The Dark Light of Thomas Kinkade

Wonder if he ever wrote such an "article" while Kincade was alive and able to respond?

Sorry I wasted the time reading the "article" - run it through a sieve of logic and you'd have gibberish. A two year old rant against his own warped perception of someone else's work.

 

It's a good piece. The author is helpful in beginning to draw out the difficulties behind Kinkade's "art."

I remember sitting with a group of people, several of whom are highly intelligent and several of the group are highly influential, and talking about Kinkade's attempts at art. Having just read Tolstoy What is Art? I had my own perspectives, but hearing someone who owned an art gallery talk about Kinkade and his pieces was really intriguing. Of course later I met the man and that completely discredited him with me.

I am fascinated to finally hear qualified critiques of his work.

 

To say that people draw theological conclusions from Kinkade's paintings is like saying people find answers to life in velvet paintings of Elvis and prints of dogs playing poker. The average person who buys a print cares about little else other than if it matches the sofa.

Either it was a hit piece, or the author needs another hobby.

 

Maybe too many people over-think the matter?

Critics who negatively criticize Kinkade remind me of those who talk about Tolkien. "Oh, his writing uses WAY too much imagery, he describes it all too vivid, leaves nothing to the imagination. It's too basic in form."

Unless one is creating art for the purpose of pleasing those who have studied for years and know what is said *should* be contained, then it's very difficult to not have the creator's own ideas, thoughts, and self pour into the work, whether the artist is aware of it or not.

I love both Tolkien and Kinkade. Both manage to vividly portray what they are seeing and feeling in their mind in a way one can almost feel, but both take you to a place that doesn't exactly exist, both leave you room for some of your own interpretation and thought as to the particulars.

I might look a Kinkade painting and think "I've seen a road like that before and it was so pretty. Wouldn't it be nice to go back there, but have it be like it was portrayed in this painting, so peaceful, without others about yelling and no fear that on this quiet road with leaves crunching under my feet, that I could walk alone and enjoy it without interruption, without any hesitation or concern for what may happen as I go down it?
Or I might look and wonder what is beyond that garden. The light fades out. Is it simply because of distance or is there something horrid lurking beyond those gates? Will I walk through and continue on to an even deeper level of paradise or do demons wait beyond the gate for those who leave the safety and tranquility of that garden?

For someone to say the artist MUST include this or that to be considered true are is quite pretentious. Who is one person to say that the painting will be interpreted the same way as you do? One can have a strong opinion that totally opposes the next person's strong opinion.

His work obviously struck a chord with many people. It may not have won him glory in the higher ranks of art critics, but it sure managed to get him heard with a much larger group, and that group was willing to line his pockets with cash in return for his way of sharing himself.

I'd say he was definitely a success. Like a good writer, a good artist knows the rules and can. A great writer/artists knows the rules and is comfortable enough with them to break free of them and become his/her own person as an artist. I honestly believe Kinkade managed to do that, as evidenced by his earlier, less popular (yet according to higher art authorities, better) work compared to his later success.

His work makes me think. It makes me dream. It evokes different emotions at different times, even if it is the same piece. What else would I want from a piece of art?

Nothing, except...perhaps, for people to stop thinking I'm a dull person for setting him up along Van Gogh who, IMO, wasn't as talented at painting things with more form or detail than a child, but from a more scientific point of view, I appreciate the attention to how and where he placed things, how me made his paints, etc.. However, without knowing his history and the story behind him, I'd probably only like his work half as much because who he was and how he lived is half the interest and half of understanding the work. IN MY OPINION. Someone else's may differ drastically, and that's okay!

 

First, I enjoy looking at Kinkade's paintings. See bright light in generally peaceful settings, certainly not the "dark side" implied by the author of the referenced piece.

As far as I am concerned this writer shoots himself in the head with the stupid statement:

Furthermore, I agree with Scarlett O.

Then she puts the writer away with:

 

In a word- poppycock.

In a few more words- none of us knew his soul. I prefer to believe that he was a talented believer who had is problems with temptation and sin just like many other talented believers through the ages- William Cowper comes to mind.

Gotta love wannabe "Christian" art critics.

 

I appreciated the review offered in the OP - it expressed what I never could express about his paintings.

A close friend has quite a few of his painting placed prominently in his house.
If I were given one it would be the first thing I'd give away at a "White Elephant" exchange - even before the 'scented candle'.

Rob

 

Quick, someone give Deacon one of those paintings!

Deacon, I'd like to invite you out here for a white elephant party. WHOOT! :tongue3:

 

It takes a real flake to write the "stuff", to be polite, what's his name wrote.

 

I admit that I have not read the article.

However, I do have this thinking about the artist.

He was a masterful artist and used the unusual ability to communicate in a style rarely exhibited but by few true masters of the field.

His personal life was a failure and ruinous to family and friends.

One should probably look at the work for the appreciation of the talent; as the work might touch the heart, consider to what end that impulse might bring.

But, the artist should not be considered someone to emulate in character and living. If I were to teach a fine arts class and this artist was discussed, it would be prudent to draw a distinction between talent and character.

Now take what is stated in this post and apply it to any artist of the fine arts (music, sculpture, painting, ...) and that is the perspective that must always be kept.

Often humankind are enamored by a certain fine arts (particularly painting, sculpting, music) and allow all manner of evil in their own character to be excused as a result. One might look upon the nude, move to the rhythm, stare at the exposure and not be ashamed; that the enamor has drawn their hearts away from Christ likeness into accepting what is perhaps not acceptable.

 

I am just wondering if the critic has "torn his clothes and repented in sackcloth and ashes" as he said Kinkade should have?

Probably not.

 

The authur of the OP needs to get out more.

I find his objections comical.

I dont have any of Kinkaids paintings, because I prefer other stylings for hanging in my house.

But every time I pass by one I always stop...appreciate it for a few moments...and leave thinking "what a wonderful talent he has!"

I think his paitings are wonderful, very beautifull, and obviously millions of others do too.

 

I like Jim Harrison's paintings better. Actually they are copies, can't afford the originals. He lives down the road 30-40 miles or so. My wife likes both so we have several copies by both artists in our home. Perhaps I need to get Asphidity Bags for both of us as we walk around the house and pass a Kinkade copy!:smilewinkgrin:

Heh!! Never thought of it until now but perhaps the copies don't carry the evil spirit or whatever!

 

This has got to be one of the most depraved critiques I have ever read. We have our lives filled with the evils of the world. Sometimes we just need a little Kincaid to be refreshed. I have news for guys like this, not all of life is like he wants it to look. I am sick to death of people who want to take anything that resembles life in peace and purity and tear it down. They need to get over themselves.

 

:thumbsup:

 

I would put this critic in the same category as the (interior designer/fashion designer ---etc) that shows something "different" and explains that it is "---making a statement!"
I have yet to see what "statement" they are making.

'Course some folk are just by nature morbidly pessimistic and see the flaws rather than the good in virtually EVERYTHING ---pity!!