Topic: Fuck Thomas Kinkade

[WindAndConfusion]

Thomas Kinkade, self-described "Painter of Light," hocks an $80 print of a NASCAR painting on late night cable TV commericals:

NASCAR Thunder, the aforementioned painting:



Thomas Kinkade, as described by his publicist:

Who is the artist who has sold more canvases than any other painter in history? More than Picasso, Rembrandt, Gaughin, Monet, Manet, Renoir and Van Gogh combined?

If you didn't say Thomas Kinkade, then you've been shopping in the wrong places. He is the most collected living artist in the U.S. and worldwide.

Thomas Kinkade describing Pablo Picasso:

He had a real talent for art, but he didn't use it in any meaningful way.

(This is an unattributed quote, but I believe it because it's similar in character to other shit I've heard Thomas Kinkade spouting off.)

More completely unimaginative crap by Thomas Kinkade:

[Quemaqua]

Hey, sports fans, here's a picture of guys driving around in a circle for a hundred hours.  Please give us money.

[Cobra951]

Never heard of the guy.  Why is he reviled again?  Art quality aside, he's just peddling his own goods (buyer beware), or did I miss something?

[idolminds]

The jets flying in formation totally makes that first one.

[WindAndConfusion]

Never heard of the guy.  Why is he reviled again?  Art quality aside, he's just peddling his own goods (buyer beware), or did I miss something?

The part where he thinks he's better than Picasso.

[Xessive]

It's not that hard to better than Picasso. Kinkade does come off as a total dick, much like Picasso, but unlike Picasso he doesn't actually look like a potato.

[WindAndConfusion]

Regardless of his dickishness, Picasso still painted Guernica, which is worth a thousand Thomas Kinkades.

No further discussion.

[Xessive]

Yeah, but art appreciation is based on opinion. Which is not the best thing to base anything solid on.

Personally, I consider much of Goya's works more poignant and world's more skillful than all of Picasso's portfolio combined. Think of it what you will, but fact remains that art appreciation and criticism is based on opinions of the self-proclaimed avantgarde. You either agree with them or you're an ignorant, country bumpkin. Frankly, I'd rather be the latter than agree with something I don't believe in.

So which is it? Do you conform or do you defect?

The third option is to conform when it's convenient and defect when you can't take the shit anymore.

[WindAndConfusion]

I agree with you up to the point where you imply that Thomas Kinkade is anything except a whore and a hack.

[Cobra951]

My definition of art is: if I can do it, it's not art.

I never have understood abstract art.  I often see little more than colorful doodles.  I don't care how many experts tell me I'm wrong, I place no value on something a trained monkey could fake with enough time and materials.  Picasso spent much of his career somewhere between this and realism.  I confess my own lack of care disqualifies me from being fair to him or any other painter who chooses to distort forms to the point where I wonder if they could paint a realistic scene at all.  I know Picasso can do it at least.

This guy gets my admiration.  Without looking deeper into his work, this guy does not.  (That's typical of what I've seen from Miró.)

[Xessive]

I consider doodles art.

I know it's meant to belittle a task, but if a monkey does it I'm usually impressed C'mon, wouldn't be in shock'n'awe if you put a bunch of monkeys in a room with a typewriter and they came up with a coherent sentence? (let alone Shakespeare).

Haha Cobra you would hate Kandinsky

[Quemaqua]

I don't find the Miró picture displeasing.  It's actually somewhat interesting.  I'd put that heads and tails above, say, this, or this.  Unfortunately, all of Miró's stuff probaby looks exactly like that with only slight differences, and that's an immediate sign that he/she is a talentless idiot.  Anybody can draw the same shapes and designs over and over, and anybody can fling paint at a canvas.  I'd say Thomas Kinkade is a billion times more useful than either of the people that painted the two things I linked to (just a random image search, I know nothing about them -- this is snap judgment time), and while I can't say he's more talented because I have no idea if those people actually have talent outside those pieces of worthless crap they painted, if that's all they can do, in my opinion they aren't artists.

I don't mind weird, and I don't mind something well beyond the scope of realism, but don't try to tell me that completely arbitrary stuff has some great meaning to it.  It doesn't; unless you feel like making it up as you go along afterward.

EDIT - See, I don't mind Kandinsky.  Not at all to my taste, but at least I can see what he was trying to do at times, and the whole ends up looking interesting.  Highly, highly overrated, sure, but pretty much all that stuff is.  Picasso I tend to enjoy, though again, it's not something I would ever hang on my wall.  It's nothing I consider attractive, though it is interesting.  I feel much the same about van Gogh.

[gpw11]

Going back to the original topic, why the fuck would you break something down into two payments?  TWO?

[Xessive]

Going back to the original topic, why the fuck would you break something down into two payments?  TWO?

It works in some situations: "I'll give you half now and half after the job is done."

[Cool_Gamer1]

Kinkade definitely has skill, creativity perhaps not so much (dude just paints photographs).

Salvador Dali though IMO is the greatest painter of all time, had the skill of a fine arts painter and the imagination of abstract artists.

[Xessive]

Kinkade definitely has skill, creativity perhaps not so much (dude just paints photographs).

Salvador Dali though IMO is the greatest painter of all time, had the skill of a fine arts painter and the imagination of abstract artists.

I'm inclined to agree with you. Dali's art is very compelling.

[Cobra951]

There you go.  Great example of real art that can't come out of a camera.

[gpw11]

It works in some situations: "I'll give you half now and half after the job is done."

Yeah, but there's legitimately a reason for that.  It usually applies to lump sum services where the person doing the work has to use some of that money to actually provide the service.  The second part is held back to ensure that they do it and do it right.    I mean a layaway or deposit system also makes sense - you pay a small amount to ensure you get something and then you pay the rest off.  But a shitty nascar painting that costs less than a hundred bucks?

[W7RE]

I never understood abstract art. At the same time though, I have a distaste for stuff like Kinkaid does. Sure it shows off skill in painting, but it's not creative. It's boring. My grandmother can paint a scene fo a windmill or a cabin in the woods, because she's seen enough Bob Ross to learn some brush tenchiques. That doesn't make it worth thousands of dollars or more.


I guess I take the ignorant approach because it's easier and I just don't care enough. I like art, appreciate it and like to pay attention to the creative elements in a lot of things. If I had billions of dollars I wouldn't spend thousands on a picture for my wall. I'd buy some cheap posters or paint pattern on the wall on my own. I'm not sure any painting is worth thousands of dollars, and I'm not sure famous paintings from now dead artists should even belong in the hands of private parties. Not that I want laws dictating who can own a painting, but wouldn't it suck ass if no one could view a famous painting cuz some rich dick has it in his den?

[Xessive]

I think I'm the only artist I know who can appreciate a picture of a painting as much as the painting itself, if just for viewing pleasure. Of course if I have to assess a painting then having it actually in front of me is preferable. But if it comes to hanging an image of something I like I really don't care if it's the real deal or a copy. It's the image that matters to me not the material it's made of.

We had this discussion in a lot of my classes and when it comes to paintings we all agree that texture can make a difference in some paintings. However when it comes to photography, does it really matter at all? The only thing I thought counts was the resolution of the duplicate image.

This discussion is pretty much only relevant to 2-dimensional work. For sculpture or installation it's a whole different experience.