# Thomas Kinkade



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Gallery: http://www.showmeart.info/thomas-kinkade.html

I'd never heard of this guy until he died, but I've seen lots of paintings like this around, and I guess some of them must have been by him.

Any chance that three hundred years from now Rockwell and Kinkade are counted among the great 20th century artists?


----------



## Chrythes (Oct 13, 2011)

They remind me the paintings you get on Christmas cards.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

science said:


> Any chance that three hundred years from now Rockwell and Kinkade are counted among the great 20th century artists?


Not a chance in hell.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Yeah, they're horrible paintings to me, but my suspicion is that the future belongs to this guy, Warner Sallmon, and so on.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

What was a brilliant marketing move by him was, anyone could have a Kinkade painting; he had studios in malls. The brilliant marketing was, he took a print and he had painters "highlight" the print, so an average person could own a kind of a semi-original, for whatever that's worth. 

I think his works will be remembered for a long time in some circles; he was very good at painting dream houses in dream locations. Great art, of course not. It would be like comparing the Christian poet Helen Steiner Rice to the religious poetry of T.S. Eliot.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Manxfeeder said:


> What was a brilliant marketing move by him was, anyone could have a Kinkade painting; he had studios in malls. The brilliant marketing was, he took a print and he had painters "highlight" the print, so an average person could own a kind of a semi-original, for whatever that's worth.
> 
> I think his works will be remembered for a long time in some circles; he was very good at painting dream houses in dream locations. Great art, of course not. *It would be like comparing the Christian poet Helen Steiner Rice to the religious poetry of T.S. Eliot.*


Today I got a paper from a student who compared Trent Reznor's lyrics from "Hurt" to a George Herbert poem that also used the phrase "stains of time." Got to say, Reznor's work stood up well. (Also, my student knew it through a cover by Leona Lewis. Evidently she's big. Anyway, I liked her version as well as Reznor's or Johnny Cash's. But evidently their big fans don't.)

But anyway, your description of the shops in malls rang a bell - that is where I've seen those paintings. So funny.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

science said:


> Today I got a paper from a student who compared Trent Reznor's lyrics from "Hurt" to a George Herbert poem that also used the phrase "stains of time."


It is a haunting song. It was gutsy for Johnny Cash to record it in his old age but very powerful, like he's in a confessional.

Do you remember which George Herbert poem is that line from? I've dipped into his poetry but haven't applied myself as much as I would like.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Are you serious? The future belongs to Leonid Afremov - "World Renown Artist" "Satisfaction 100% Guaranteed"!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Manxfeeder said:


> It is a haunting song. It was gutsy for Johnny Cash to record it in his old age but very powerful, like he's in a confessional.
> 
> Do you remember which George Herbert poem is that line from? I've dipped into his poetry but haven't applied myself as much as I would like.


I'm very sorry, it was George MacDonald: http://www.online-literature.com/donne/3629/

I vaguely remember reading that MacDonald was one of C. S. Lewis' favorite poets. But I've probably got that wrong.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

science said:


> Gallery: http://www.showmeart.info/thomas-kinkade.html
> 
> I'd never heard of this guy until he died, but I've seen lots of paintings like this around, and I guess some of them must have been by him.
> 
> Any chance that three hundred years from now Rockwell and Kinkade are counted among the great 20th century artists?


Kinkade's work - including "Heading Home" - add at least one layer of 'sweet sentimentality' beyond Rockwell's, which are mostly almost representational-trite.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

science said:


> I'm very sorry, it was George MacDonald: http://www.online-literature.com/donne/3629/
> 
> I vaguely remember reading that MacDonald was one of C. S. Lewis' favorite poets. But I've probably got that wrong.


I think you're right. One of my favorite Lewis quotes is from the preface he wrote to a MacDonald anthology:
"He hopes, indeed, that all men will be saved; but that is because he hopes that all will repent."


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Wow. Kinkade lived and died like a Christian rockstar.

I had no idea.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

"Painter of Light" he was marketed as. You could supposedly turn the lights down and see the lights in his paintings glow. Painter of Light , my bum! It's called oil paint. Oil paint does that. He did have some talent in the same way Justin Bieber may have talent. What a waste.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

science said:


> Wow. Kinkade lived and died like a Christian rockstar.
> 
> I had no idea.


Me neither, I had no idea he was a professed Christian or that any "fish" sign was in his paintings. I just treated him like any old painter (I think I have a puzzle or 2 of his paintings somewhere in the attic...) Huh, that whole article sounds disgusting to me, that Christians have sentimental taste for beauty that likely develops from "sub-cultural" existence, and then feel devastated that he didn't live up to their expectations of moral perfection. After all, an angelic artist has to be an angel on the inside too, right?  Just imagine if I treated all the classical composers that I love today like that! All my favorite Russian composers I would have scorned for gambling, alcoholism, antisemitism, atheism, heresy, etc. by now! :lol: The "Christian" sub-culture world is disgusting to me in so many ways.

But oh by the way, I am a Christian too.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Me neither, I had no idea he was a professed Christian or that any "fish" sign was in his paintings. I just treated him like any old painter (I think I have a puzzle or 2 of his paintings somewhere in the attic...) Huh, that whole article sounds disgusting to me, that Christians have sentimental taste for beauty that likely develops from "sub-cultural" existence, and then feel devastated that he didn't live up to their expectations of moral perfection. After all, an angelic artist has to be an angel on the inside too, right?  Just imagine if I treated all the classical composers that I love today like that! All my favorite Russian composers I would have scorned for gambling, alcoholism, antisemitism, atheism, heresy, etc. by now! :lol: The "Christian" sub-culture world is disgusting to me in so many ways.
> 
> But oh by the way, I am a Christian too.


Russian Christianity traditionally was able to forgive sinners for that sort of sin more than American Protestant Christianity has been, at least since the temperance movement.

I guess every culture has something that they don't accept or forgive easily.


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

His paintings are pretty the way photos of flowers are pretty. But they're not exactly ground-breaking. I think a great artist has to do something new and what he did wasn't exactly new. It was just the same thing over and over. It doesn't mean they aren't visually pleasing and he wasn't talented; of course he was. I could try for decades and never be able to paint anything like that. They make for good home decorations, but I wouldn't call them "great art".


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Me neither, I had no idea he was a professed Christian or that any "fish" sign was in his paintings. I just treated him like any old painter (I think I have a puzzle or 2 of his paintings somewhere in the attic...) Huh, that whole article sounds disgusting to me, that Christians have sentimental taste for beauty that likely develops from "sub-cultural" existence, and then feel devastated that he didn't live up to their expectations of moral perfection. After all, an angelic artist has to be an angel on the inside too, right?  Just imagine if I treated all the classical composers that I love today like that! All my favorite Russian composers I would have scorned for gambling, alcoholism, antisemitism, atheism, heresy, etc. by now! :lol: The "Christian" sub-culture world is disgusting to me in so many ways.
> 
> But oh by the way, I am a Christian too.


Please proceed with caution, Huilun. Current policy won't allow this thread to be moved to the Politics&Religion forum. The only alternative would be to close it, or apply the scalpel to posts.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Tristan said:


> His paintings are pretty the way photos of flowers are pretty. But they're not exactly ground-breaking. I think a great artist has to do something new and what he did wasn't exactly new. It was just the same thing over and over. It doesn't mean they aren't visually pleasing and he wasn't talented; of course he was. I could try for decades and never be able to paint anything like that. They make for good home decorations, but I wouldn't call them "great art".


He seems to have been very talented as a businessman/promoter, and that is something that we overlook... many great artists have had that talent or else we'd never have heard of them!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Sentimental Saccharine Americanized Pseudo-Impressionism.


----------



## Jos (Oct 14, 2013)

It's only a matter of time; he (and his confrère Bob Ross) will be very much wanted by young hipsters. Campy, kitchy, tongue-in-cheek, an ironic comment on todays...blablablabla

Check out this lady and imagine you could fill your walls too with art like this , without breaking the bank.....:lol:






Cheers,
Jos


----------



## Antiquarian (Apr 29, 2014)

Thomas Kinkade may have started out as an artist but became an industry. I would lump him in with artists like Wyland who pander to the pretentious middle class in America. Kinkade is safe: you can hang his art in your living room and not offend those who you want to impress. Vistas of bucolic nature interspersed with scenes of healthy, rosy cheeked children do this, whilst edgy art does not. Kinkade offers the illusion of exclusivity, yet puts it in the price point that the middle class can stomach. My rant.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

(I qualify this post by pointing out that this picture was NOT done to satirize him. However, they DID do it to get a laugh)


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

All better than the originals.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

At least he had technique, now that its not taught in art schools across the Western world, he could be one of the last of a rare breed. Funny how people talk about him serving a market, so what? So did the likes of the Abstract Expressionists, or Picasso (the last half of his career had much low grade stuff, yet it still sold due to his big name) and of course the likes of Jeff Koons and so on. Many conceptual artists don't even make their own works, they just send instructions for a giant dog or whatever to be built by tradesmen. So, I don't see the big deal. Get a clique together, write a manifesto dissing all other art before you, do a bit of a scribble and you've got a lot of the _great art _of the 20th century. Viola!

But in terms of genre, Rockwell was very good at what he did, if we judge him by those standards he's a classic of his era. Maybe Kinkade will come to be seen similarly.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Sid, Kinkade's technique was amateurish at best. All one needs to do is compare his work to that of the Impressionists, from whom he lifted his "technique". As for formal techniques being taught or not taught in art schools... that depends upon the schools. There is actually a large shift toward figurative painting and "realism" as New York/London Conceptual art becomes increasingly irrelevant beyond a small clique of billionaires and their minions. I do agree that Koons and Hirst have no more skill than Kinkade... and are no less skilled at marketing. I don't imagine that financial success says anything about artistic merit... for or against. I do have a problem, however, with some of the mercenary marketing of art today which largely silents any dissent or alternative voices in the press and in the marketplace.

I highly doubt Kinkade will ever be taken seriously by the "art world". Norman Rockwell sells to an audience seeking reinforcement of nostalgia for the good old days that never existed... but his work is largely considered borderline at best among serious art lovers. I think Maxfield Parrish, Arthur Rackham, Alphonse Mucha, and any number of others are better examples of illustrators that became admired by serious art lovers. Honestly, Kinkade's paintings are just middling or mediocre at best... not much better than any number of other artists showing in malls across America and showing up over the beds in motel rooms.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Sentimental Saccharine Americanized Pseudo-Impressionism.


Yes, and cribbed from the Walt Disney imagery as found in many an animated feature. I found it even less apt in its sincerity than the sentiments in some of Disney -- maybe because those sentiments were a real and lingering leftover of later romanticism in the first half of the 20th century.

Kincaid's career seems to me to be one of the most phenomenal productions and successful promotions of kitsch as generated by one person, ever.

BTW, your appellation of the style is perfection!

The _*S.S.A.P.I.*_ school.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ... I do agree that Koons and Hirst have no more skill than Kinkade... and are no less skilled at marketing. I don't imagine that financial success says anything about artistic merit... for or against. ...


I can understand what you're saying, and my point is summed up well in the above quote. Attach any skerrick of theory, psychobabble, existentialist philosophy to art - the likes of the parodies Kinkade that you gave images of - and suddently its not just in the realm of kitsch, it's high art. That's what has been done for a long time now. In effect, I was setting up a dichotomy in that post, and had I had time I might have put my argument across less in that way. But Modernism is fraught with such dichotomies, contradictions and artificial boundaries (which come down to no boundaries if the argument suits a certain theorist at a certain point in time).

So its less about Kinkade and more on principle of various things I alluded to. One is the aspect of reproduction of art. Of course, Duchamp did it, but so did one of my favourite painters, Magritte. As his career wore on and he became successful, new ideas deserted him and he literally did copies of old paintings and sold them to galleries needing a genuine Magritte.

The other thing is how Post-Modernism - the likes of Koons - coopts cliches from kitsch, toys with them, and suddenly they're high art. Modernism was really against emotion, and of course figuration (or figuration not put through some cubistic blender, or figuration that wasn't sordid or grotesque a la Schiele, Bacon or to some extent Lucein Freud). You can't simply have 'nice' things, they are going backwards, retro, conservative, whatever. This is by default, of course I'm talking of extremes of the ideology, but its there still, or remnants of it.

So given this, Po-Mo has one big emotion if you can call it that - irony, or sarcasm or cynicism. So Koons' big floral puppies have something to do with commenting on that whole aspect of kitsch being mass produced, but its nice, but its on steroids. So we hide behind irony and its okay, but the other trappings of so-called retro or more traditionally bound art isn't.

Finally I'll just add that the boundaries between kitsch and high art aren't always clear. In music of course we've got operettas with their Mills and Boon carboard character and formulaic plots. Again, I'm saying this regardless of what I think of it, I quite like operetta to a certain extent. I'm quite eclectic in my musical tastes, but I am giving the other side of the argument. So with regards to that, in terms of visual artists, you've got Fragonard (eg. Fair haired boy), Murillo (eg. Assumption of the Virgin) and Marie Laurencin (any of her portraits in pastel colours, often girls with pets in their laps).

And with regards to PoMo art playing off that aspect of mass production and 'tasteless' flouro colours, the late Howard Arkley (below, one of his paintings in a univeristy collection in Melbourne), and Australian who was very highly regarded amongst critics and fairly well known by the art viewing public. Again, he goes back to Pop Art, some of which I like. But the problem as usual is the inconsistent ideology. Why are these 'art' and why are other things kitsch or simply bad art?

Ultimately a lot of this is indeed subjective, what I dislike is the attitude that we diss something and then elevate something to high heaven. But again, that's been a core tenet of Modernist ideology for ages, maybe I just have to accept this? Maybe diversity is the key, just accepting that, rather than all the theorising and psychobabble etc.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> All better than the originals.


These two add a bit of extra punch to "_painter of light._"


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

PetrB said:


> These two add a bit of extra punch to "_painter of light._"


That last one is definitely "something awful"  I'm half laughing half sobbing.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

I'm not here to insult anyone who likes Kinkade's work, but to me his paintings seem like pale imitations of the art of the United States Hudson River School -- Thomas Cole, Jasper Francis Cropsey, Albert Bierstadt, and the like (basically, the American landscape painters of the 19th century). That school of painting is a favorite of mine; compared to it Kinkade's paintings seem simplistic and saccharine. Just my opinion.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

HA, I burst out with laughter at the third 'altered Kinkade' in Stlukes' post.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

I hate Thomas Kinkade with a passion. He is no Roy Lichtenstein.

His kitsch is sold in some store up here in Park City, Utah. Argh.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

A couple of equivalents, though less kitschy, in Danish art, and belonging to former generations - the combination of mass-produced popular motifs and yet current high prices, would be









*Paul Fischer*. A specialist in picturesque Copenhagen street scenes, of increasingly poor craftmanship/pseudo-impressionism.









*Peder Mørk Mønsted*. Rural, Danish idyls. But this fellow actually had a real talent for painting, though he kept repeating himself too much. This is one of his more unorthodox compositions.









The modernist *Asger Jorn* experimented with iconoclasm/questionings in such genres around 1960. The composer Per Nørgård has written a choral piece on this picture, "Den Foruroligende Ælling".


----------



## Posie (Aug 18, 2013)

While I agree with most of the sentiments here, I have to ask... Is kitsch completely bad? Under a broad definition, mass-produced prints of the art of Van Gogh and Picasso qualify as kitsch.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

It seems that Kinkade was kitsch from the very start, the others were innovative in their own times.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

marinasabina said:


> While I agree with most of the sentiments here, I have to ask... Is kitsch completely bad? Under a broad definition, mass-produced prints of the art of Van Gogh and Picasso qualify as kitsch.


Well, you can use art as kitsch, no doubt; look at all the uses of Mozart in TV commercials and so forth to connote classiness.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Here's one of my favorite paintings by Thomas Cole:









Like I said above, I think Kinkade's work does bear a _certain_ resemblance to the Hudson River School...but to me the Hudson River School seems infinitely better. Sadly, though, I don't know enough about art to be able to explain _why_ it's better.


----------



## Musicforawhile (Oct 10, 2014)

Anyone heard of this girl?


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Musicforawhile said:


> Anyone heard of this girl?


I have not. Not sure what to think.


----------



## Johannes V (Dec 2, 2014)

He is certainly no Annigoni.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Jos said:


> It's only a matter of time; he (and his confrère Bob Ross) will be very much wanted by young hipsters. Campy, kitchy, tongue-in-cheek, an ironic comment on todays...blablablabla
> 
> Check out this lady and imagine you could fill your walls too with art like this , without breaking the bank.....:lol:
> 
> ...


She seems to be happier than I'll ever be. I'd trade my tastes for her values in an instant.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Antiquarian said:


> Thomas Kinkade may have started out as an artist but became an industry. I would lump him in with artists like Wyland who pander to the pretentious middle class in America. Kinkade is safe: you can hang his art in your living room and not offend those who you want to impress. Vistas of bucolic nature interspersed with scenes of healthy, rosy cheeked children do this, whilst edgy art does not. Kinkade offers the illusion of exclusivity, yet puts it in the price point that the middle class can stomach. My rant.


You must want to impress different people than I do. I can't imagine anyone I greatly respect being impressed with a Thomas Kinkade painting.

Almost everything in your post is like "through the looking glass" for me. Pretentious middle class? Exclusivity? Kinkade is the opposite of pretentious and exclusive: it's blatantly, unapologetically lowest-common-denominator stuff.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> Well, you can use art as kitsch, no doubt; look at all the uses of Mozart in TV commercials and so forth to connote classiness.


As I understand it - or rather, as it was once explained to me - the idea of "camp" is to use kitsch ironically as art.


----------

