The man certainly understood and used light properly:
Posted on 08/29/2006 2:34:35 PM PDT by Cecily
All your looter guy are belong to us!
They lack art as well. Anyone who buys a print from a painting (for a lot of $$) and hangs it on a wall and thinks that it is "valuable art", is mistaken (and has been taken).
But would I ever begin to fathom a difference in quality? :D
I hear that. This thread in particular seems to be attracting all the smarties. I'm loving it!
In this case, I consider price and value two different things. A quick glance at eBay shows that these paintings don't hold their value very well on the open market.
No, but Michelangelo Buonarroti (his full name) was commissioned and paid to do almost everything he did in his professional career. Almost all of the famous pieces that we know from him were done for hire, not just for the sake of art.
No, the person who designs a logo for a can of green beans, or a pattern for wrapping paper, or a flower pattern for embroidery, is a designer. He will certainly have had art training but he is a designer. The person who actually draws the kitty for Hallmark is an illustrator. Here's the distinction: the artist has a unique view of the world and shows us something we haven't seen before. He is original.
The great artists have always been "painters of light" in that they showed light in unique and beautiful ways; look at Vermeer, using the minimal gray light of the Low Countries to make a subtle illumination of human character. Such artists open our understanding of the world and make us see things differently. The impressionists let us see sunlight differently than we'd seen it before. Flesh, human interactions and emotions, history, landscapes, the way light touches mundane objects, even animals are visualized in a new way when a real artist touches them. And each work in the artist's career advances the perspective and builds on its predecessors. It can be beautiful or address homely subjects but it is unique.
Kinkade, on the other hand, is primarily a businessman who has discovered a market niche. Nothing wrong with that, unless he exploits art gallery owners, which may or may not have taken place. He is an illustrator, not technically a very good one, who does the same thing over and over and over again.
The bottom line is, just because something appears on a canvas, it's not therefore art. It might be better termed illustration. That's not an unimportant distinction or a mere exercise in semantics.
>'Sweetness', for example, is just as genuine as angst and alienation, and just as universal. Would to God more artists were interested in evoking delight rather than anger and contempt.<
I believe you just crystalized the difference between those people who have studied art and the general public. Artists understand that a fellow craftsman meant to leave a person feeling unsettled when viewing a piece, but the average person sees the work, and feels the emotion, but doesn't understand the underlying purpose.
That's a photo? WOW!
The man certainly understood and used light properly:
""Try purchasing an original work of Kincade's and you might begin to fathom a difference in value.
But would I ever begin to fathom a difference in quality? :D""
Now you see the difference between objective and subjective evaluation. What YOU view as quality is subjective while the market sets the value objectively. A painting of quality by your standards might bring $5 in the objectivity of the market of public opinion.
One aspect of Rockwell's art that fascinates me is that it's almost always about people, and I don't recall a single person in a Kinkade painting.
(Okay, except Looter Guy.)
I swear I lived in an apartment building designed by Salvador Dali.
What someone likes and enjoys is entirely subjective, yes, that is true.
The level of skill of the artist is not, even if you think so.
All art is not equal.
Because a lot of people may enjoy something, or be taken in by it, does not make it good, it just means alot of folk like it.
Do you find that all music is equal as well? A lot of money has been made with very mediocre records, or perhaps you disagree.
lol. Well, maybe that might be a tad extreme. Perhaps if they indicated they were willing to assimilate, foreswear their attachments to their Kinkadian belief system and demonstrate allegiance to our demonstrably superior aesthetic, maybe they can stay? Some of my best friends are Kinkadians. They can't help it they were born on the other side of the cultural divide. ;-)
AGAs are really neat; you can roast without drying things out. They're good for the UK climate because they're always warm, which is nice in a country with chilly summers but kind of a drawback in the hell-hot summers of the US. And here they cost about $12000 to start with!
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.