-evidence of why it must be carried out… The witness borne by Being becomes untrustworthy for the person who can no longer read the language of beauty.”

That is to say, aesthetic relativism and moral relativism are two sides of the same coin. If you cannot recognize that there are objective (though sometimes seemingly inexplicable) standards governing both art and morality, then preference is the only arbiter of taste and of action. It either all hangs together or all falls apart (leaving aside of course, that morally good people won't always have the best aesthetic taste; this is only an inconsistency, though).

I second R Hampton's recommendation! The Brandywine River Museum is a beautiful place, an appropriate setting for its collection. If you go up on the third floor, you can see a wonderful collection of Andrew Wyeths as well. If you're in the neighborhood, you should also visit the Delaware Art Museum, whose collections include Pre-Raphaelites, John Sloan, and more Howard Pyle and associated American illustrators.

One of the more insightful Christian criticisms I've read of Kinkade suggested that the problem with his "Painter of Light" works is that they show a sanitized world, rather than a redeemed one, and that's actually spiritually dangerous. If you don't "get" that, I don't think I can explain, but I found that really hit the nail on the head to explain my reaction to it.

Sig and R Hampton - been to the Brandywine - a great trip! I love both Wyeth's, have a lovely print by the son "Skating on the Brandywine" a gift from mother for my college graduation. I especially love Wyeth the elder's interiors.

I overlooked the Rockwell's at Brandywine - perhaps because there were only Rockwell's at the Bershire Museum I paid attention and I really enjoyed it.

Has Al Gore been notified as to how much energy is being used in these paintings?

Dear Rod, Thomas Kinkade's early work is wonderful like "The Mysteries
of Creation" and mountain landscapes similar to Albert Bierstadt's
"Yosemite Valley" paintings! The new paintings like "New Horizons"
with us on the sailboat of confidence with our Lord Christ Jesus are
also wonderful! "Pinocchio Wishes Upon a Star" features the "Blue
Fairy" as a tribute to "God's Hope" glowing with 300 hours of layered
oil paint and detail like Walt Disney in the audience of a puppet show!
Try a magnifying glass on this painting and "Tinkerbell & Peter Pan"!
It is fun to search for the hidden empty crosses for risen Christ
(sometimes three for Father, Son and Holy Spirit) and the symbols for
Christian Faith like pink dogwood trees for God's Love for us,
Bridges from darkness to Light, open gates and sevens for God's
number of completion! Thomas told me that if he couldn't share "Faith
and family values" in each painting that he would not paint at all!
He signs many paintings in red for the blood of Christ and adds
John 3:16 underneath with the total number of "N"s for his wife
Nanette! My family joined World Vision ministries because of Thomas
Kinkade's "Bridge of Faith' painting and I pray in front of "Sunrise"
each morning! Thomas & Nanette helped the schools in our town!
Check out his web site under Robert Girrard for French Impressionism
and "Antigua Sunset" for the orphans in Guatamala! God bless you,
Steven. Matthew 5:16 God bless this American Master's Ministry
Thomas Kinkade is still the most popular artist in on Earth today!

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.

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.