I like me.
Posted on 08/29/2006 2:34:35 PM PDT by Cecily
The FBI is investigating allegations that self-styled "Painter of Light" Thomas Kinkade and some of his top executives fraudulently induced investors to open galleries and then ruined them financially, former dealers contacted by federal agents said.
Investigators are focusing on issues raised in civil litigation by at least six former Thomas Kinkade Signature Gallery owners, people who have been contacted by the FBI said.
ADVERTISEMENTThe ex-owners allege in arbitration claims that, among other things, the artist known for his dreamily luminous landscapes and street scenes used his Christian faith to persuade them to invest in the independently owned stores, which sell only Kinkade's work.
"They really knew how to bait the hook," said one former dealer who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the case. "They certainly used the Christian hook."
Kinkade has denied the allegations in the civil litigation.
Two former dealers told the Los Angeles Times that they had been asked to provide documentation of their business relationships with Kinkade's company. They said agents asked for copies of dealer agreements, retail sales policies, training materials from "Thomas Kinkade University" and correspondence, including e-mail.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Not a darn thing wrong with that though. That's a market. A niche. He used his talent to make a fortune while he was alive. Very lucky and very smart. He choose the commercial route and I can't see anything cynical about that. Now if he is cheating his franchises that's different but that' his business side..not the art itself.
You do an excellent job of distinguishing difference between elitists and real people.
There is great, timeless art, to be sure. But the majority of art is that which brings beauty, joy and meaning to our lives.
Much of my very favorite art was created by my children. And they are masterpieces. ; ).
Good grief. I meant, the man was without equal as a photographer. I was not equating him with God.
Methinks you are stretching just a bit.
Sigh. I miss Bob "happy little trees" Ross
LOL! I am a very amateur painter and I am fascinated by Bob Ross's painting technique. In fact, I enjoy all painting shows and sincerely find them interesting. That said, they truly are better than a sleeping pill. I rarely manage to stay awake until the end of the 30 minute show. Imagine how fast I would fall asleep if they bored me!
He died about 5 years ago. Some stations still carry his shows, though. His products are still sold in craft stores and some art supply stores.
No actually YOU did the better job! You said in one sentence what it took me three posts to say. And I can appreciate why you love your kid's art too.
I like me.
Yeah, and some snobby, FReeping art critic will tell you it isn't "art" either.
They were high, too. I agree. I checked out a local one. Ouch!
So true! It makes no sense to look down on decorative art or to say it is not really art. It is probably 90% of the art we see all the time, from patterns on clothing to wall paper to bed sheets to framed prints. Thomas K's art is commercial. And that's fine. It is very pretty. That's enough for most real people. I would rather look at it than that messed up gunk by Paul Klee.
That's okay, he is a liberal.
My only quibble with Kincaid is that I seriously doubt all of his "original" work is original. I wouldn't buy his work, but if someone else wants to, that's their business.
"Truthfully, art is not so subjective, except for "modern art," which is not what Kincaid does. Realism is very much a craft which has actual standards."
Depends on what era you are talking about - early art, before the Renaissance, were clumsy and lacked a little thing called "perspective", and their techniques and rendering were crude compared to later work - but compare to earlier eras, could be considered realistic. Is their "worth" less, because they don't hold to a "standard", which can and does change era to era?
The incredible draftmanship of the romantic period (Waterhouse, Tedema) is superior to anything I've ever seen, so does anything less have less merit?
You tread a slippery slope. What "standards" are you applying, and who decided them?
Granted, I'm not much of a fan of modern art myself, but your concept of art is hard to apply, over time. Art is ALWAYS subjective, because it's audience evolves and changes.
"IMO Kincaid has ability as a craftsman, but my feeling is that his stuff is not straightforward or honest. This seems to be born out by various news stories and anecdotes about him. "
I challenge his ability as a draftsman, I find little talent at all in his work. And yes, i am an artist who works in oil and acrylic, in the style of realism. His perspective is sloppy at best, his composition stilted and cliched, his sense of depth almost neligible, and his colors are a riot and unbalanced and annoying to the eye. He takes advantage of the fact that the eye cannot focus on that many bright colors at once, and it gets a "sparkle" effect that he calls "painting with light". His use of light, however, is the worst of the lot - it's overdone, has no semblence to realism, is badly done, and is overused to draw away from the utter lack of talent in all other areas.
His work, in my opinion, is not honest, in that we agree - he seeks to dazzle the eye away from his lack elsewhere.
"The word subjective does apply to taste, on the part of both the craftsman and the viewer."
Nonsense. Taste has everthing to do with the audiences subjectivity. How can you say that someone's point of view has nothing to do with their taste? If you were correct, Maplethorpe's "Piss Christ" would be held to worldwide acclaim, because no-one would bring their Christianity to the table when viewing it. I've never met anyone who could be completely objective when ciewing art - in fact, I would find that viewing art completely and utterly objectively to be a barren and sterile experience - it's our lives, and our viewpoint that makes us relate to a work of art.
Thats' why much of the nuance and meaning of Japanese art is lost on Westerners, because we do not have the upbringing and point of view as a Japanese to truly appreciate it.
That's also why i cannot truly appreciate much modern art - I cannot relate to it, as I don't immerse myself nor have I lived in the culture it speaks to. I have my opinion of it, and it's entirely subjective from my life as an artist and admirer of other schools of art, and a different background of politics, sexuality and ethics.
I don't like modern art. Some of it actually inspires hatred in me, for it's mocking of traditional values and the abandonment of the more dedicated side of art that values technique and study and knowledge. But I can't claim it's not art, simply because i don't like it.
And as an artist, I cannot be objective when I lift a pencil or paintbrush. Everytime I draw a line or paint a stroke, my entire life and background and training and point of view is expressed. To be disconnected from that is simply not possible - to say otherwise says to me you are not an artist, and don't understand the artistic process. It's not a criticism, but I dare say you should not say things like that if you have not toiled as an artist, and understand what happens everytime we pick up our tools and apply ourselves to the piece before us.
Yes! Cynically manipulative.
That is how I interpret them as well. Helen Steiner Rice vs. Robert Frost. However, I completely respect that others enjoy and find peace in them.
Yes. And they will be populated entirely with Precious Moments people and their pet beanie babies.
Well that's a very good quibble. But if you like it because the colors match your drapes, that quibble falls to the wayside. :O>
You're right...go talk to any CURVES franchise owner in America
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.