Why Did Kinkade Suck?

Actually he was more loved than hated by the people that mattered, not his fellow artists.

Art is problem solving. He hid the problems in fake glowing light. It was not much of anything. He certainly did not suck. But you have to wonder if most of the critics sucked.

Dave

I view him as the equivalent of a romance novelist. Talented but insignificant in his contribution to art in general, Kind of dripping with sentiment. Just for the record my family does not own a print by him.

I think if any POD artist here had even a fraction of his print sales he did they'd be giddy beyond belief.

Sales are not art, don't confuse the two.

he was hated because he was a sell out. instead of starving in a gallery, he stuck it on plates and all the other stuff - we currently sell it on. and that's pretty much the only reasons i can think of.


---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

Kinkade did more than one kind of art.

He did what I (and probably lots of artists in the same position) would do. When he hit on a style of art that sold, that he liked making, he made a lot of it.

He did make other kinds of art that didn't sell nearly as well. Predictably, there is less of that around.

Is that the point... are we (am I?) supposed to be making a contribution to the art world? I just make stuff that I like making. At some point, maybe I'll do something that pushes the art world forward, but right now, that seems pretty unlikely. If you're an artist, how do you even know if something you paint is breaking the sound barrier in art? I don't think you can do that on purpose, I think one day you turn around and you find out that by accident you entered a new art territory where you explored something that people think is amazing and new.

Some people just want good home decor, they don't need deep artistic messages in what they hang on their wall. Not everyone is trying to set up a high end art gallery in their home. Clearly his stuff resonated with a mass amount of people. Obviously the poor critical reception had nothing to do with the sales potential of his work. Whether other artists considered his work art or not didn't matter since obviously a LOT of people did.

And I agree that most people selling here would be elated to have even a fraction of his sales.

I like Kinkade's earlier work, before he got into the glowing window scenes. But I get the appeal. I agree with Ronald -- it became the equivalent of romance novels. He wasn't even painting his originals there in the end -- he hired others to do it. I knew someone whose daughter was employed doing painting touch-ups assembly-line fashion. Don't know that much about it otherwise. He painted my neighborhood, and it was in a auction sometime a very long time ago. I've looked for that ever since, but I cannot recall the name of the painting. Oh well, not that I'd want it.

David L., one word, Envy.

I adore Kinkade's work but did he do it all? Did his students not do some of it? I would think it was jealousy.

Art is funny. Andy Warhol was celebrated, Kincade was not, Van Gogh sold what, 2 paintings. A popular Music artist is still acclaimed most times. The caves in France have the most heralded artists. The greats are dead as their paintings go for 110 million, wild. I did enjoy the movie Big Eyes. So my ramblings aside. It is what it is.

A question to ask was if you could switch places with Kincade would you? We are pretending he is not dead or a depressed alcholholic. My answer is no, I would be embarrassed to paint like that. Would I like his money? Yes, but not at that cost.

Some of the Dutch masters, and other artists whom art historians typically herald as "great artists" had apprentices and essentially art production staff who did a lot of the painting for them. Their work isn't considered commercial schlock, and they still get credited as the artists. I'm not sure why Kinkade should be held to a different standard.

It's the art itself, the final product, that's a masterpiece or not.

How well it sold or whether other fingers made some of the brushstrokes doesn't seem to be relevant.

If everyone sucked like that:

Thomas Kinkade net worth:
$70 Million.



LOL.

Money blinds people.

At what cost is right, Ronald, but he probably didn't start out that way. It probably snuck up on him. You know how things snowball, like once you start making money and you get used to a higher lifestyle, and what you have to do to maintain it. There is a member here who is more familiar with Kinkade and his work, and hopefully he will chime in.

If I could switch places with Kinkade?

I have to think about that.

If I could make lots and lots of art that I like making, and it could net me millions of dollars... but the price is most serious artists think I'm a total hack.

I might change places. He seemed happy with his lot in life. I'm ok with settling for being happy with one's lot in life, and nevermind what the critics think. And his art makes a very large number of other people happy, so what's wrong with that?

Honestly Cheryl I don't think he was that happy. The Kincade topic has been booted around a few times before. I don't feel there is a thing about his art worth looking at, now as far as his marketing skills are concerned that is an entirely different story!

Beauty has always been in the eyes of the beholder. And how can millions of people liking him be wrong?! We have to ask ourselves why do ordinary, everyday people like him. What void does it fill?? To me, personally, it's not my style. But, it reminds me of the fairy tales, butterflies, and unicorns many love. U must agree that Kinkade is better than those. However, his art puts u in the same mood - mystical, magical, lovely little secure home where everything is good and one feels safe. This is his magic. And one only needs to listen to the daily news to see why people turn to him for comfort. What an amazing feeling to tap into this.

As for the art and sales not being the same..... LOL. Tell that to the starving Van Gogh, Picasso, or Dali of this world.

Ronald,

If he wasn't all that happy, then I wouldn't want to trade places.

I would only want to trade places if doing so would make me happier than I am now.

And yes, Kinkade is not a new topic - I find his work a little more worthy than you do, but we both know that, so that's not a new discussion either. We can agree to disagree.

I hate Tom Brady! He has it all. Model wife and tons of Super Bowl trophies. What's not to hate? Kinkaid was the Budweiser of Fine Art!

Maria...like a Hallmark Greeting card....not realistic, but everyone strives for it.

I have thought about Kinkade on all levels (and it has much to do with my own experience in being an artist where I went for "the stars" when I got out of college, only to sell out -- to be a greeting card artist because I didn't want to make money at anything other than art).

I wrote about Kinkade for my blog: http://lisewinne.blogspot.com/2012/04/rethinking-thomas-kincade.html

excerpt from the blog post:

"... My change in attitude came at a time when I began to feel a repulsion towards the art establishment for always going for the shock value of subject matter above everything else. I also hated the disgusting food art being displayed in musuem shows which seemed no more valuable in terms of longevity, innovation and skill than kitsch. Indeed, food installation art seemed to be on the same level as kitsch in that it appealed to the art establishment's lowest common denominator (and just continued a tradition that Duchamp had started a century earlier with the urinal on the wall -- indeed it seemed as conformist to me as the days of the Academie des Beaux-Arts). It seemed to me no different than Kinkade appealing to people who had little appreciation for life outside of their own worlds of gummy bears, Smerfs, big T.V.s and suburbia ..."

Surprised nobody is talking about this:

Basquiat Painting Sells for $110 Million, Becoming the Most Expensive Work by an American Artist

http://fortune.com/2017/05/19/basquiat-painting-auction-record-maezawa/

Basquait was pampered by the art establishment. Yes, he had talent, but there were a lot of artists at the time who painted in a similar style. I believe they chose him because he was young, had "rock star looks and appeal", and they thought he would live a long time and that they'd milk the paintings out of him for their galleries. He did not live a long time, thus the $110 million dollar price tag: there are only so many Basquait paintings out there.

And as a teacher... wouldn't one think that you would spell Kinkade's name correctly Ronald?

Also, wouldn't this be the place where you would step up with the persuasions that convince us of your opinions from an educational perspective instead of removing yourself from the discourse? This is what I would refer to as a groove down the middle for a fastball power hitter Ronald.

What in the foundation of Kinkade's art world is it that educators and art experts really hate?

I think Ronald has a right to his opinion and wrong spelling...he doesn't like the art and he doesn't have to like it.

I feel better sometimes just knowing I have a right for jiminey cricket's sake.

I wouldn't steer my students in that direction either...it would be a monumental failure unless they just happen to be really talented at architecture.

Marlene, thank you. I'm really enjoying the link. I'm studying those lines and interesting painterly ways of Thomas Kinkade.

Actually, I think Ronald has a point. In school, you learn about Rembrandt. You learn about da Vinci. You learn about Renoir. You learn about Monet. You learn about Manet. You learn about Van Gogh. You learn about Picasso. You learn about Pollock. You learn about Warhol. You learn about Dali.

As much as someone can espouse the virtues of Kinkade, in no way does he belong on the list. I'm sorry. He doesn't.

The common definition of creating art is to have a massive skill set that creates a beautiful image.

There is nothing more to it for many people.

If you can not draw, paint or sculpt what have you done at all?

For many people Kinkade was one of the best no nonsense artists of the last 100 years.

He had a great mind for technique after watching Glenn's video, thanks Glenn. I was incredibly impressed.

He left no statements, no experiments, nothing avant garde, nothing minimalist, no black and whites that I know of........he left pretty pictures.

To each their own, Ron we both are lucky he never even attempted to compete with either of us. More room at the bottom....LOL

Dave

This may be a bit uneducated of me, but I was thinking that perhaps Kinkade realized he didn't have what it took to progress further and went down another path, which then snowballed into success for him. Did he ever paint again in his early style? Those are the ones I like. I agree with Ronald, if I catch his drift, in the sense that he ended up not using his remarkable talent to build upon. I'm not a painter, though, so just a theory.

Doesn't mean he sucked, at all. Just appealed to a different audience.

His audience sort of sucks.

I should explain. All the people at my job And family who love Kinkade, sort of are the type of people that like trophy art.

I'm sorry, but no matter how many successful people try to con me into copying trophy art, I just can't do it. It's like drudgery to me, to paint what I don't want to paint in order to please the crowds and apply a high price tag...gag.

I've always done my art for the pleasure of working out problems in my brain.

Did anyone suggest that Kinkade should be taught in class? The question revolved around why he was "barred from class" and what educator's teach their students. Perhaps why it is an important question to answer also.

As for spelling his name correctly, this is not the first dance about Kinkade. Ronald and I have discoursed at length about this in the past. The spelling of his name being part of that discussion at that time. If I spelled your name Liza you might want to correct the record.

The speculation that Kinkade didn't have what it took to go further is stretching it out. He released Plein Air work as part of his effort to have folks realize that he was not one dimensional. His earlier work proved his ability to conquer Thomas Moran and Albrecht Bierstadt like art. ( Hudson River School) But it doesn't reach masses. Plein air doesn't sell! It doesn't put food on the table. So he developed a more romanticized world that people could escape to after a tough day on the job.

The idea that Kinkade was striving to be acceptable to the "experts" goes against his philosophy. He painted art so that Joe public would be able to afford it in his home. He painted it so that the middle class Joe would be happy to display it in his/her home and that it would warm the household and produce a sentimental value for it.

Tidbit: Lots of folks don't realize that he hid figures and impressions in his art also. Many of his Christmas works have hidden St. Nicholas faces in the trees. This image has hidden dolphins all over it: https://thomaskinkade.com/art/a-new-day-dawning/ He did this and didn't tell anyone about until years afterwards. Can you find them?

Lisa says,

"His audience sort of sucks"
Kinda harsh, but getting warmer to the reality of why many do not like Thomas Kinkade.

"I try to create paintings that are a window for the imagination. If people look at my work and are reminded of the way things once were, or perhaps, the way they could be, then I've done my job." ~ Thomas Kinkade

Ron,

I think Kinkade was heavy on technique, but low on theory. Maybe poor schooling? Maybe he was so good at technique it would have bothered him to go in another direction....no focus to think through different art concepts.

I do not think it was all money. He had money, it barely changed his direction or freed up his direction at all. He had a major technique the warm glow of light. Nothing much more than that.

I have not seen much of his work never mind his early work, but the warm glow is part of truly being a one trick pony.

Dave

"His audience sort of sucks."

Even with your 'explanation' that's a slap in the face to people who ARE his audience.

I groan every time someone's love of this amazing artist asks me if I can do this kind of painting. Then I have to endure their proud ownership of one...stories and pictures. The whole time I'm polite because that is the appropriate response.


Not everyone who loves to paint wants to copy Thomas Kinkade.

The Kinkade fans sort of want to share what they own and I am forced to listen to them and oo and awe over their lovely painting and taste in colors ..but Kinkade is awesome in every way. I understand their love for his art.

Lisa,
Here's a suggestion to help you through what you described....
Keep in mind that you would love to have a collector gushing over your work in the same fashion!

True and I think Kinkade is fabulous and I have an entire family that loves and hangs his work. His Christmas work is adorable for all of the women on both sides of my family.

They also love another artist that paints little children...Norman Rockwell.

I'm always being asked to copy this stuff.


I just shake my head, my work is not like that.

Lisa,

You need to join my family.

My family members have totally forgotten Kinkade ever lived. If you brought up his name, I think my parents would kick you out of their home. The two of them are not snobs, but there are limits. LOL

Dave

I want to change my name to Liza, Glen...thank you for planting that seed.

And David I would love to join your family, thanks. LOL

Brinburg, did you just propose? Lisa, did you just accept?

Champagne!!


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Dan,

I am sure you are buying. LOL

I stopped drinking 24 years ago. I am your cheapest date.

Dave

I think that his work was nice. Not my choice of decor but I know a few people who love his work and that is alright. I admire anyone who makes it and made it he did!

Liza Bridburg...hahaha

I admire Kinkade as well, but I admire so many artists...all of them seem to be very interesting even the ones who never succeed and give up due to no sales.

I belong to a local art group and one day they were bashing and exploiting abstract art and decorative art and I was like "what's up with these people!"

Artistic business can get competitive.

Why the heck would anybody expend a lot of bile disliking Kinkade, or any other artist for that matter. Ultimately, it's all just a matter of taste and personal preference. Nobody, and I do mean NOBODY, in spite of conservatory degrees or other qualifications, can establish even a smidgeon of an objective criterion for what constitutes good art, especially in the era where we left realistic portrayals behind and decided that almost anything goes in the world of art. As I was once told during my very short career as a painter, "opinions are like a**holes...everybody has one and they all stink".

I don't even claim to like Kinkade's images very much myself, but anybody who could sell that much to that many people must have gotten something right. Nobody has to buy a Kinkade; they do it because they like it and are willing to pay to have it on their walls so they see it every day. That's more than you can say for an awful lot of contemporary art.

I have been reading along on this conversation and giving it some thought. Of course tastes are different the world over. Don't bother me with anything except chocolate ice cream, for example.

But Glenn McCarthy hit on the angle that I've been considering: "... he developed a more romanticized world that people could escape to after a tough day on the job." And here's the thing.

Life IS tough. I envy the youngsters here who don't know that yet, but ... I know different. This person's husband has cancer, that one's kid just went in for heart surgery. That lady's dog just died ... and that one's mother died a horrible death. Somebody else's house just burned down. Your sister's teenager is into drugs, big time. Your boss is an ... youknowhat ... and you can't quit your job, you're already behind on the mortgage.

Get the idea?

When life sucks, you've got a choice to make. You can either dig in and wallow in it ... just rub your misery all over yourself ... or you can gut your way through it. And gutting through it means you get to do pretty much whatever it takes. If you want pictures of headless horses on your walls, that's your choice. Go for it. But if you want to escape for a while to get through the worst part and find an island of calm and peace ... and a world in which your husband doesn't have cancer and your dog is still alive ... you get to do that instead. The stuff in the media reminds you every day of horror and sadness and pain ... what's wrong with glancing up over the fireplace and imagining a world where somebody left the lights on for you after a long, hard day?

I don't have any of his images but I like Kincade. However you spell his name.

Lois,

All of that can sell the art. Kinkade himself touched all of that. It is basically part of his pitch. It worked for him.

Wont fly all that well for anyone else. It does not have to.

Dave

Lois,
You'd rather forget your troubles by looking at a pretty painting instead of following the Kardashian family????

I think if Kinkade had at some point just said, "enough" and stopped doing what sold, turned to what inspired or excited and challenged him, I would not have a feeling of disappointment at skills used only to make a buck. Yes, he pleased many people but in the end I don't think it was enough for him. It may have destroyed him.

Marleeeeeene!!!!! If I ever, ever watch those people on tv, you have my permission to pull the plug.

On the tv ... and maybe even on me!!!!!!

GAK!!!

Has this one run its course? Is it time to shut down this discussion?

Shut'er down, Orville. She's sucking mud!