Painter Said to Be Focus of FBI Probe (Thomas Kinkade)

Los Angeles Times ^ | August 29, 2006 | Kim Christiensen

[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.

[Rembrandt_fan]

You wrote, "BTW, I can also understand how you would be concerned about the effect of something like this on business."

I should clarify: I'm an artist, a painter. Most of my living is made from my work. Guys like Kincaid sour people on art as an investment. That hurts me directly. That's what I meant when I wrote about business. I wasn't talking about the business climate in general; I was talking about my business.

I don't think Kincaid's hypocrisy will reflect badly upon Christianity or--for that matter--make any impact on the Church whatsoever. All swindlers have an angle, and faking his faith happened to be Kincaid's.

[pollyannaish]

I don't think it is either unfair or elitist to objectively compare two different art objects and conclude that one has lasting merit and one is kitschy crap, or to draw conclusions about the taste of the person who prefers the kitsch. There is, for example, a vast qualitative distinction between, say, a Cezanne landscape and anything by Kincaid.

Remove the word crap from that paragraph and the phrase about conclusions about taste and I agree with you completely.

We don't give our kids the basis upon which to make sound aesthetic judgments.

This may also be true, although I stick to my elitist argument. Who is the arbiter of aesthetics? There are an enormous amount of personal and cultural extenuating circumstances, although there are certainly some basic standards.

I will use myself as an example. I LOVE kitschy television. Sitcoms, soap operas, vapid detective shows. They make me laugh, I don't have to think...and they bring joy into my life. I even designate them kitschy crap.

But I will tell you this...I would rather spend two hours watching that kind of thing, than to sit through the excruciatingReds again or be entirely bored out of my skull watching, say, Annie Hall. Or be forced to consume the artistic, but morally bereft American Beauty.

Now, I can most certainly tell you why, artistically, those films are a cut above. My education has given me the opportunity to analyze exactly why they are fantastic. They were critically acclaimed. I can appreciate them for the amazing "Art" that they are...but they bring me absolutely no joy. I can play the game. I know what "taste" is. Instead, for my life I choose joy and fun. Perhaps I'm simply lazy. Or perhaps I don't want to waste my life surrounding myself with things that speak to my impeccable taste, rather than my joyful soul.

On the other hand, The Bob Newhart Show, The Dick Van Dyke Show, General Hospital, Monk, Magnum PI, Simon and Simon all make me happy and give me the opportunity to laugh and enjoy life. So, like Kinkade appreciators, I surround myself with "kitschy crap."

While I understand what you are trying to get at, I don't think you quite understand just how elitist your thinking is. If an owner of a Kinkade painting LOVES it no matter the cost...he has not been ripped off. However, if an owner of a Rembrandt hated it...he exchanged part of his life only to prove his credentials and he has been ripped off.

BTW, I love Rembrandt and admire and respect him, although I have much kitschier (sans Kinkade) stuff in my own home. I can't afford the taste that a painting of his would require in my decorating scheme. LOL.

[Rembrandt_fan]

If there is no measure of objective beauty, then it would be pointless to attempt to make something beautiful since--after all--it's all good, right?

But there is a measure, based upon fact, observation, and experimentation. There is, for example, the golden section, that most pleasing of rectangles, which happens to share the same proportionate ratio (1:1.618) as the chambers of a seashell or the petals of a flower or the whorls of the human earlobe. Another example: the human eye (and mind) perceives differently colored pigments differently as a matter of human physiology. The pigment red, for example, when it is of a certain size, makes the human heart beat faster, and comes forward visually when viewed against adjacent, cooler colors such as blue or (its complement) green. Jagged lines at hard angles and smooth, flowing lines of varying width evoke different emotional states and associations in the viewer. Knowing these things (among others) can enable a skillful artist to evoke a wide range of sensation. I cried once, viewing a Rothko painting, and I rarely ever cry--not since childhood, and never before in a public place.

So before you tell me that all art is qualitatively the same, a wholly subjective affair, read Ruskin, Kandinsky, Geothe, Chevreul, Albers, Birren, Rothko, and others. I am wholeheartedly sick of that whole 'eye of the beholder' line of thought, which automatically makes Grandma's paint-by-numbers hobby project the equal of serious, thoughtful work by artists who sometimes killed themselves striving after an aesthetic ideal.

There's nothing elitist about knowing the difference between good and bad art.

[Al Simmons]

You know, I won't go through all the details of our sour little experience with Kincade's little ponzi scam (after all, we just massively overpaid for a few nice but basically worthless prints, which OBTW were sold via massive misrepresentation as to their future value by his galeries);

all I will say is: "If it true, it couldn't have happened to a nicer fellow!"

Kincade basically figured out a legal way to "print money" by charging hundreds of dollars for worthless prints of his hackwork. But it looks like he might have gotten a bit too greedy.

This man is the QUINTESSENTIAL example of a "Born Again FAKER!". One of his prints (circa 1994) came with a videotape where he showed his style, and talked about God and how he was using his art to promote His Kingdom - and then in the next scene he briefly displayed about a half dozen classic cars from his "collection" hobby.

On top of that he is apparently also a foul-mouthed drunk according to newsreports from about a year ago.

He is just a fat, disgusting, low-talent, good-for-nothing, fake Christian flim-flam artist (ah, there is a "talent" that he was really good at - for a while anyhow).

And that's my opinion, and if you don't like it, I feel sorry for you because it means that he's still got the wool pulled over your eyes.

[NoCurrentFreeperByThatName]

This is Art.

You obviously have great style and taste!

[giobruno]

So how did he induce people into believing he had any talent as a painter. Pure kitch.

[good old days]

LOL!!!

[Al Simmons]

See my post #184. Succinctly says all there is to say about this topic.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

That would mean that because some folks consider Bible salesmen to overprice their products, that they could be imprisoned. Hi Sam, long time no see.

[1066AD]

An AGA is perfect for the UK. They're also great to cook with once you get the hang of it. It's not a case of "still using" because it's all you can afford either, they're expensive.

[Lancey Howard]

BUMP

[Inyo-Mono]

I am an artist and I can tell you that that amateurish painting would get a D- in most art schools. Looks like a background for a Disney cartoon.

[Attention Surplus Disorder]

Magnificent!

[Al Simmons]

"I am an artist and I can tell you that that amateurish painting would get a D- in most art schools. Looks like a background for a Disney cartoon."

PLEASE! Walt employed some of the greatest cartoonists of all time, and the backgrounds of Disney's classic cartoons are moving works of art!

How dare you insinuate such slanderous comparisons against those Disney greats?? ;>)

[river rat]

I've visited the Kinkade Gallery in Capitola, CA a few times while at the beach....

The Gallery features Kinkade ONLY..
It's a dark room with special lights focused on each of the pieces..

The effect is beautiful - but more fantasy than lifelike or believable.. Often there are conflicting aspects in the painting -- put there for effect, but rendering the picture more cartoon that art.

However, some are positively beautiful - but overpriced.

Semper Fi

[Sam Cree]

Hi LCS, how are you? Great to see you again! I'm getting into all kinds of trouble on this thread.

We completely got away with it on Ernesto, I trust that you will too.

[Inyo-Mono]

How dare you insinuate such slanderous comparisons against those Disney greats?? ;>)

Lol. I didn't mean to slander the great Disney artists, it's just that they never pretended that their cartoon backgrounds were anything but, well, cartoon backgrounds (which I admire greatly). :>

[It's me]

Kinkade paints all the same picture.

[It's me]

Excellent points.

[CaliGirlGodHelpMe]

"...a little high on the snob-appeal..."

SNOB APPEAL?!? Good grief, how on earth could anyone feel snobbish about those trite, banal, cornball, uninspired, cloying, laughable pieces of "art"?

I feel bad that the investors lost money, but if they had made good, would they give any credit to the Christian aspect? No, but apparently Christianity gets the blame when things go wrong.