Posted on 04/06/2012 8:34:22 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
Thomas Kinkade, the "Painter of Light" and one of most popular artists in America, died suddenly Friday at his Los Gatos home. He was 54.
His family said in a statement that his death appeared to be from natural causes.
"Thom provided a wonderful life for his family,'' his wife, Nanette, said in a statement. "We are shocked and saddened by his death.''
His paintings are hanging in an estimated 1 of every 20 homes in the United States. Fans cite the warm, familiar feeling of his mass-produced works of art, while it has become fashionable for art critics to dismiss his pieces as tacky. In any event, his prints of idyllic cottages and bucolic garden gates helped establish a brand -- famed for their painted high lights -- not commonly seen in the art world.
"I'm a warrior for light," Kinkade told the Mercury News in 2002, alluding not just to his technical skill at creating light on canvas but to the medieval practice of using light to symbolize the divine. "With whatever talent and resources I have, I'm trying to bring light to penetrate the darkness many people feel."
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
WOW! Thanks for posting that. I (blush blush) hadn’t seen it before. It’s mindboggling. I’ve painted just enough to have an inkling of how hard such a subject would be. To not merely execute it so masterfully but also, as to you mentioned, to imbue it w the power to fire the imagination on every level—what a gift! Now I’m wondering how many more Van Goghs I’ve never seen. As time permits, I plan to explore that question further.
By the way, if that’s the craziest Kinkade got then he’s small-time crazy, believe me.
FRegards,
LH
I agree with you on Kinkade. Too many sources of light. My eyes skip all around when I look at his pictures. They’re too busy.
Note the paintings of Caravaggio. One strong, dramatic source of light. A true master of light.
Here is a link to an organization that supports beautiful, realistic art done by today's artists: The Art Renewal Center. This group awards tens of thousands of dollars in scholarships in prizes to art done in the classical tradition. Look at the pages on the Salon Competitions; it will take your breath away.
Parody ing Kincade is a cottage industry:
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=kincade+art+parodies&qpvt=kincade+art+parodies&FORM=IGRE#x0y117
Google has a better selection. The tenth pic down on the left-hand margin is the Duke’s of Hazard General Lee, jumping a Kincade trout stream. But my personal favorite is Cthulhu attacking the lighthouse. Good rendition of the monster, and well placed in the overall composition.
Do you have the gato ping list?
Cool stuff. Thanks!
That one speaks to me.
Your friend is spot on about actually viewing the orignal works. Back in the day I thought Gustav Klimt was an unparalleled genius, and that Egon Schiele was merely a creepy frustrated pornographer. These impressions were based on a LOT of serious study of bookbound reproductions.
I was very fortunate to view many of the originals one summer, and my ranking for these two artists reversed positions. Klimt’s work seemed tight, tentative and too controlled. Looking at the originals the work looked very academic and ‘safe’. Technically proficient, even brilliant, but . . . inert. I was -very- disappointed to see some of these things which had been favorites of mine - in reproduction.
Schiele on the other hand. Incredible. His work was spontaneous, visceral, and atavistic. In all of his works, the sense of the person was there, in an almost confrontational way. Certainly many here would reject a great many of his works based on subject matter, but his work captured power and subtleties in a way that I have only seen one of the Old Masters meet and in that case surpass.
First of all I will say that I’m sorry to hear of his passing at age 54, only 3 years older than me and that’s way too young IMO. I’m sorry for his family.
I think the man had some talent especially in his younger years and as an illustrator, but I wouldn’t consider him a great artist. Like someone else said, his paintings were “decorative”; nice if you like it but not fine art. Someone also mentioned “greeting card art” and that pretty much sums up Kincaid for me. There are many commercial artists toiling away producing similar and just as good if not better pictures and not making much money doing so. His work was very repetitive and after a time mass produced factory style by others with his name merely stamped on them and being sold for some rather outrageous prices to rather gullible folks that thought they were buying “Art” that would appreciate in value. My brother and SIL are among those.
What Kincaid was especially good at was marketing and self promotion and the art of franchising his “brand” even if it meant screwing over his franchisees.
On a more personal note, I actually had the distinct displeasure of speaking to the man on the phone a few times back in the mid ‘90’s when I worked as an office manager for a professional firm that had Kincaid as one of its many wealthy clients. The few brief times I spoke with him, he was rude, arrogant and quite nasty. One time he called to speak with one of the senior partners and was outraged when I very politely told him that the partner was currently in a meeting and offered to take a message and have him return the call just as soon as he was available. Kincaid cursed at me and wouldn’t take no for an answer and actually said something to the effect of “I’m too busy and important to wait around for a return phone call.” followed by “Don’t you know who I am?” I had actually been warned by some of my co-workers when I started the job about his verbal abusiveness and nastiness to the office staff.
I wasn’t a big fan of his work before then but after those experiences, I never looked at his paintings in quite the same way.
“He wanted to make people happy.” "With whatever talent and resources I have, I'm trying to bring light to penetrate the darkness many people feel."
He didn’t exactly practice what he preached IMO at least from my personal experience. He didn't impress me as a happy person. I hope he mellowed out before he died.
I actually have a preference for this kind of calender art.
The works of Paul Detlefsen.
http://www.hoofprints.com/pauldetlefsen.html
No humidity. No bugs. No worries.
The other calender artist I like is Gil Elvgrin. WOW!
By “Modern art” I mean artists like Andy Warhol, Jackson Pollack and others from some decades ago, and whatever names are doing similar or worse stuff now; such as the painting of (supposedly) the Madonna with used tampons and elephant crap on it. Or the expensive public “sculptures” that are nothing but welded together pieces of metal that any half blind welder could put together.
I don’t mean just any art that happens to be created in the present. No doubt there is plenty of good art being created now, but it doesn’t get press because it’s not disgusting or offensives.
That was a Freeper classic. A Top Ten post of all time.
Re: Schiele, let me ask you something. Is it possible for an artist to be both exceptionally gifted AND a pornographer? I.e.: does one necessarily exclude the other? Or can an artist—even an extraordinarily powerful, talented and creative artist—produce pornography?
I know so much less about art than about writing, it's not funny. Perhaps this comparison completely misses the mark. Since it's the only one I know, I'll share it and see what you think.
Namely, when it comes to writing, no amount of talent is proof against turning one’s hand to smut. A truly great, gifted writer could/probably would write brilliantly conceived and executed smut, but it would still be smut. You could read and admire it—even be staggered by the potency and creativity of the prose from a literary standpoint--but you would still know the subject matter itself was lewd and smutty.
If that makes sense?
Me too, I just love the colors and they way it seemed he was inviting you to a wonderful home.
God Bless his soul and keep his family.
Which one is Frida, the little black monkey or the green parrot?
“Re: Schiele, let me ask you something. Is it possible for an artist to be both exceptionally gifted AND a pornographer? I.e.: does one necessarily exclude the other? Or can an artist—even an extraordinarily powerful, talented and creative artist—produce pornography?”
Short answer is: yes indeed, depending on your definition of porn. I will use ‘imagery intended to arouse erotic desire and to effect seduction’ as the definition. Under that definition, in your own area of the arts, Anais Nin comes to mind. In the studio arts Klimt and Schiele come close. Schiele is actually farther away from it, even though his images are more often more graphic and more overtly sexual. What makes them less ‘pornographic’ is the immediate sense of a real person there, as opposed to meat candy. Western art does not have as much express imagery as some cultures due to Judeo-Christian influences, however there is a LOT of sublimated or allusive ‘code’ imagery or treatment, which I think is valid and acceptable.
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.