112 replies to this topic

[Overstreet]

<a href="http://www.christianity.ca/entertainment/weblog/2004/10.13.html" target="_blank">Greg Wolfe gets quoted in this article on the popular work of Thomas Kincade.</a>

Edited by Overstreet, 20 December 2010 - 06:51 PM.

[SDG]

[John Drew]

I always equated Thomas Kincade's work as on par with PBS art instructor Bob Ross... except that I liked Bob Ross, and he only had a half hour to turn out his work. In fact, a lot of the techniques I use to paint sets came from watching Bob Ross.

[M. Dale Prins]

I try to snarl every time I walk past one of his galleries. But sometimes I forget. I am sorry for sometimes forgetting.

Dale

[M. Dale Prins]

This reminds me: At an art fair on Saturday, I saw this magnificent (I mean this earnestly, not sarcastically) collection of 25 Polaroids framed as a single work to tell the story of a swimmer. It was $700. I half-heartedly tried to convince my wife that we should purchase it. "But it's only $30 per Polaroid," I argued. She was not convinced. Neither was I, really -- I mean, $700 for 25 pictures! -- but still. I was sad.

Dale

[CrimsonLine]

Even with the brevity of that article, one gets the impression that the author was padding to fill space. While I resonate with what he says, it's a poorly-written piece.

To play Kincade's advocate for a minute, though - no painter paints the totality of human existence. No artist can even hope to capture "life as it really is". Someone (I wish I could attribute the quote, I use it all the time) said that all art is primarily selection. At most, an artist strives to accurately portray a slice of life - a brief perspective on life. OR, perhaps more precisely, to innacurately portray a slice of life - to exaggerate or distort a slice of life so as to show it for what it really is under the skin.

While I agree with the author - Kincade's work strikes me as saccharine, too - I wonder sometimes if that's a fault of mine and not Kincade's. I went through America's art instruction meat grinder. I absorbed many of the art world's prejudices and cynicism. If Kincade is trying to portray the good, or the pure, and through it to induce longing, maybe it's the jaded, fallen part of me that's reacting against it. The part of me that rankles at the thought of goodness and purity. The part of me that is comfortable in sin, and uncomfortable around righteousness. Dr. David Wells defines "worldliness" as that system around us that makes evil seem normal and righteousness seem odd. Maybe my artistic tastes are too "worldly" to appreciate Kincade's work.

But then again, theologically it's impossible for Kincade's work to be unfallen, even if it might be redeemed. Perhaps what rankles is not goodness, but the facade of false righteousness. Since it cannot possibly BE purely good, perhaps it rings false when he tries to pass it off as purely good.

I don't know. I do know that I grow uncomfortable whenever we trendy folks cast scorn on brothers in Christ for being un-hip. That elitist sense of "I'm in the in crowd, I've got taste and style" often defines itself by excluding others, putting them down. We in the art community are perhaps most prone to this sin. I try always to root it out in myself, and to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. At the same time, I believe there is such a thing as objectively good art - there is a hierarchy of value in art that is not purely a matter of preference. So, I get hung on the horns of my own dilemma. My petard is a-hoisting. Who can rescue me from this body of death??

Edited by crimsonline, 19 October 2004 - 04:00 PM.

[SDG]

[Overstreet]

I once saw (I can't remember where) a hilarious print of a Thomas Kincade village in which the "frame" had been expanded to reveal that these idyllic cottages were possible only because of a boundary guarded by heavy artillery and patrolling tanks. Now THAT'S a print I'd buy.

[Jason Bortz]

I own a Kincade.

It's a cross on a hilltop. I like it a great deal. It's weatherbeaten, jammed into the rocky crags and looking as though it were there since the beginning of time. I bought it for my wife, who likes golden hues and visions of warmth. I think it's the hope she sees there. I generally don't get excited when viewing cottages weighted down with snow spilling yellow light into a darkening landscape, but for her its an enchantment worth bringing a radiant smile to her face that complements the picture nicely. I, having a few degrees of snobbery within when it comes to art, found the hilltop cross a wonderful compromise, as it stood more rugged and majestic--and struck a chord within me, 'the Name lifted on high' springing to mind, so it made for a gift that not only prompted a gasp from her, but something I felt I didn't have to hide when the guys come by due to what might be perceived as eau de cheesy...

The other of his that I like is simply the face of Christ. It's not even in full detail, more of an impressionist portrait. I saw it one evening at Christmastime when I felt very heavy hearted and it brought me back to a sense of perspective and unlikely wonder--the man of sorrow, the Prince of peace, they all floated about in my mind as I regarded it in the shadows; it wasn't lit well, tucked away under some ambience in a corner of the store. I had to step in to see if it really was what I thought it was, because all I initially saw was a dark horizontal streak with a splash of red lower down on the page...I knew nothing of how much the artist made a year, or why, or how righteous he was or what a sellout he might be. I knew only that that painting surprised me, reached out and spoke to me, and had I money, I would own it and light it in exactly the same way--surreptitiously, drawing the viewer close to see if it were really what it looked like.



This isn't meant as admonishment to anyone here--it's just the way I see it. If his work is pathetic--so am I for finding it beautiful and his talents respectable. If he's been blessed with success, amen--the one who invested his talents saw a return, and the master rewarded him; the one who buried it did not. Kinkade is investing his, and it seems to me the Master finds his efforts to hold some small merit.



------------

Edited by Jason Bortz, 20 October 2004 - 09:21 AM.

[Overstreet]

Jason, I've never seen the prints you've described and shown here.

In fact, all I've ever seen and heard of are the homey, glow-y, cottage-type scenes, which he seems to mass-produce.

I withdraw my blanket-statement condemnation. I should know better.

But I'm still no fan of the mass-produced, touchy-feely stuff I've seen so much of.

[Christian]

Link to my interview Kinkade, which I've posted here in the past. To reiterate, I'm not a big fan of his art, but as an interview subject, he's one of the best. Very well-spoken. No "umms" or "uhhs."

I got nervous Googling for the link above, because I was spelling Kinkade "Kincade," as in the thread title. I got lots of hits with that spelling, so I was crestfallen when my interview came up under "Kinkade." Did I spell his name incorrectly in my interview? I wondered. I was reassured when "Kinkade" pulled up numerous hits, too. I think my spelling is correct, FWIW.

[Peter T Chattaway]

Christian wrote:
: I think my spelling is correct, FWIW.

Well, considering the first page it turns up is Kinkade's official website, yeah.

[Christian]

[Aaron]

I dont hate Kinkade's art work the one thing i dont like is did anybodey catch that 60 minutes interview where he slammed Picassio that is probilly the main reason i dont like him that and the whole image looks so contrived and sachrine but the guy sells so who am i to judge i dont really like it and it's not my cup of tea but if he likes it go for it.

[techne]

i seem to have come across this attitude in other forums and i wonder why that is?not that i'm a huge fan of kinkade's work, but he is my brother (not literally) and as such i want to honour him as much as i can. the fact is, i wish my own art were so eminently palatable as to be put on tshirts, mugs, fridge magnets, plates, underwear, calendars, tattoos (i'm sure there's one on someone somewhere), clocks, pens...i just seem to have made different choices regarding my audience. the work is pretty decently painted - though formulaic (and really, don't we all chase after the groove, the sweet spot?) - and i may not be moved deeply or prolongedly (i know, i know, not even a word), but the fact is that kinkade gives what he has (i.e. talents, skills, reputation) to a number of christian humanitarian aid organizations and does so freely and with a heart to help the needy. pretty kingdom, i think. he is a businessman and as such has targeted a specific (or as general as possible, actually) audience. he is not trying to appeal to moma and mattress factory and ps1. he is trying to reach the "great unwashed masses", and is doing it well. his heroes are rockwell, and parrish - populist painters. he is very clear about this. he will not engage me very deeply, but that is also not his intent - it is not a cerebral art he's after. i think it's more hopeful. we can talk about kitsch and cliche and sacharrinity but how will that help? it won't add layers to the work. and this is where we sometimes need to have grace for artists who choose different paths, intents, purposes for their work. we all make our work from various positions or agendas. and we're all called to different arenas. let's just use our tools wisely.

[jfutral]

we can talk about kitsch and cliche and sacharrinity but how will that help? it won't add layers to the work.

For me, that is part of the problem with his work. There is nothing there to move the work from art to Art (to play a bit on having just read _Wicked_ and the difference between animals and Animals). His stuff is what it is and doesn't try to be anything else. The things you point out are mostly about technique and craft, but that alone isn't what makes something Art. His life may be a great work of art (and I applaud him for that), but his art, to my eyes, is lacking. The Mona Lisa is more than a good portrait. Paul Taylor's _Aureole_ is more than a pretty dance. There is nothing wrong with a work being beautiful, but that in itself doesn't make it Art.

Falling short of the lofty goal of Art, is not in itself a bad thing. There is still much debate about whether Pollock's work is art. And I come across many people who find little compelling about Bach's work outside of its music virtuosity. And as big a fan as I am of Steve Morse and Eric Johnson, they haven't said anything new since there first couple of albums. Sometimes artist forget that finding their voice (or groove, as you mention) is really only part of the battle. The next thing is to actually have something to say.

I was watching Wynton Marsalis and his Septet practice for a ballet for which they were providing the music and he got up and yelled right in the middle of a piece "Practice at home! I'm here to play. If you are going to solo, play something, otherwise sit it out." Now, Kinkade may have said something and I missed it, but he seems to have said the same thing about a couple of thousand times.

Now he may be a shrewd businessman and he has done many, many good things. And I am sure he is a wonderful person to know and has admirable goals and heros. But that doesn't mean his art is above reproach. But then, if we are examining his art we really should examine his art and not draw conclusions on the man.

But this is just my opinion and worth exactly what you paid for it.

Joe

Edited by jfutral, 04 July 2005 - 10:31 AM.

[techne]

well, i think he is still trying to communicate something - and that is, i think, the core purpose of art. communication. not therapy. not self-expression. but the attempt to commune with someone. i hear what you're saying about the art/Art thang. here's my metaphor. art is like cake. it can be a simply made cake or an elaborate cake with many layers. it's still cake. cake is cake. cake is good. but! some cake has more layers. angel food cake is tasty but it is a single flavour. black forest chocolate cake is something else entirely. but also still cake. so what i am trying to say is that kinkade still makes art. but it is not on the level of the mona lisa (though how the mona lisa is more tahna good portrait would be an interesting discussion as i thought it isn't confirmed whose portrait it is). agreed. perhaps it is on the level of maxfield parrish? lawrence alma-tadema? bougereau? 2nd tier abstract expressionists? pseudo-cubists? i'm not arguing that it's great art. it's a wee thin, i think. but business practices aside (and let me know who doesn't employ some sort of marketing to get ahead - the mona lisa may have been to curry support or patronage. and what was the sistine chapel but the biggest butt-kiss in art history? yes, pope. whatever you say, pope. picasso, matisse, warhol, durer, hals, rubens, raphael, rembrandt...as far as i know business - who it is done for i.e. your audience/ client - was a big part of what they did and sometimes even how they did it.) i'm not saying it's profound - give me mauricio lasansky or christian boltanski any day. it's a sentence not a song. but it is still art. maybe art which falls below your obviously (and i agree) high and demanding standard, but still art. my note about kitsch et al merely adresses the content (form, functionality, vocabulary). many artists employ those very attitudes (ragas?) as an important aspect of the content of their work - perhaps the sentimentality of kinkades work doesn't employ those thing consciously. then again, do the pre-raphaelites? i just think art (Art?) is a continuum, and perhaps kinkade is at the LCD end of the spectrum. thanks for the workout.

[mrmando]

well, i think he is still trying to communicate something - and that is, i think, the core purpose of art. communication. not therapy. not self-expression. but the attempt to commune with someone.

Yes and no. I think the best art balances communication with expression. Too much of the former and you have a telegram, or an ad circular. Might look like art, but it's not. Too much of the latter and you might as well let a chimp do the painting.

art is like cake.

Horsefeathers and poppycock. How can you say art is communication and then say it's like cake? Cake does not communicate. Cake is consumed.

picasso, matisse, warhol, durer, hals, rubens, raphael, rembrandt...as far as i know business - who it is done for i.e. your audience/ client - was a big part of what they did and sometimes even how they did it.)

True of Rubens anyway. One of the most boring rooms in the Louvre (to me, at least) is filled with huge Rubens canvases commissioned by the Medicis. As for Warhol, his oeuvre is more or less an ironic comment on the marriage between art and commerce, and it's just gol-darned amazing that his work is so successful as a consumer product when every bit of it sneers at people who treat art as a consumer product.

I think, however, for most of the artists you listed, there was or is some tension between what they had to communicate and what the audience wanted. Rivera sneaking Lenin into his mural for the RCA building is a famous example of such tension, but every great artist experiences it. Nothing will kill the quality of an artist's work faster than getting to the place where he is producing exactly what "the audience" or "the public" wants to see. And that is exactly where Kinkade has planted his flag.

Edited by mrmando, 05 July 2005 - 10:32 PM.

[techne]

anyway, i said self-expression, as in "i had fun doing it" or "i wanted to express my emotions" (whatever those mean...), and not expression which, i suppose, refers to the method or language one uses in communicating an idea - more of a conscious choice to use a particular style, colour etc in order to express (dare i say communicate?) idea. and please, the point of the cake metaphor was the layering of meaning, or the richness contained within said piece of art. though you're right, all art is indeed made to be consumed. taken in and digested, as it were. and some art is sugary and some art less so, or using other non-refined sugars, or maybe the metaphor isn't intended to be a perfect metaphor for the entirety of art and simply one way of thinking about the art divide...so maybe that's okay. it's a metaphor, after all. maybe not a good one, but i am quite sure you knew which part of the metaphor i was employing to communicate. i'm open to other metaphors, though. i'm not absolutley attached to cake. and re: my list of artists (as drop in the ocean as it is) simply refers to the marketing of oneself as an artist, whether bourgeois a la matisse and his comfortable armchair art (his words), or as misunderstood outsider, or as avant-gardist is a choice of audience regardless of (or sometimes because of) sales. some go for the money, some for noteriety, and most of us simply fish someplace in the middle, ish.

[mrmando]

With cake, no matter how purty or layered or gussied up it is, you eats it and you goes on as you was before. Cake do not permanently change you.

Whereas, art provokes you to think, to explore, to feel, to realize, to consider, to change. If it don't, it ain't art. Or if it's meant to and you don't let it, then you are an eater of cake rather than a lover of art. And you know what Marie Antoinette said about that.

And, finally: Paragraphs are your friends. They help to make the difference between self-expression and communication, if you get my drift.

Edited by mrmando, 06 July 2005 - 01:00 AM.