Kinkade is the Wal-Mart of the art world....and I love it! When I need a bowel movement, Kinkade works everytime. I mean no disrespect, but his art truely "moves" me.

Rockin - You have more than a bowel movement problem, you have diareah of the mouth....but to say that I'm giving diareah a bad name, rockin doesn't have as much class as that.

IRman- Really? If you're on the thorn, doing your business, would you rather be viewing a Kincade? or a Picaso painting?

I'll take a Kincade everytime and I mean NO disrespect to Mr. Kincade. He is very talented...and very business savy!!!!!!!!

Sitting on thorns to do you business? Do you practice self flagellation?

rockinwithdokken - First of all Picasso has two s's. Second I do not care for Picasso, but everyone has their own opinions on what they classify as "good" art. I prefer realism to pretty much anything else, but unlike you and other snobs I wouldn't denigrate any artist that has the talent to do what I cannot. If it makes you seem superior to denigrate a man's lifelong work that thousands maybe millions of people enjoy, you have that right but it makes you seem like a small person.

George Lynch was/is an under-rated guitarist. Don Dokken, nice vocals back in the day. I do agree with you however. As a professional photographer with over 20 years shooting under my belt, Kinkades art is mass-produced these days. He is like Wyland or Christian Reese Larsen. Everywhere.

When you use religion as a tool to pedal your wares, you will alienate a lot more people than you'll win.

Oh well, when my mom goes, I get her originals of Kinkade and one of them has a hand drawn piece on the back of it when she met him a few years back.. Can you say Cha-Ching?? Hittin the auction block, after she hits the slab! lol

actually, rockin hit the nail on the head, not a single work done by Thomas Kinkade has hung in any renowned art gallery in the western world. he is seen as a joke, a hack and a con-artist more than an artist within the realm of artist and art collectors. Not to say he didn't have talent, but to mass market yourself like he did and sale to a low brow audience as he did, he gained very little respect. If you want to insult an artist walk into a gallery and compare their work to kinkade's, just make sure they don't have a knife or gun near by, as they will use it. I'd hang a Bob Ross painting in my home before i'd ever hang anything by kinkade. Ross loved to paint, kinkade just loved money.

WOW !! Another early checkout, at age 54... RIP Mr. Kinkade.

Mr. Kinkade was a talented artist, and he cleverly marketed his work. Years ago, I examined a few of his paintings up close, in a Carmel gallery; and I can tell you that he definitely did have a knack for "putting light" into a painting.

Some people are very jealous of his talent and success. However, I do believe that in his chase for the cash, he did veer off course just a tad. However, he definitely did make hay while the sun was shining. He did it the old fashioned way - he worked hard and did it himself.

Hey 420 Frees the Mind - Since you have no respect for your mother, why not see what you can do to get her on the slab ASAP. The Kincade market will be hottest right now and you can make the most money off of her! Ka-Ching!

IRMan, glad I wasn't the only one who found that beyond bad taste from frees the mind. I lost my mother several years ago, I still miss her. Sorry for Mr. Kinkaid's wife and daughters, he definitely died too young.

Thomas Kinkade was without doubt a very talented painter. He was a bit too commercial for my liking and it took away some of the appeal and cheapened his work.

Sheesh people, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I'm not crazy about kincade's work, but I certainly hold no grudges, or think less of people, who enjoy it. Who was it that said "I don't know art, but I know what I like"? That basically puts art in a nutshell.

I'd hang a Bob Ross painting in my home before i'd ever hang anything by kinkade.

I'd like to know how much Ross's are going for, especially if it's one from one of his episodes. I loved watching his shows, as he was the Mr. Rogers for the adult world, and I remember this: "Happy trees! Let's put some over here, and if you make a mistake, you can make it look like it's what you planned to do, or you can change it into something better. Let's put some pretty flowers over here, plant your garden with cheerful colors." Almost every episode.

SPARKLYSTAR,.you have said it so right ,WHY people reinforced their taste on somebody else by criticism ,

all artist are good artist for someone ,I'm in love with Thomas Kincaid's paintings ,I do not give a penny on Picasso no matter how precious you might have consider it...That is me ...I do not expect that from you to fell the same way, people that have so much hate ,even after people's passing ,I wonder how your family's would fell ,after your passing hearing such words about you......Get a life people ...... HATERS.

It does no good to complain he didn't do anything more than provide a kind of visual musak. After all, elevators need music, too.

RIP Thomas Kinkade! Your work was breathtaking and inspiring. I send out heartfelt condolences to The Kinkade Family

RIP Mr.Kincade.....I own a small picture frame shop and just had a customer bring in a very large Kincade for framing yesterday...she actually had 5....She obviously LOVES his work....I ,however, was/am not a fan because to me...they all look the same, just variations on a theme...HOWEVER...I can appreciate his talent and his business prowess. Art is an objective concept....one mans' Treasure is another mans' trash , so to speak. Why can we not appreciate one anothers' talents and success instead of letting the "little green monster" rear its' ugly head and denegrate someone becuase they have achieved something we have not or can not. If we all liked the same things or were all "blessed" with the same attributes and attitudes...WHO would we want to BE??????...Think about it and CELEBRATE DIVERSITY in ALL its forms. Sorry for taking so much space, but some peoples' attitudes really frost me!!!! My condolences to the Kincade family for this sudden loss. I am cetrtain that their faith will see them through this diffucult time. Mr. Kinkade will "live on" for many years because of his talent and the products created with it. RIP Thomas Kincade.

He died of natural causes at 54?

This age seems somewhat young, I wonder...

I have met Mr. Kincade personally and I really really hate how MSN always seems act the an Orwellian force by changing one lettler in a persons last name to make them sound um, I thin mthe term is 'gangsta'? Mr Kincade prefeerred to be referred by the name he was born with and that IS with a 'c' in his last name NOT A FRICKEN K...Whats wrong wid u guys??..LOLOL..

Not sure what Dave 1582577 is talking about. I checked my pieces and they are all signed KINKADE.

I think Mr. Kincade's (Kinkade as we have learned it through all media about him), has, and always will be, inspirational and beautiful. And it's because of this, that his work was "mass produced". If people didn't want it, it would never have sold that way.
Not everyone can afford a Picasso (which I wouldn't care for anyway...just sayin'), but they had a chance to enjoy a walk with nature through Mr. Kinkade's heart. I think and feel he was a wonderful artist. Others' opinions will not change mine.

Rip Mr. Kinkade (Kincade). You and your new work will be missed.
Condolences to his wife and family. Your loss was all too soon.

When you have to take a course in "art interpretation" that's not saying much about the talent of an artist. If the artist can't paint something that is easily recognized for what it is then it simply becomes blobs of color on canvas. The so called art critics do not have an ounce of talent themselves therefore it's just an opportunity to walk around with their glass of wine and their rich friends inflating their ego's because they have nothing that will leave a mark on the world that lets them know they were here. I don't think anyone on this site has the right to judge the man for using his talent to make money. Actor's, Poet's and Writer's fall under the same category. Talent is the means to make money, some have it, some don't. I can't see how anyone can view his paintings and not be moved by the mood they project. He didn't claim to be a great artist, the "art critics" are the ones that fell all over themselves to proclaim him as a great artist of our time. Now those same "art critics" are trying to ruin his reputation because he used them and his talent to make millions. I would love to be like Picasso, paint a few colored circles and sell it for a couple million. I've seen some of picasso's early work and it's beautiful. Towards the end of his life when he started painting those ridiculous "cubes" I think he was secretly showing the world how foolish art critics are and laughing his ass off by the way they were so easily swayed by a famous name. I applaud and admire Mr. Kincade for using his God given talent to make money for himself and his family.

Thomas Kinkade was the quintessential American: he produced something of middling quality and used religion to mass-market it to the less-than-discerning buyer.

Nonetheless, since the average American cannot afford to buy fine art, he filled a niche and provided some eye candy.

But anyone who thinks Kinkade was a great artist would do well to enlighten himself/herself by spending an afternoon at the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Wasn't Shakespere considered lowbrow? I'm not equating one with another, but still.

statement called the allegations a "smear campaign."

Yeah, just like msn did with the last three paragraphs in this article; while understanding the latter may be true it just seems a shame to "smear" his reputation before he's in the ground. I hope his family is spared having to read the article especially when much of the text is based on "claims" and "allegations". Interesting thet the person putting this story together didn't have the salt to sign his or her name to it. Sadly, dirt sells and they chose to fork it over.

My condolences to his family and friends!

All I know is my mother loved his artwork and had several, nicely framed pieces in our home. They went very well, especially with some of the sandstone decor by the fireplace and she did have pieces rotated per the seasons, some always out. We loved his winterworks, and for years I remember how they brought her memories she'd talk about... became part of Christmass.

Perhaps some of that is more important to me than how his work was considered; actually, it is more important. And, in his passing, I now have been enjoying memories of my mother in thinking of it all, so thanks to him once again. Odd how this became a commentary vine of art critics; guess for some, that's more important.....

Beautiful paintings. RIP Mr. Kinkade.

I was sorry to hear of the passing of Thomas Kinkade. He was very talented and my favorinte painter. He didn't paint a picture I didn't like. Prayers go out to his family.

But anyone who thinks Kinkade was a great artist would do well to enlighten himself/herself by spending an afternoon at the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

And anyone who thinks that "good art" or "good artists" are objective things has no idea what they are talking about.

Most people who dismiss Kinkade don't even have fully formed ideas of their own about what constitutes "good" and "bad" art. They do, however, know that the art community (and most "artists" in general) are dismissive of Kinkade's work, and much like the child desperately seeking parental approval, eagerly go along with what they are told.

A few people in this thread have got it right - beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Who are we to judge what another person likes, or perceives as being beautiful and/or valuable? Furthermore, why is there such a level of disdain and vitriol aimed at those whose ideas on art and beauty don't align with our own? We're talking about art, people, there is no such thing as "right" in this realm.

To the person who said they would rather have a Ross painting than a Kinkade, did you know that in his day (and still to this day) Ross was widely panned for being too "commercial," and his works were seen as crass and as "pandering to the masses"? His "wet-on-wet" style was seen as lazy and imprecise. Did you know he was chased out of an art show by other "artists" who hated Bob Ross and the change and mass attention he was bringing to the world of painting? (This is called jealousy).

None of these things should change your opinion of him, mind. His work (and Kinkade's) should stand on their own. If you like it, you like it, so don't be bullied by those who claim to have a monopoly on the knowledge of "good" and "bad".

Rockin and Don - if you want people to pay any attention to your posts, you might try clicking on spell-check. Otherwise, people are likely to perceive you as the ignorant, jealous bores that you are. Just a few examples of misspelled words in your post: "diareah" is diarrhea, "Picaso" is Picasso, "savy" is savvy. From the context, I assume that Rockin means throne, not "thorn". Those errors occurred within a total of approximately five sentences between the two of you. We won't even get into the punctuation errors.

So Rockin, you might not have a very high opinion of Kinkade's art, but who really cares when, judging from you degree of education, you probably prefer painted velvet images of Elvis? One thing for certain is that Kinkade has more talent than you will ever have. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. While his art might not compare to the great artists of all time, he appealed to millions of people. That, in itself, is a significant feat.

kaybeetoys

Thomas Kinkade was the quintessential American: he produced something of middling quality and used religion to mass-market it to the less-than-discerning buyer.

Nonetheless, since the average American cannot afford to buy fine art, he filled a niche and provided some eye candy.

But anyone who thinks Kinkade was a great artist would do well to enlighten himself/herself by spending an afternoon at the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

THIS. To whomever poo-poo'd this comment and proceeded to lecture on "beauty is in the eye of the beholder," ...come on now. The same argument could be used. Just because you like it, doesn't make it good art. Heh. I had always thought of Kinkade in the same vein as that horrid "inspirational" art hanging in offices across America... the ones showing a solo mountain climber silhouetted by the sunset and with a one word commentary like "Perseverence" underndeath, etc.: mass-produced, inane fluff for people who need to fill a corner on a wall and who just don't know any better. But, the shop-at-home-network crowd ate him up with a spoon for whatever reasons, so good for him. He saw more money than I will ever make in 100 lifetimes. I do also cringe, however, at the thought of the upcoming wave of infomercials selling Kinkade schlock that I'm convinced are in the works as I type this.

Having said all that, I do feel badly for his family, who lost their loved one way too soon. 54 is too young to go.

To whomever poo-poo'd this comment and proceeded to lecture on "beauty is in the eye of the beholder," ...come on now. The same argument could be used. Just because you like it, doesn't make it good art.

Way to completely miss the point. Please note that I never made any claims about whether Kinkade's art is "good" or "bad". My entire point is that if you like it, then it is good, and that is all that matters. I "poo-poo'd" kaybeetoys' comment because I am sick and tired of snobs trying to make other people feel ashamed, uncultured, and/or uneducated because of their personal tastes. This is actually how class warfare is conducted.

ABCzyx--

You are right to correct the two posts who didn't know how to spell Picasso or savvy. But in your post, you made a mistake as well. It's not "jealous bores," but rather "jealous boors."

Be careful when you are correcting others that you have also checked over your own text.

I have his paintings in my home, and have met him and his wife. I even have a small pamphlet that he signed and made a drawing on since at the time I couldn't afford his work. He said to my son and I, "I am just happy to meet you, and would be honored to draw you something special, do you have your flyer with you? I will create something for you that is just yours." It was a memory that will last a LIFETIME! I also had the chance to learn from one of his touch up artists and was actually allowed to touch up a Thomas Kinkade that now hangs in my living room. RIP Thomas, and my heart goes out to Nanette!!!

Good catch Kelly

Your works will live on .... T.K. ....

+

Blessings to your family and friends ....

The paintings looked like the ones seen at the airport blowout art sales. They look massed produced. They are cluttered and kitchy to me. Many people lost money on those stores. I have no problem with marketing but the product did not warrent the monitary success that he had. I don't get the attraction. If you would like to see something painted by an artist, check out Jeremy Lipking. His paintings are skilled and arresting. OK, beautiful! As for the family, I am sorry for their loss. That has nothing to do with art, just understanding that someone loved him and will miss him.

marketing

Beauty is in the eye of the Beholder. TK had appeal, even if it was formulaic and mass produced and therefore "Kitchy". Many people said the same of Norman Rockwell in his day - and Liberace (who responded to critics' pans of him as just a popular TV showman with "I'm crying all the way to the bank."). Yet, their work is iconic, in a way, as a window into American popular tastes of a particular period in time. If it is all these works are good for in the long run, then they are useful. In the mean time, they give people pleasure. So, who is really to judge?

God Bless You Thomas Kinkade and your family, you brought out so much joy to life with your paintings,

Thank you for you gifts to us all.

Wow, I see a lot of jealous wannabes posting.

Thanks for your beautiful work, Mr. Kincade. Guess God needed an artist more than we did.

Love to the family.

rockinwithdokken

"I mean no disrespect"

Yeah you do mean disrespect.

R.I.P. Mr Kinkade and my condolences to the family and friends. Your art is beautiful.

I "poo-poo'd" kaybeetoys' comment because I am sick and tired of snobs trying to make other people feel ashamed, uncultured, and/or uneducated because of their personal tastes. This is actually how class warfare is conducted.

I am definitely not an art snob or critic. I can't afford to buy fine art, and most others are in the same boat. So, as I said, Kinkade filled a niche. His paintings are nice to look at. A lot of people enjoy them.

That does not make him a great artist.

If you ask yourself what qualifies as a work of art that will pass the test of time, you have to consider originality, artistic skill, and production quality. Kinkade's body of work showed very little variety or originality. He was technically skilled enough, but in his own lifetime he focused his efforts on marketing mass-produced prints instead of creating original works of art.

Has his work been hung in any art museums?

If you compare his art to that of the great artists of history, I think it's apparent that he won't be classed as one of them. If that makes me a snob, so be it.

Being classified by "the establishment" (having your art hang in a museum) is completely seperate from whether you are/were a "good artist" or produced "good" art. Asking yourself what art will stand the test of time is an exercise in futility as we have no idea what tastes will be like 100, or 500 years from now. More poignantly, I do not care. My tastes are my own, and I do not allow pointy-headed academics to dictate to me what I should and shouldn't like.

It has become fashionable to disparage Kinkade's work. Some of the criticism is valid (his work showed very little variety). Some of the criticism isn't about his work at all, but who he is/was as a person. Regardless, to what extent should other peoples' opinions about his work influence your own? If you like it, you shouldn't be ashamed, or allow yourself to be bullied into false admissions that he was a "hack" (whatever that means) or other such nonsense statements.

Someone's paintings need not have hung in a museum in order for it to be "ok" for you to like them. As I said before, the work should stand on its own.

Regardless, to what extent should other peoples' opinions about his work influence your own? If you like it, you shouldn't be ashamed, or allow yourself to be bullied into false admissions that he was a "hack" (whatever that means) or other such nonsense statements.

If you love his work, that should be good enough for you. Whatever hangs on your wall should please you. There is no accounting for taste.

My advice is to be very careful before spending a lot of money on it, though. Be cautious about thinking you have made a fabulous investment and you will be able to sell it for a lot more than you paid for it.

Thomas Kincade's work will likely never be considered in the same level as Rembrandt, Pollock, Mattisse or Monet, it's too commercial and his intense focus on mass marketing leaves a bad taste in the art community's mouth. That said, as was mentioned, Norman Rockwell was labelled much the same. Toulouse Letrec's work was primarily advertisements and Turner's Flamingos, magnolias etc of the 1940s-1950s home decor are now quite collectable.

Back in the 1980s I wandered into a gallery in San Francisco and saw "The Works of a New Young Painter of Light" Thomas Kincade. I was captured by the depth of color, the richness and how, indeed, it almost looked like it was back lit or phosphorscent. I told the woman that one day I wanted to get one (Christmas 1940s city scene and/or San Francisco 1950s street scene in the rain really caught my eye) but just a few years ago, maybe 4 or 5, I went into one of his galleries and the originals, not prints, just didn't have the depth or life in them. It saddened me that it appeared that he had just cranked them out especially since we grew up along Hwy 50 in Northern California, he in Placerville myself in South Lake Tahoe and he was just a year older than me.

Condolences to his wife and daughters less than 3 score and ten is too young to die.

Yes, he sold schlock, but most Americans love schlock. He also sold them a syrupy version of Christian American dreams...sugar dripping paintings of supposed Family Christmas scenes in the USA, scenes which used to happen on Hallmark Cards and in the daydreams of Americans who never enjoyed a Christmas even remotely similar to a Kincade painting....gauzy dreamscapes.

Art is a matter of personal taste, and his work was never my taste, and it made me want to gag myself with a 10" wooden spoon, sacharine is Kincade, ne plus ultra....but I shut up until I heard, first from a gallery owner on Maui,about the screwing which he and other gallery owners across the USA received from the "Painter of Light"

I had entered this gallery to see what Kincade was all about, some 7 or 8 years ago, and it is terribly sappy stuff, but if you are from Des Moines or Laurel, Mississippi,or Orlando, and stroll in from a cruise ship, you are sort of strumming and in a good mood and feeling good about yourself...and these paintings with rays of sunlight streaming between the branches of trees make you feel good...why, go for it...

Problem with Kincade was that he was the Bernie Madoff of the Art World, he made unfulfilled promises to honest,hardworking Americans who bought into his "vision" and purchased galleries, were given promises about prices, quantities and quality, which rarely materialized......The Painter of Light stole their money and their dreams. In other words ,he was a phony,for whom true Christianity was, for him, an opportunity to deceive and to rob believers........This is why most of his galleries closed long ago.

He liked to dupe customers,too,by selling them "Genuine artist enhanced Giclees" of his work.....Giclee,is simply the French word for "Ink Jet Copy", and "Artist enhanced" merely means that someone with a paintbrush just daubed a few thick gobs of paint onto 5 or 6 spots on the Ink Jet Copy, to give it a raised surface, so that you could persuade your relatives from Dubuque, or Sioux City, and,perhaps, yourself, into believing that this image was a one of a kind piece of art....God knows the price made it seem so....., but,then, we all know that if you leave an ink jet copy of a photo of your grandaughter on the kitchen counter,or on a wall near a sunlit window, the sunlight will suck the color out of the Ink Jet Copy inside 3 years.

Thats when Kincades Christian followers descended on the Galleries and wrote to Kincade and called their Attorney Generals office...........true art appreciates with age, schlock art depreciates when it leaves the gallery.

Art and beauty are in the eyes of the beholder!!!! If you don't agree you're sooo wrong!

MMmm, that' nonsense always tastes so good. Not really, I usually throw up a little bit. But I understand these people probably haven't ever experienced something really beautiful and probably can't give anything or new a chance. These people are probably racist as well. And because I say this, I'm an elitist liberal who has read a book or two and should be ashamed of that. This world works so simple, we must be glad for that. Hopefully one day the world can become such a simple place, like a Kinkade land! And we can wear the same clothes an watch the same sunsets, eat the same food. Anyone who has any criticism can get the chamber of "burning hell breath of satan" (that's what we'll call it). And we can crucify those who commit lesser crimes against our fac, cough, socialis, cough, communisti, cough.... UH, our beautiful kinkade land that is!

Studiespainting - what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

XD

Rushman, if you're gonna make jokes you can at least make original ones. :D

But seriously, there are a lot of people on here who probably need to read what I wrote so please don't help to discourage it.

Oh yeah and if you don't agree I'd certainly love to hear why. One of the few things I saw from you was something about class warfare, poop, and other peoples tastes. I can tell you right now if someone's eating poop I will tell them to stop. I hope that doesn't make me a snob.

Until you post something that is not trolling, I really have nothing to say to you. What is your argument, exactly? Hard to tell, from your first post. Take your meds, give it a few hours, then try again.

I know that it is popular, these days, for parents to tell their children that anyone who doesn't like them is 'just jealous'... but, it's simply not true in every single senario.

Just because someone doesn't like someone else's work, does not mean that person is jealous.

Personally, the work of Thomas Kinkade (Kincade, Cincade, Cinkade - whatever, don't care) is not MY thing. That doesn't mean that I am 'jealous' of him. It means that his paintings simply do not appeal to ME.

Here's why: The camera changed everything! It allowed the purpose of the canvas to evolve. They were no longer essential windows to the world, and were free to become windows to the artist's own soul.

I favor the Modern Masters who blazed new trails with this new freedom, ushering in a whole new era in art.

I don't count Picasso as a personal favorite, but I do appreciate his contributions - of which there are many. Sure, some people like to say he's overrated, but he isn't. Much like Shakespeare, a lot of the problem with how people who are living now days see Picasso comes from the fact that everyone currently living was born into a world where Picasso already existed. Were he to present his work for the first time in 2012 it would, indeed, seem cliche... it was anything but cliche in 1912!

Personally, I tend to favor:

Cezanne, for giving us abstraction in the first place.

Van Gogh, for swirling and daubbing his emotions into magical nocturns and touching self portraits.

Chagall, for his soaring imagery, and his depiction of folklife and love for his darling Bella.

Klimt, for his symbolism and his bold colors, and the addition of collage and gold leaf.

Schiele, because the man could flat-out DRAW.

Kahlo, for her bravery and introspection.

Degas, for his figures and their lovely form, and for his dreamy, watery colors.

Seurat, for intriguing us with his dots.

Modigliani, for showing us how he saw his life's unique cast of characters.

Manet & Monet, for showing us the fine line between abstraction and realism.

To me, Thomas Kinkades's paintings do not offer anything that I find remotely INTERESTING.

They might give YOU the warm fuzzies, but they remind me of the witch's cottage from Hansel and Gretel.

Although, come to think of it, perhaps that is why there is all that light coming from every single window (not very realistic = overkill)... the witch's pot has boiled over and the whole place is actually ablaze.

Rushman, simply because you can't understand my play of words does not mean I'm trolling.

I quite clearly made the point that saying Beauty and art are completely relative is a very silly argument. Those are as relative as anything in life would be, the idea is rather a confusing and contradictory one. It's also not a good argument for settling disagreement. It does not help solve or better understand an issue.

And as far as your point on snobbery. Why is the word even being used by you? If by chance a person was a snob, or a murderer, or a cake eater, what does this matter? Why is this something important to point out in points being made? I'm so sick of tall people talking, oh tall people and their tall words, always talking down to people. So?

Also, since you didn't comprehend the point about poop I guess. Sometimes others think what you're doing is bad for you, and that perhaps their is something better. So Rush if you wanted to eat poop I'd tell you it's gross. You might keep arguing "but I love poop" and I would say but it's bad for you Rush. "why can't I like my poop and you leave me alone and let me argue my poop is good" Well Rush, there are many reasons for that. Maybe I'm thinking about a better world where less people are eating their poop you see. Less unhealthy people, people being spiritually fed a bit better, and mentally fed better.

Also Rushman, I can break it down and explain to you why Kinkade's work isn't appealing outside it's intended purpose.

You CAN judge things on their intent. If your wish is to water ski and you can't get up in the water then I believe I can quite correctly say you didn't water ski by the definition of skiing. Make sense? That's called 'logic'.

Painting also works this way. Do you want to say something to someone? Does this about no right how what I tell you now since birth again tomorrow, make sense? You may look at those words and say "Oooo pretty big words" but in no way did I make a coherent sentence there, it was confusing and contradictory if you really look at it. If my 'intent' as it was... was to make a bad sentence then I was successful in that regard. MY intent to make a good understandable sentence was then a failure.

Studiespainting - I can see you're quite proud of your attempt at satire, but I can tell you it was no A Modest Proposal.

I understand that you think the argument that beauty and art are relative is silly. That doesn't change the fact that it's true, and you have provided no basis for your disagreement other than "it's silly."

As for my use of the word "snob," I used it quite deliberately. If you read back to my first post, I was accusing many of the people railing against Kinkade's work of parroting spoon-fed ideas from the art-establishment.

Snob

Origin:
1775–85; orig. uncert; first used as a nickname for a cobbler or cobbler's apprentice, hence a townsman, someone of low class or lacking good breeding, commoner, hence someone who imitates persons of higher rank

In other words, sycophants.

And no, I didn't (and still don't) comprehend your point about poop. If you honestly think that liking a Kinkade painting is "bad for you," then you are as deluded as I feared. However if, as I suspect, you are overusing hyperbole for "effect," I would simply suggest that you either produce a cogent argument, or go back to sniffing your farts out of wine glasses.

When I look at Thomas Kinkade's paintings I see that he successfully mastered the set of skills required to make such paintings.

What I don't see is much creativity, or any growth as an artist.

By 'creativity' I mean they all look the same from one painting to the next - the only real variation is between ones with snow, and ones with flowers.

By 'growth', I mean, they all look the same from one year to the next - the last TK painting I saw looks just like the first TK painting that I ever saw.

Clearly, the man had artistic muscles, he just didn't stretch them.

Painting also works this way. Do you want to say something to someone? Does this about no right how what I tell you now since birth again tomorrow, make sense? You may look at those words and say "Oooo pretty big words" but in no way did I make a coherent sentence there, it was confusing and contradictory if you really look at it. If my 'intent' as it was... was to make a bad sentence then I was successful in that regard. MY intent to make a good understandable sentence was then a failure.

Just because you either disagree with or don't understand the message in the first place doesn't mean it wasn't effectively communicated.

Rushman, It's "true"? It is partially true.. I think I could say that to you. It's relative like this... I might call it a cold day in texas if it's 15 degrees, but a winter in Alaska might see that as warm in comparison to this 20-30 below days. The reality is 30 below is much colder than 15 above 0 in Texas, yet for Texans they may not be able to understand. Where there is a loss of understanding there is usually a loss of understanding. So, within Beauty and Art, few understand what they are. Art in fact has a definition as its' original origins was around the 1750's. It was brought about to seperate from craft and works for functions (sort of like the rejection of kinkade stuff, except 18the century style). This got carried away of course, it was built on ideas dealing with genius and 'orginality' and it's largely why we have what we have today. But it should now make a little more sense to you.

As for beauty, what is it's definition? The definition itself might be wildly unclear. So to say Beauty is relative when the definition and meaning of the word is unclear, is pretty stupid don't ya think?

I can say according to Art's original definition, as I don't see why we'd go by anything else... What is bad Art is that which is made for a particular function or purpose, and that which is imitated and unoriginal, that which is recognizable. This is to lesser and greater degrees of course and more complex that it may seem. But the fact still stands ART was setup to reject work for patrons, work for particular purpose.

You know I don't quite understand some kind of spoon fed by the art establishment thing... that is such a small demographic. The larger is spoon fed by quick gimmickry of kinkade, so I'd think you'd do your service there.

And yes, I do think Kinkade is bad for you. It's bad for you because it causes you to stare for a while but never a long time. It's great work for a passer by, it's easy, it's quick, it's mass produced. I don't know of anyone, anyone, who has looked at paintings for a long time and seen the great work of the world and been satisfied by a kinkade. It burns the eyes out of most trained painters, the colors are way to garish to stomach, the image is way to cliche for a sincere soul to handle. And if we wanted to get technical we of course could, but i'm not sure it's necessary with you.

Now I don't totally reject all kitsch, its just that Kinkade is a very low form of it. I understand that rejecting all kitsch only creates a new kitsch. If Kitsch is a bad thing in the world to reject it completely is to form a world without that bad which is then becoming kitschy. Kinkade is simple, he does not bring you thought or questioning. He asks you to reflect on the past, he asks you to reflect on what you already know. He delights your eyes scientifically with complementaries, this strikes humans to the core of their biology. To see a cold place with a warm place of dwelling is an evolutionary tool to delight us and keep us safe. His work as being ktisch is devoid of struggle an any pain whatsoever. This makes his work very unbelievable, it also as a statement asks us to forget. We can still be pleasured and yet still remain aware of lives difficulties. You make think liking Kinkade is a minor thing when the implications can be much greater. It teaches simplicity in thought. Just entertain the idea that you think the way youve visually read a Kinkade is how you read all paintings? You will never like a work by Leonardo or Rembrandt, your expectations are in the wrong place and you won't put forth effort most likely. This means the appreciation of Art dwindles. And the liking of Kinkade as clearly shown in this forum causes class disputes when their need not be one if everyone was aware and thinking more objectively. If kinkade was simply thought of as quick eye candy (as he is) and objectively looked at him as that, we'd all be in a much better world of caring about one another.

Of course not, it doesn't mean nothing crazy isn't possible! But chances are 9999/10000 if you speak jibberish people aren't gonna know you need to buy a mustang to get your girlfriend back. Again, if the intent was to leave people confused though, there is a 9999/10000 of that working. It's never so cut and dry, nature isn't cut and dry. Why? Because there are a complexity of factors within time and space. Nature works by the fibanacci sequence yet also is hit by the factors of time, multiple dimensionality, so it's not a formula that will ever be robotic or able to be computer generated unless we understood all the complexities and factors of life. This is how knowledge works. This is how Science works.

You're right Kungfu. I think most of these people would be shocked if Kinkade spoke his mind about what he did. It wasn't like he didn't know this marketed well, he worked differently at times but he knew that stuff didn't sell. He produced this work as a product for the people, and it's probably some of the best stuff ever made for the average person to buy. If he painted in earlier centuries we'd probably know him today as the low kitsch tack painter of the past which the peasants delighted in and the rich who weren't educated. I'm sure that sounds so damn pompous but it would most likely be true based on all sorts of other past events and the way people acted then, the way they act today.

Rushman, It's "true"? It is partially true.. I think I could say that to you. It's relative like this... I might call it a cold day in texas if it's 15 degrees, but a winter in Alaska might see that as warm in comparison to this 20-30 below days. The reality is 30 below is much colder than 15 above 0 in Texas, yet for Texans they may not be able to understand.

The difference being that you are talking about something measurable (temperature), while we are discussing something subjective, art and beauty. And I don't think the definition of beauty is as imprecise as you claim.

beau·ty

   /ˈbyu ti/ Show Spelled[byoo-tee]

noun, plural -ties.

1.
the quality present in a thing or person that gives intense pleasure or deep satisfaction to the mind, whether arising from sensory manifestations (as shape, color, sound, etc.), a meaningful design or pattern, or something else (as a personality in which high spiritual qualities are manifest).

Where the disagreement arises is when someone finds that, say, a work of art, possesses qualities that give that intense pleasure or satisfaction to them, while someone else doesn't. The first person would say it is beautiful, the other person would say it is not. Neither person is wrong, because by definition beauty is subjective.

As for the rest of your post, I think the crux is found in this statement:

You make think liking Kinkade is a minor thing when the implications can be much greater. It teaches simplicity in thought.

Not only is this astoundingly wrong, it is also astoundingly arrogant. Which is why I will simply reiterate:

snob

1

British: cobbler

2
: one who blatantly imitates, fawningly admires, or vulgarly seeks association with those regarded as social superiors

3
a: one who tends to rebuff, avoid, or ignore those regarded as inferior
b: one who has an offensive air of superiority in matters of knowledge or taste

Bolded for emphasis. The very fact that you believe that you can tell how someone thinks based on whether they like a Kinkade painting reeks not only of pretentiousness but also pseudoscience. Get a grip - we're talking about paintings. My expectations are in the wrong place? My hope is that someday you may realize why that statement is so utterly wrong.

Yes that is the dictionary definition, good job. But the word is rarely used to the definition as you probably know. People use it to describe a street walker, they use it to describe a keychain, they use it to describe a sunset. If some guy gets a hard on at the strip joint he says "she's so beautiful". While another may see a figure in a painting and say she's so beautiful from visual source and not a physical one. These things all relate to different 'senses'. So this does not make them 'relative'. It just makes the definition confusing as it what it refers to.

So when we talk about ART we obviously encapsulate 'everything'. And what then? Well, again, referring to original definition that which is made for a function like a toilet seat is not very good art. This doesn't mean it's not a good toilet seat.

I do believe in those events where two people see the same picture and feel different things... I Know that's crazy but I do believe it exists shockingly. BUT, again... this does not make the picture's beauty relative. The pictures beauty is independent of a viewer, and must be evaluated on more objective terms. And again this is measurable simply by understanding more simplified definitions. So, if we refer to a picture and it's beauty, I would have to know what way you are using the word. That beauty you say when staring at a picture could refer to tone. It could refer to line. It could refer to color. It could refer to Luminosity. It could even refer to all of them and how well they balance. Or we could go a completely different route. Do you see how complex and complicated this 'could' get?

So when considering these things, you must surely be able to see that the differences in what people refer to does not make a thing inherently subjective. It just means there is misunderstanding going on. Just like Truth, to say Truth is relative is dumb. If Truth was relative it would not be Truth. Truths only 'seem' relative because people constantly refer to different things that they assume are the same. The mind wants to group things together and simplify. This has no bearing on actual truth. Truth is more for particular instances and not for generalizations. This is the same for Beauty or Art. So again as I said earlier.. IT MUST BE noted what the intent is.

Most painters care about the way a painter uses line (kinkade barely uses it). Most painters care about the way an artist depicts and uses form (kinkade can't draw a face to save his life). Most painters care about color (Kinkade doesn't understand desaturation and that if all colors are singing none of them are working together, they are blasted to seperation). Most painters will look at texture, how that texture is laid across and what it says (it could say virtuoso or it could say contrived for instance).

What? Do you honestly believe our world isn't shaped by the creations we make? That life mimics film? Books? Music? These thoughts help to mold and define us, we pull from these things. We pull from what we know and what we've seen. This isn't pseudoscience this is psychology and yes, science. The praise Kinkade gets from people is scientific. It's all scientific. It's just that a Kinkade is simple science. Kinkade is the brownie, the cheeseburger.

I dont' think most people like Kinkade... there is like and there is like. Going back to what I was saying earlier.. Initial positive response isn't necessarily deep admiration. I don't think most people like Mcdonalds, they eat mcdonalds and mcdonalds is very satisfying initially. But mcdonalds is not satisfying long term. If a person actually tried to chew it slowly and enjoy it's subtle flavors they'd probably find they're not there.

Mcdonalds and fast food in general has taught people to inhale things down, you don't chew slowly to enjoy it. So now, people do not enjoy great tasting food as much because they don't have a sensitive palette for it. They also do not give the food a chance in their mouth. That simply is a life philosophy right there, giving someone or something a chance.

And by the same token this is what I think Kinkade paintings do. They tell people to look at a painting in certain way, they cheapen it, they make it as quick as possible to where only a mere glance is needed.

If you wanna keep calling me a snob, so be it. It's better than being a slob.

I don't care what you people think, I like Kinkade's work. Then again, I really don't like "art". Why pay an arn and leg for a painting done by an animal. To me, that's not "art". There is alot of paintings that you all are talking about that I don't like. It doesn't make sense to me. Am I wrong for thinking that? No I am not. Just like you are not wrong for liking this painting. We all see things differently and that's ok. Stop judging and trashing people because they don't agree with your high value of "art".

Yes that is the dictionary definition, good job. But the word is rarely used to the definition as you probably know. People use it to describe a street walker, they use it to describe a keychain, they use it to describe a sunset. If some guy gets a hard on at the strip joint he says "she's so beautiful". While another may see a figure in a painting and say she's so beautiful from visual source and not a physical one. These things all relate to different 'senses'. So this does not make them 'relative'. It just makes the definition confusing as it what it refers to.

Read the definition again, it's not confusing at all. It doesn't say the perception of beauty has to only come from one sense, or that if it comes from more than one sense it's "relative." What's relative is whether I receive a pleasurable sensation from something that I associate with being "beautiful," compared to whether you do, or anybody else. Whether or not something is beautiful is a subjective judgement. Your attempt to state that beauty is something objective that exists outside the realm of human values is fatuous and leads me to believe that you do not actually understand the difference between objectivity and subjectivity in this context. Beauty is not an inherent property of matter that the universe imbues to various things (objective), it is a label attached to things that a person judges as being beautiful (subjective). It is an opinion, and thus completely subject to personal taste and preference.

The sad part is that I know you will continue to denigrate the opinions of those who are able to find beauty in something that you, who has been trained that this kind of work is "trash," cannot. Your last sentence is evidence of that, as it is also evidence that those of your ilk will continue to bully those who disagree until they come around to the "right" (read: your) way of thinking.

liam - 'relatives from Dubuque...' = GENIUS. LOL.

Also, you're all losing in your arguments and attacks on studiespainting.

He's right. Kincade was a hack; a charlatan, who duped millions of 'christians' into slobbering over his PRINTS like Pavlov's dogs.

All the popularity of his 'art' proves is that there's a market for that kind of schlock - a huge one, a lucrative one, one that can be developed through shady franchising.

What you all find beautiful is one thing - and in this case, it's not art. His dabbed-up inkjet prints will be in thrift stores by the roomfull in a few short years. Hope you didn't sink too much of the family stainless into your collection.

Hey Pete - I'm getting tired of saying this, so I'll let The Dude say it instead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c

If Beauty is relative than it doesn't exist. If anything and everything is beautiful than nothing is, the word absolutely loses it's meaning.

It's not really "my way" of thinking Rush. It's "your" and "everyone's" way of thinking. People everyday place judgements on something, they say this car is better than this car. You even say your argument is better than my argument do you not? You only serve to contradict and undermine yourself when you argue that beauty and truth are completely relative. Again they "appear" relative because there is a loss of information. This doesn't mean that there isn't.

It's like saying Beer doesn't get me drunk, therefore the alcohol in beer is relative. No, the alcohol is never relative, it is what it is. How your body handles alcohol might be different than someone else <---- And that is what you refer to when you say relative. However, the argument is flawed from the start since people are different. So what you end up doing is 'pretending' that something is concrete, and then you argue it's not because it doesn't work for everyone. Does that make sense?

Beauty can 'act' as a subjective judgement, but this does not mean it is. If I am to say so and so is Tall (in place of beautiful here), and someone taller walks in that doesn't mean there heights are relative because you don't see how they're actually taller. It just means you don't know how to measure it. There will always be taller and shorter things based on our understanding of form. This doesn't mean taller is better, just as more beautiful isn't necessarily 'better'. Perhaps Kinkades crap is better for people, but I would argue it isn't with many good arguments. Just as you wish to argue with good arguments to bring about what you think is a 'correct' point. I could say good points are relative. I could say Morals are relative.

Don't mistake me for a fool either who thinks it's cut and dry. I don't think anything can be completely objective, I think eastern 'both and' thinking is usually the best, yet it's difficult to argue for such a philosophy. But it includes that loss of information.

I mean do you think Morals are relative? Do you think it's wrong if someone kills a child and eats them? Is that relative? I'd argue those morals are not, yet.. I can't exactly prove it to you. I can only show you many reasons why it's horrible. And then it is more objective since this outcome, typically leads to this such and such outcome. You don't want to burn yourself? Don't touch fire! Is that a relative opinion? Geez.. I don't know.

I have no reason to bully anyone here Rushman. Again, if you were eating your poop and I told you to stop you might call me a bully, but perhaps I think it's in your best interest. If you don't try to eat better food and give not eating poop a chance you might find you don't like it anymore. The difference in all this Kinkade stuff is I know exactly why you and others like his work. But you have no idea why someone likes Titian or Rembrandt, or Leonardo. And you probably have no idea why someone like me can't look at a Kinkade without getting sick. So, the real problem here is your and others lack of understanding fellow human beings. I understand you, but you do not understand me. If you did understand me you'd say, "yeah, it is this and that because I can objectively evaluate based on many multiple things. However... I think there is a lot of good in people liking Kinkade, and heres why:" If you spoke like that you would seem like an enlightened and understanding person. Yet you want to ignore things like "oh but kinkade doesn't paint idyllic color intense landscapes depicting nostalgia and houses that are about to burn up in flames!" That would be a complete lie. So you see if you would accept what his work is, like many people can and actually 'see' it. You'd be a person who is capable of speaking on many levels, and not within an isolated bubble.

And if you're thinking about replying back with some half assed youtube video of a work you didn't make, spare me.

Shannon,

If you will. You claim what others like doesn't make sense to you. As I told rushman, this is the hot point right here. It doesn't make sense to you.

It makes perfect sense to most people who dislike Kinkade why people like to look at his work, this is a no brainer. It makes as much sense as to why straight men like seeing breasts. But on the same point of breasts, perhaps we can argue that there are higher things to look at other than breasts which will give you a greater and deeper appreciation of the world rather than those simplistic biological pleasures.

If you knew for instance that Mark Rothko painted tonal symphonies, that simply used 'tone' and color to create a sense of mood and a certain feeling. If you knew this and where he wanted you to stand when you looked at his work, and you actually saw it in person, you might break down and cry as many many people have. Yet, you do not understand, and that's partly and probably due to you not having tried. You probably don't care to try. And that's sad, and that's why people want to say something and speak up. It's sad. It isn't about trashing others for that sake in itself. Take your advice and don't always assume you know and make judgements, because you see this is more so the heart of your problem here and not of someone like me.

If Beauty is relative than it doesn't exist. If anything and everything is beautiful than nothing is, the word absolutely loses it's meaning.

False. It has meaning within the context that people understand how subjective judgements work. It's like if I say "I like this fish, it tastes good." I am saying that it tastes good to me. It may not taste good to you. You may prefer the chicken. What if I told you that you are a slob for liking the chicken? The chicken is bad for you, and you are a bad person for liking it. What if I took the extremely patronizing and condescending attitude you have taken with Shannon, and said that you were an uncultured philistine with no appreciation for the "finer things," all because you prefer the chicken instead of the fish. Do these things seem like something a reasonable person would or should say to another, regarding a matter of taste and personal preference? You claim Shannon "does not understand," when it is clear that it is you who has the problem understanding and relating to other peoples' judgements and perceptions. In your delusion you actually go so far as to claim that it is actively harmful for someone to have a positive reaction to something they find beautiful, because it doesn't fit within your view of things.

I would like to clarify something right now, and point out just exactly how arrogant and haughty you really are. I have made no statements regarding whether I find Kinkade's work good or bad, beautiful or not. I have done this on purpose, to make a point. You have made a major assumption throughout this discussion that because I am defending the fact that beauty is subjective, and that we shouldn't belittle other people simply because they have differing tastes, that I must be some sort of degenerate who is interested in whatever scatological fetishes you are clearly obsessed with. Simply because I defend these people I am judged in your mind to be some kind of idiot to be pitied for my obviously trailer-trash tastes.

Well this particular yokel has baited you into revealing yourself for the classist fraud that you are. You have no "higher" knowledge about beauty, you simply have opinions like the rest of us; the difference is that your opinions are fed to you by art professors, books, and other classist morons with nothing better to do than to pass down declarations from on high about what "is" and "isn't" in the world of art, for no other reason than to be able to look down on those who disagree. Well you are certainly a faithful little parrot. Based on your obsession with poop, Rembrandt could have smeared his own crap on a canvas and you would have obediently declared that it was the single most genius and beautiful work the world has ever seen. Just remember that the rest of us "buffoons" can clearly see that the Emperor has no clothes.

If the fish doesn't taste good to me but does to you, that doesn't make 'good' a completely relative word. That's why you can use it and still somewhat convey a meaning. More so than Beauty much of the time which is used to describe all sorts of feelings now. BUT, that doesn't make Beauty relative, that doesn't make good relative.

It's like if you were to be a famous baseball player, and I called you a pornstar instead of baseball player. That doesn't mean pornstar is a subjective term, it means I used it incorrectly. If Pornstar was completely a subjective term nobody would know what it means. Take a hint from the word Art. People now call Art all relative because they have no idea what it even means. Therefore ART is nearly a meaningless term anymore, it however does continue to mostly keep it's trait of something someone makes. But with found objects now, and nature also being a creator, its' tough to pinpoint it's meaning unless you again refer to it's original origins.

It's not about preferring chicken over fish. It's about preferring real chicken over imitation chicken, or fake chicken, or candy that says it tastes like chicken, w/e.

I guess you completely miss the point. It's like acquiring a taste for coffee. Someone who has never had coffee will probably try and it say "oh, that's bitter and gross". But once you do develop a taste for coffee, you know why folgers is cheap and taste like crap. So AGAIN, it's more that shannon and you don't understand people like me than it is that we don't understand you. I know why you like Kinkade, I grew up liking Kinkade for brief periods, I've seen his work most of my life. I've even taught college classes on breaking down a kinkade to show it's weaknesses and why it does not work as a painting. I'm an expert on these matters, you are not. So if you were an expert you would better understand, but you're not so you don't. And that again is the problem here. I know exactly why you like Kinkade. But you don't have a clue as to why I don't like Kinkade because you don't have the eyes to see it. It's not to hard to understand. And clearly you don't because you just wanna keep rambling on throwing out words at me about a certain character you think i'm presenting.

You think i'm being a bad person? From the guy who thinks beauty is relative? Well I got a surprise for you, Good is a much more difficult word to pin down as to being relative. So if I live in Rush's world I guess it really doesn't matter how I act, because it's simply relative anyway and your words mean squat to yourself!

Well I don't know Rushman, I never said Kinkade was trailer trash taste. I mean much of this you're inferring here yourself, so haha... those are your natural judgements I suppose. I think its simple minded, but I don't think of simple minded lesser educated people as trailer trash, but if you do, thats your prerogative! Funny coming from the guy calling others snobs, and classist.

Whats that I hear Rush? I hear the sound of rushing (woah) assumptions once again from the person arguing against making them!

Those BOOKS! That's it! Those Darn books man, they're filled with learning and words and all that crap, it's really horrible. I mean, once you start learning you never know what kind of elitist your gonna become. You might not like springer anymore!

I'm faithful to beauty, and to excellence and standard. It's because I know how to evaluate them and I see that they exists and I see where they don't exists as much. Just because you can't doesn't mean I can't Rushyboy.

Well if he smeared that poop as beautifully as he smeared paint than quite possibly it could have been.

Sure Rush sure. And just remember the rest of 'us' clearly understand you don't know what clothes even are so keep barkin like a dog for me.

Excuse me while I go sip some of my Don Perignon and use my haughty mind to think about things from a snobby better than you perspective. Hope you don't mind.

All I see is a bunch of whining that if beauty is subjective it means that all your time "studying" painting and everything you've been taught about what you should think beauty is has been a waste of time, followed by several appeals to authority that because you have this training, your opinion should somehow carry more weight with the rest of us.

Your point about chicken vs. fake chicken is wrong. My wife is a vegetarian, and eats "fake" meat products like fake chicken. This doesn't make her wrong, or uncultured, or in fact anything else other than a vegetarian who prefers not to eat meat. She doesn't like meat, and it is a personal preference. It's not right or wrong. That's why it's relative. I'll say it again - her own personal choice is not objectively right or wrong. If you can understand this point, then you will understand where our disagreement lies.

@ Studiespainting You certainly know how to bore people, you are definitively a pro in that regard.

Yes some of us have studied as well and if you stand here, cock your head 15 degrees counter clockwise, twist your hip 45 degrees clockwise, spin your left foot to the right 25 degrees, throw the right arm backwards over your left shoulder, squint with your left eye and push out a little gas you can reach the level of enlightenment the artist who just ripped you off meant to convey.

Ahhhh I see and smell the art now.

Your idea about what I was saying about fake chicken versus real chicken is wrong. I never said eating fake chicken was wrong, I implied that it should not be argued as real chicken.. because it's not. Is this so hard to understand?

So rushman if it's all personal preference why are you even arguing with me? I at least have the luxury because I don't exactly believe that's how it is, I think were all very similar creatures and not so different. You must see humans as vastly different creatures without much in common. We have things in common. But if you're talking about fuji apples and I'm thinking of granny smith, we'll never be on the same page. That again, does not mean apples are relative, it means saying apple isn't a specific enough term. Therefore we can argue granny smith's are yellow to green, because that's what they are because we've established that. If doesn't mean people see apples differently.

Moparfan, i'm glad you hopped off the couch from watching american idol to muster up the best words you know how. As if these words aren't something I haven't heard a million times. IT"S A REVELATION! Moparfan you are a genius.

Learning is boring when you don't have the cognitive ability to understand, I get that I really do.

You want me to blow your argument back up your ass?

Fine, read a book with your eyes closed. Probably isn't going to work. Look at a painting without the lights on, probably can't see it. It's pretty simple to understand really, but if you think that's some snobby b.s. then I guess that's your completely ignorant burden to bear.

I certainly hope Studiespainting is ready, at long last, to take a break and give everyone else one too. can't believe how far anyone had to go down the list just to get another person's opinion. He obviously enjoys beating others over the head with his. I do believe he thinks he's entertaining.

The real problem here is understanding. As someone who has studied the arts most of my life, I don't look at things as simple as you. I look objectively at things from an experienced perspective. I don't say "all that modern stuff is b.s.!" I recognize that while much of it is, some of it is actually quite good and powerful. I also recognize that not all the old master paintings of the past are great either, some of them are lacking in many ways.

Liking Leonardo doesn't make you catholic. But this is how simplistic people think. Liking rap doesn't make you a gangster either. But if its' all you like, perhaps you should get out more and experience the vast things the world has to offer before calling them bull.

I'm actually less snobby than you because I've had my nose in the dirt. Yet you think my ability to know what dirt smells like makes me a snob, no it makes you a snob because you haven't even been there and yet feel inclined to talk about it and think you 'know so much'.

Sincerity is the heart of the matter. It's people like you who fall prey to the schemers, like Kinkade. He is notorious for his public behavior. He has gotten a DUI, unless you think the police just made a story like that up? Do you think his public pissing, tit grabbing, and heckling are all made up? Do you think his dirty business that has hurt a lot of dealers is made up? And all of this coming from a guy who marketed the living hell out of everything he made? Who made a product and sold it as much as humanely possible? NAHHHHH not him, no way he was a man of God! He was perfect in every way! Baahhh, go home sheep.

Sincerity. I suggest you suffer for once in life. Then you know how unreal a kinkade is, you won't be able to stomach the cheesy lifelessness it brings. You'll want something with substance, something that actually hits at your core. But possibly you have no core, maybe that's the problem.

Nope, I'm not ready to take a break until we cover some ground. I care, that's the problem here. I care about a better society.

You don't care because you haven't given my words a chance. Pixie, you're like a person in the audience who snickers at their friends while someone is passionately talking about something important. Grow up.

I don't know how our society got to the point of this:

"LIsten up buddy! You're free to think however you want, it's relative as to what you like and want to believe!"

And then in the same breath:

"Don't you dare tell other people how to think!"

Because you know, maybe I just don't agree. So stop telling me how to think you uppity snobs.

Because you know, maybe I just don't agree. So stop telling me how to think you uppity snobs.

How many times do I have to say this? I don't give two squirts of piss what you (or anybody) thinks is good art, or beautiful, or whatever. What I do care about is when people think so highly of their opinions that they denigrate other people for daring to have opinions of their own.

You can talk smack about Kinkade all day long. If you call someone stupid for liking Kinkade, then you are a douchebag who has grown too big for his britches and need to be taken down a few notches.. Is this finally simple enough for you to understand?

I never called people who like Kinkade stupid, but those who don't wish to see anything more and above kinkade is clearly stupid.

But nevertheless, I am not arguing about opinions. I'm arguing about truth. And I've been from the start. If we were arguing about opinions (ideas based on other ideas that are not possible to prove) then yes, all we have is the power of suggestion. I've argued about logic, and you've been ignoring it on some personal vendetta to call out and prove a judgement on someone you think is being a snob.

I really don't know what you call an opinion. But if an opinion is a reaction or a simple liking for something, that's not much of anything and probably should be challenged at least at some point. It should at least be able to be challenged without being rejected because you don't think it's fair. I like to think we're free people capable of having reasonable discussions. The idea that we can agree to disagree is bull@!$%#. That is the seed to ignoring each other because you're too stupid to figure out what the other person is trying to say.

For someone who claims to be arguing about logic, you have sure made quite a number of logical fallacies. You claim to be talking about "truth"? No, you are making the ridiculous claim that beauty is objective, and you just happen to have the monopoly on what it is. Let's all line up so Studiespainting can tell us what to think, eh? You talk about trying to make the world a "better place." Apparently the world would be a better place if everyone would just shut up and not have independent thoughts, and instead take their opinions from those who *clearly* "know better." Ah, what a simple place this world has become, now that I don't have think for myself anymore.

Look at your first sentence. You just said you never called people who like Kinkade stupid, but hey while we're at it they are stupid. You contradict yourself at every turn. The idea that we can agree to disagree is a recognition of the fact that people have differing tastes. You, however, will not be satisfied until you have browbeaten every last freethinking person into submission. Your motto seems to be, "If I want your opinion, I'll give it to you." You are simply a blowhard who is trying to justify all the years you've wasted being told what to think, by trying to force others to do the same. Even if I agreed with that, your approach leaves something to be desired. Generally people will have a negative reaction if you call them ignorant racists (as you did in your first post) and at that point you've already lost because you've no chance of changing anybody's mind. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar, and all that.

But by all means, continue your crusade to make the world a better place via the homogenization of opinions. Your desperate need to have your opinions validated and accepted is at least amusing. It's like watching a pornstar who keeps glancing nervously at the camera. It's a trainwreck; I can't look away.

Rushman, these straw-man arguments you're making do not hold any weight. Misconstruing my words is a pathetic way to try and win an argument.

Half the things you're saying I've said I never had. Maybe you read what you want, but that's pretty selfish. And again, brings me to that point that while we can have independant ideas they must be able to be challenged by others.

I've been challenging you this entire time by making points and sound arguments while you on the other hand are falsely saying I'm asking everyone to believe exactly as me while at the same time you're asking me to believe as you. Do you not get this? What is so hard about this? Does it hurt your ego so much that you can't deal with this concept?

I'm sure you've watched enough porn to know, you should really try reading a book sometime maybe or getting out.

To put it as simple as possible for you Rushman:

By not believing in truth and reason, you cannot argue with me without undermining yourself.

"you can't tell people how to think" <<---- Is telling ME how to think! Make sense??

You need to stop trying so hard to prove me right. I'm blushing, and I want people to decide and understand it for themselves.

@Studiespainting

But I understand these people probably haven't ever experienced something really beautiful and probably can't give anything or new a chance. These people are probably racist as well.

I never called people who like Kinkade stupid, but those who don't wish to see anything more and above kinkade is clearly stupid.

No, you didn't call them stupid, you just called anyone who appreciated Kindade's work racist. And you also insulted them by jumping to the astonishing conclusion that they have never experienced anything beautiful or new. Oh, but you aren't a snob or anything...
Racism is a serious charge to make of anyone. Stereotyping an entire group of people as racist based on whether they like a single painter is the epitome of ignorance, intolerance and arrogance. Its people like yourself who bring race into a clearly non-race issue, that insult all races and especially those who are oppressed by true racism.

I guess you don't know what the word 'probably' means.

It's my own theory (not something I can prove here, this is different) that people who don't give new food a try, new visuals a try, new music a try. People who hear something once and think "ya know I don't @!$%#ing like it" doo da doo da doo. Those people are PROBABLY racist too. The people who shun so many elements in their life and so many experiences because they don't immediately appeal are probably going to do the same with other cultures, ethnicities, languages, smells, trees, shoelaces, wedding cakes, w/e. The list is endless.

"I have offended God and mankind because my work didn't reach the quality it should have."

"Poor is the pupil who does not surpass his master."

--Leonardo Da Vinci the genius and the elitist snob

"What spirit is so empty and blind, that it cannot recognize the fact that the foot is more noble than the shoe, and skin more beautiful than the garment with which it is clothed?"

--Michelangelo the elitist

"Drawing is the probity of art. To draw does not mean simply to reproduce contours; drawing does not consist merely of line: drawing is also expression, the inner form, the plane, modeling. See what remains after that."

--Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres crazy elitist pre-modern snob, wore nice clothing too.

"It is not bright colors but good drawing that makes figures beautiful."

--Titian, the holier than though elitist

"There is, strictly speaking, no modern art any more than there is modern truth. There is just art and truth. There is good art and bad art, as there is truth and untruth."

-- Harold Speed artist writer/painter and @!$%# of elitism

"In art, all that is not indispensable is not necessary."

-- John Singer Sargent, famous portrait painter snobby nose snobber man

"After drawing, comes composition. A painting with good composition is halfway done."

Pierre Bonnard, a very haughty man who thought he was better than you

"Drawing is the basis of art. A bad painter cannot draw. But one who draws well can always paint."

Arshile Gorky, elitist artist

"It is, we believe, the business of the artist to please his public, but it is also hi privilege to educate hi patrons."

Pff, high patrons. Kenyon Cox, blowjob giver of the elitist snob, drinking the kool-aid of snobberism.

"How wrong are the simpletons, of whom the world is full, who look more at…color than at the figures which show spirit and movement."

-- Michelangelo... the elitist, what the hell does he know. What has he really done I mean comon..

By not believing in truth and reason, you cannot argue with me without undermining yourself.

"you can't tell people how to think" <<---- Is telling ME how to think! Make sense??

No, it doesn't make sense at all. I'm telling you what to do, not what to think. Specifically, I'm telling you what not to do. What any of that has to do with truth and reason is beyond me...oh wait, that's right, it's a red herring.

I want people to decide and understand it for themselves.

Are you kidding me? How many times have you said "you just don't understand" to someone who says they like Kinkade? Wanting someone to decide for themselves is the opposite of what you have been arguing...I.E. it has been MY argument. If you wanted people to decide for themselves you would be fine when someone admits a liking for Kinkade's work.

people who don't give new food a try, new visuals a try, new music a try. People who hear something once and think "ya know I don't @!$%#ing like it" doo da doo da doo. Those people are PROBABLY racist too.

Wow, seriously? I thought that whole bit was a part of your attempt at satire. The term for those type of people is "closed-minded," not racist.

Wow.

...Wow.

I think we're done here.

"I'm telling you what to do, not what to think". Thinking is not a verb?

"Specifically, i'm telling you what not to do." Still telling me to do something.

You've only truly decided for yourself when you've spent some time investigating and experiencing. To do something because someone told you or it was your initial reaction is not deciding for yourself. That is also, I am not asking you to take the words i'm saying in as totally correct. I'm asking you to think about them and investigate them, because it's clear in your words you haven't as you don't appear to understand where I'm coming from at all.

"Wow, seriously? I thought that whole bit was a part of your attempt at satire. The term for those type of people is "closed-minded," not racist."

Racist people aren't closed minded now? Once again, I didn't say they were racist but probably racist. I can't prove those types of people are racist, but I would bet that most of the time their inclinations would be.

Sure, you've been done a long time now anyway.

"I'm telling you what to do, not what to think". Thinking is not a verb?

"Specifically, i'm telling you what not to do." Still telling me to do something.

Indeed. I'm telling you to stop picking on people. Your response is "Stop picking on me so I can pick on these people."

Racist people aren't closed minded now?

So according to you, since people who like Kinkade must be closed minded, and racists are also closed minded, then people who like Kinkade are (probably) racists. This is a logical fallacy of the highest order, and the qualifier "probably" doesn't change that.

Seriously, just shut up. You obviously don't even have enough sense to realize when you are embarrassing yourself.

I'll leave you with something I find fitting to this conversation:

http://xkcd.com/915/

Oh knight of chivalry, how great thou art. Defender of the simple minds and those who wish to be left be. I provide thought and argument, its a little more than "picking on". Besides, that sounds as though you think they're lower. I think people are equals, I think if you know about yourself more you know about others. I don't see these separations you do, my mind is more complex than that. When you become more aware of everything and your surroundings you will realize how many things are related.

No, people who like Kinkade are inclined to be closed minded, but it's not necessarily the case. Racists are inclined to be closed minded as well but its not necessarily the case. People who like Kinkade are inclined to be of the same state of mind as those who also tend to be racists, that commonality that is often based from being closed minded.

Yes, about the time you get to telling the person to shut up, you know you've gone and lost all your credibility for reasonable debate.

You should try leaving something fitting to the conversation with your words for once, you insist on just fabricating your own image of me and then tearing at that. It's like your talking to yourself really, and again, is the problem. You're not connected very well to humanity. You think telling someone to leave people alone in what they believe is a just cause, but that's simply the route to separation among people and you don't believe it one bit. You think you do maybe, but you don't. Everyday you wake up you do things that you believe correlate with the rest of humanity. You make judgements, you make statements, you tell people what to do and think everyday whether you realize it or not.

Yes, about the time you get to telling the person to shut up, you know you've gone and lost all your credibility for reasonable debate.

The person making ridiculous leaps of logic about racism is in no position to lecture about credibility and how it relates to reasonable debate.
Here's another piece of work that's not mine, but nicely sums up most of what I've been trying to say.

The Conundrum of the Workshops

When the flush of a new-born sun first fell on Eden's green and gold,
Our father Adam sat under the Tree and scratched with a stick in the mould;
And the first rude sketch that the world had seen was joy to his mighty heart,
Till the Devil whispered behind the leaves: "It's pretty, but is it art?"

Wherefore he called to his wife, and fled to fashion his work anew-
The first of his race who cared a fig for the first, most dread review:
And he left his lore to the use of his sons--and that was a glorious gain
When the Devil chuckled: "Is it art?" in the ear of the branded Cain.

They builded a tower to shiver the sky and wrench the stars apart,
Till the Devil grunted behind the bricks: "It's striking but is it art?"
The stone was dropped by the quarry-side, and the idle derrick swung,
While each man talked of the aims of art, and each in an alien tongue.

They fought and they talked in the north and the south, they talked and they fought in the west,
Till the waters rose on the jabbering land, and the Poor Red Clay had rest--
Had rest till the dank blank-canvas dawn when the dove was preened to start,
And the Devil bubbled below the keel: "It's human, but is it art?"

The tale is old as the Eden Tree--as new as the new-cut tooth--
For each man knows ere his lip-thatch grows he's master of art and truth;
And each man hears as the twilight nears, to the beat of his dying heart,
The Devil drum on the darkened pane: "You did it, but was it art?"

We have learned to whittle the Eden Tree to the shape of a surplice-peg,
We have learned to bottle our parents twain in the yolk of an addled egg,
We know that the tail must wag the dog, as the horse is drawn by the cart;
But the Devil whoops, as he whooped of old: "It's clever, but is it art?"

When the flicker of London sun falls faint on the club-room's green and gold,
The sons of Adam sit them down and scratch with their pens in the mould--
They scratch with their pens in the mould of their graves, and the ink and the anguish start
When the Devil mutters behind the leaves: "It's pretty, but is it art?"

Now, if we could win to the Eden Tree where the four great rivers flow,
And the wreath of Eve is red on the turf as she left it long ago,
And if we could come when the sentry slept, and softly scurry through,
By the favor of God we might know as much--as our father Adam knew.

Rudyard Kipling

And as to the link. It makes a very good point about isolation. But it makes no point at all about universality. I have no clue as to whether or not I think Rembrandt overall is a better painter than Leonardo, I can't compare the two. I can say Leonardo worked with line and worked with line better than Rembrandt, but perhaps that was just a choice, a taste. The difference is that if Rembrandt tried to work line and was failing at it miserably, he would be less of a painter (or better say a line draughtsman) than Leonardo.

This argument has to do with all things in consideration. Seeing the beauty in all things. You don't think these same people who like Kinkade aren't also saying "I don't get that stupid abstract crap, bunch of b.s. if you ask me" And those were the guys who killed themselves while Kinkade made 50-100 million a year. So seriously people? Mark Rothko who's gallery left nothing to his kids, who slit his wrists? Whose work most people thought was just about color relationships because they didn't give him a chance to view his work in silence and at a distance in which they could more clearly see the paint tones and textures so that it would visually read to them?

Your link was your best effort at trying to connect with me here. And if you had made that argument I would have been much more respectful to you from the beginning. But again, it's all things. It's not about wines, or beers. I have snob beer friends, it's annoying much of the time. The excitement to me is seeing the qualities and learning how to appreciate and judge them against each other. And what one 'prefers' is different as to somethings 'quality'.

So lets make that argument with LIFE. Can you become a snob at life? What is that? Knowing too much about too many things and understanding them? I don't see the problem there. A snob is someone who thinks they're better because of one particular skill interests they have. It could be anything. I use painting here as an example, not as a end in itself. But painting for me isn't about pure aesthetic as it is for some painters. It's about life, and it connects to everything. It's simply communication. While color and form are nice, what they do to someone's spirit is more important.

I think this fails to grab the soul of a human and fill them spiritually:

While this on the other hand is beautiful and heartfelt, also enduring:

or this, which is strange with a girl in front of it but it gives you an idea of the size and the wonder. The beauty and sincerity in a work like this. Just compare it to the first Kinkade and I don't know how you couldn't see the difference. It would be like looking at a cheesy cheeseburger compared to a nice steak. It would be like brittany spears to debussy.

Well My links are showing up it seems.

This Kinkade: www.kinkadecentral.com/kinkade-2010-bambis-first-year-1st-art-disney-thomas.jpg

Versus these:

foxlily.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/4813540978_56db753434_b-e1279768215309.jpg

www.sightswithin.com/Emile.Friant/Doleur.jpg

And I enjoyed that piece but as to the first question, "Is it art?" I honestly don't have a care in the world. What does it matter if it's Art or not? There is substance, and some is more powerful than other substance. In certain times, especially like these, we need more powerful substances to awaken those who aren't as clever as those who are in power. The rich elite who are controlling much of the world don't want intelligent people capable of critical thinking, feeling, or being in touch with their emotions. They want disposable people, people they can send to die in War for whatever profitable cause they want. They want obedient workers who will work those low paying jobs. They want a class of people who have no idea how badly they're getting screwed as our freedoms continue to be stripped away until one day you ask yourself why you can't even pick a wild flower anymore, or why there is no more land for you to own either because a big ag company owns it or its now government property? You may not see how these things tie in but they do.

@Studiespainting

I guess you don't know what the word 'probably' means.

It's my own theory (not something I can prove here, this is different) that people who don't give new food a try, new visuals a try, new music a try. People who hear something once and think "ya know I don't @!$%#ing like it" doo da doo da doo. Those people are PROBABLY racist too. The people who shun so many elements in their life and so many experiences because they don't immediately appeal are probably going to do the same with other cultures, ethnicities, languages, smells, trees, shoelaces, wedding cakes, w/e. The list is endless.

Congratulations on the most narrow-minded, ignorant and pretentious garbage posted on MSNBC today.

What a horrible attempt to distance yourself from such ridiculous statements. Your words speak for themselves and they certainly don't put you in the same stratosphere as Da Vinci or Michelangelo. Nice try at diversion though. Neither of those men were "probably" stupid enough to make public statements labeling an entire group racist based on the fact that they liked one particular painter. You my friend, are in that class all by yourself.

So you think. But who are you to say so?

It's not a distancing, it's showing you I didn't make a concrete statement that it is this way, it's never always a certain way. People who like hiking are probably in shape. That doesn't mean everyone who likes hiking is in shape. Or do you not think that exists?

Please, stop trying to spin my words as you best would like to see them spun so you don't look so foolish. I do say probably, and I stand behind it. Most of the people I know (family actually) who like Kinkade's work are simple minded and racist, also big opponents to homosexuality. You could also say people who like Kinkade are inclined to be christian (HOW DARE I).

I would never make the statement all people who like Kinkade are Christian, that's just stupid. So I would never make the statement all people who like Kinkade are racists, that's equally stupid. Clearly that isn't the case is it genius!?

Geez, grow something somewhere.

This is an entertaining read to be sure.

I imagine a Venn diagram with three overlapping circles.

1 - Christians

2 - own Kinkade paintings

3 - idiots

The area where they overlap is considerable. Note that there is no circle for 'racist'. That's just absurd.

Again, these are prints to impress your 'relatives from DuBuque'. Little more. And in the houses of thrift and bargains, in the near future, their numbers shall be legion.

The thought of impressing someone with a Kinkade inkjet sends chills down my spine. I can't imagine what larry the cable guy movie is to follow.

"Im a simple mannnn (says larry, a rich city slicker who failed at being himself), I don't get this artsy fartsy bull... but Kinkade, that's some pretty cool stuff now, I tell you one thing right there."

Meanwhile Kinkade rolls in half a billion a year off of pillows, cd's, and calendars while other guys starve and barely make a living because of their elitists ways. Painting those naturalistic trees and landscapes and @!$%#, how are people supposed to get that?

Kincaid was a fraud. In the 80s he was a tenant of mine in Pasadena while he was at the Art Center. He told a group of us that he was going to make and market sentimental kitch and make a mint. He did.

Marty -

Yeah right, YOU just HAPPENED to be Kincaid's landlord. And I have a bridge in New York I can sell ya.

Selling some equivalent to sentimental kitsch is the only way to make money as an artist. There are thousands of brilliant artists out there that you will never see or hear from because they're not good business people. Kinkade obviously was.

I believe Marty was his landlord, why not? Kincaid was just getting started and I am sure he was renting for a while. I have met alot of known artists and some celebrities when I used to live near L.A. You happen to run into those kinds of people if your in the area.

So Marty, why is he a fraud?? He did what he set out to do. Why diminish the man now that he's dead? You're a sorry excuse for a person.

In my opinion, he was okay til he became a "christian" artist. Where he work was christian, I don't know. I sure wish I could paint like him though. I did admire him until he was sold only in Christian shops. What a shame as that was not his goal in life.

He sold through art houses; fine galleries and special collections too. Nt just Christian book stores, love.

What's wrong, Leanne?

On the one hand, you chastise Marty for calling him a fraud, then on the other you say that he was "okay until he became a "christian" artist". Take some time out, and examine your train of thought.

Why the fear of walking into a Christian bookstore in order to purchase/view a Kincade?

I can assure you, no matter what your lifestyle or belief may be, you would not suddenly burst into flames.

I'd put a bet that any one of you squawkers of how lousy T. Kinkade's works were, couldn't even begin to measure up to the artwork he did, nor make the money he made off his talent.

Marty Kay Zee

Kincaid was a fraud. In the 80s he was a tenant of mine in Pasadena while he was at the Art Center. He told a group of us that he was going to make and market sentimental kitch and make a mint. He did.

And that makes you revelant in what way?

My wife and I own a small gift store that is not a "Christian bookstore" and have sold alot of Kinkades paintings and figurines. They are a pleasure to have in the store and they have been a good income for us.

So Marty , you would be happier if his art was not popular and he went on to be homeless ! What a petty miserable person you must be .

What's not surprising is the wide range of opinions on such a simple subject as a man's paintings.

What's not surprising is the usual trolls posting comments with the sole purpose of seeking attention and illiciting strong reactions in others.

What's not surprising is people bringing politics or religion into every possible subject under the sun.

What's not surprising is the collapsing of comments by people of opposing view points (in this case Christians vs. non-Christians)

But what is always surprising to me is the amount of people that fall hook, line and sinker for the bait left by these trolls. Especially the first couple of collapsed comments, where it was obvious that a person talking insensitively about his own mother's future death is simply another transparent attempt to seek attention and get people all worked up.

To the Christians: Turn the other cheek
To the troll responders: Just scroll on down, nothing to see there.

To DevAvo: Who made you the boss?

Enuh, thanks for making my point for me by turning an opinion into conflict, where there is none to be had.

In terms you might understand: No one made me the boss (of what, I don't know?) nor do I need or want to be the boss. Perhaps you misinterpreted my observations and advice for commandments? For which, I cannot be held responsible for each individual's perception of any given statement.

If you'd like to be the boss, I say more power to you. I'm sorry you felt threatened by my post but I have no desire to take any power away from you or anyone else. I simply offered a possible way of thinking that would AVOID conflict and needless negative emotions. Unfortunately I failed in both respects with you. Which leads me to conclude the best I can do at this point is to pass along the overused but helpful phrase that is often perceived as both sarcastic and Pollyanna, sometimes both:

"Have a nice day!"

thought a lot of his work was serene and used light in a comforting way

If you find comfort in cabins that are about to go up in flames... sure!

WHY is there so much light coming from every single window?!?!

AMEN!!!!

Indeed, his paintings are beautiful.

And to those who say that they are 'not art', I say nonsense. If snapping a photo of a landscape is considered art, then Kinkade's paintings are art - and ten times as artistic.

I feel that today's art critics are snobs who criticize 'outsiders' who are different than them, and who threaten to be more successful than them. Just because he sells millions of paintings & prints does not mean that his work is not original. Critics seem to be comparing Kinkade's work with... other Kinkade paintings. If they really can't appreciate Kinkade's art, I feel sorry for them. But their main motivation might just be hate for an artist who is a Christian.

Just because he sells millions of paintings & prints does not mean that his work is not original.

I absolutely agree with you, that TK selling a million prints does not make his work unoriginal. That only makes it commercialized.

However, what does make TK's work unoriginal is that, while he mastered the set of skills required to produce such paintings, they show very little creativity and not a lot of growth.

He comes up short in the 'creativity' department because his work is very much the same from one painting to the next - the only real variation is between ones with snow, and ones with flowers.

He comes up short is the 'growth' department because his paintings all look very much the same from one year to the next - the last TK painting I saw looks just like the first TK painting that I ever saw.

Clearly, the man had artistic muscles, he just didn't stretch them. Which is too bad. It would have been great had he continued to grow and progress. He had a TON to offer. He developed, and offered, some of it. Much of it was left undeveloped, unoffered.

I don't say this because I am motivated by 'hate for an artist who is a Christian.' To me, it wouldn't matter if he had worshiped tree bark... I don't care for his work.

I think many Christians support Thomas Kinkade simply because of his faith... but, that's not how I roll.

I am very sorry for his family's loss. 54 years of age is FAR too young. I truly wish them nothing but peace and comfort.

The rest of us, however, probably haven't lost anything that he hadn't already given us - meaning, anything that he would have lived to create probably would have looked much like what he's already created. I would love to be able to say otherwise, but I'm too realistic to believe that he would have suddenly come out with a whole new series of paintings featuring some previously unexplored subject matter.

This is exactly what I wanted to say!! He brought art to people who otherwise could not afford it. I find it sad that a "good artist" needs to be exclusive and suffer in poverty to be considered worthy. If it is beautiful to someone and brings them happiness, then I consider it successful! He left his family very comfortable in his passing and left people with beautiful pictures. I don't see what is negative about any of that!! My condolences to his family!

5 years? Way too short to tell how his work holds up over time. Try 50, or even better 500 years. Vincent Van Goth only managed to sell 1 painting while he was alive. I have no idea what he would think of the money that his work brings today...he would probably, at least, feel vindicated in his lifelong efforts to paint. There is no way to tell right now how Mr. Kinkade's work will be seen in the future.

That's Van Gogh.

He may not have been a Van Gogh, but his stuff was better than a can of tomato soup.

@studiespainting: ...he didn't make work for mankind, he made work for profit. He knew this,

So does everybody else that markets anything. You would too, if you had anything to market to the public.
The concept is ALWAYS to make money. I don't know of many people that actually do what they do, just to give it away. Except me maybe, but then, I doubt my art would ever make it to Thomas' level of artistry.

The fact that you are a "new" member, and you just HAPPENED to choose that name, explains your logic.

@ConwayTwitter- I am an artist (middlin' fair) and I have NEVER marketed my work, at least not in the sense that you speak of. I will never be famous or wealthy from my art even though I do sell some pieces (word of mouth). Personally I cannot stand the "art world" and I would cut off my hands and poke out my eyes before I ingratiated myself to that moral morass for profit (and my husband says I am just not weird enough to be famous, and brother I am pretty weird), just as I would lose my soul if I had to mass market my work through WalMart and other like venues. But that's just me. It has never ever been about money. Nor will it ever be. As a wise man once said, "I don't care to much for money..."

Kinkade carved his niche and he was apparently happy with it. It served him well.

Those who can paint do just that, those that can't paint criticize the ones who can.

For those of you old enough to remember the old band called Genesis, both before Phil Collins and after he joined, this is the perfect example of turning "art" into "pop". I can't think of a better comparison than this. Genesis started out being a very artsy progressive rock band. But shortly after Phil Collins replaced Peter Gabriel as lead singer (and leader of the group), Genesis turned into an easy-listening, pop-oriented rock band. They also became more popular than ever before.

High brow art is often an acquired taste and therefore not always popular with the masses.

Art (including painting and music) that is straight forward, simple, realistic, easy to digest, is often regarded by those same high brow art lovers as nothing but commercialism.

Elvis Presley, Norman Rockwell, Phil Collins, all gave the world simple straight forward Hershey bars. Something anyone can enjoy. If you enjoy imported gourmet chocolate you might find the Hershey bars "hard to swallow". But it doesn't make them any less tasty to the rest of humanity.

You cannot debate artwork, music or religion. Each is an individual choice and totally subjective. Period.

If you're looking for a good debate, there's plenty of action in the Politics section.

Kathy Stewart

I also am an artist. I do not sell my paintings.

I don't know of many people that actually do what they do, just to give it away. Except me maybe, but then, I doubt my art would ever make it to Thomas' level of artistry.

So apparently we are on the same level of mind, as everyone I know loves my artwork, and I am apparently the only one who thinks it not worthy of selling. lol

Oh God is it really that hard to understand mr. twitter? The goal is to do something meaningful and still be able to survive off of it, that is the hope anyway. If the purpose is to make money it doesn't matter what you do. Some people don't run on the mentality of whores, and don't simply do anything they can for money. Some people want to teach and educate because they love it and they understand it won't make them rich.

@realitycheck Totally, I mean leonardo and Michelangelo couldn't paint worth a lick could they? Jesus, this is depressingly stupid stupid logic. Surely you aren't this much of an idiot.

I must know what it will take to get through to you, otherwise it's not worth the effort. If you can't actually think very well then It may not be much worth the effort.

I don't know what the choosing of my name has to do with a certain type of logic... do you know what logic is? Studiespainting is just a word I put so you can more quickly understand I have studied painting most of my life very seriously. I've studied around the world where many masters have, I've studied under a living master even. I don't think this matters much, what matters is the content in my words. But what use are they if you're gonna beat your skull into the wall?

Everyone's an artist, what is this you refer to? If you don't work at it everyday and attempt to make a living off of it why even play with the idea you are a professional. You're a hobby painter, so what? Everyone is. You don't sell work? Okay cool, why does anyone care? What does that do? If you're work isn't even near kinkades ability than you must be completely terrible anyhow. I know many schools of young people who can paint better than kinkade. Painterly illustration isn't very hard. Many many guys do this kinkade crap to a lesser or greater extent (depending on how much pride they have left), look at Jesse Barnes. Barnes could complement colors more and make it more glowing but he probably still wants to be taken halfway seriously.

Like many popular painters of the past he will be appreciated more now after his death. It is unfortunate since he was viewed by many in the art world as strictly a commercial artist of calendar style art. Let see what the critics think in five years.

No doubt, the value of his original paintings has already just went up among collectors.

Collectors and critics are two different animals.

I, also, agree that 5 years is far too soon to tell how someone's legacy will be remembered... or, if they will even have one.

At any rate --5 years, 50 years, 500 years-- I can't see the 'art world' being interested in Thomas Kinkade. If he will have any legacy at all, it most likely will be with collectors of antiquities and such. For the 'art world' of the future to care about him, he would have to be important in the art world of today.

Believe me, MoMA won't be clearing off a spot next to Van Gogh's, 'Starry Night', for a Thomas Kinkade - not in 5 years or 500 years. LOL

His PRINTS will be in thrift stores by the denful within five years.

Just like all of the post-Peter Gabriel Genesis albums.

His PRINTS will be in thrift stores by the denful within five years.

I don't think anyone's even going to care... but... IF Thomas Kinkade's work is ever subjected to X-ray, or brushstroke analysis... Ha Ha Ha! LOL *snort*

You also have a simple mind!

sad excuse for a human being, have some class.

RIP Mister Kinkade

Wow simple guy...did your folks beat you with a Kinkade painting?

This may be true. However, I've always been extra kind to the people who have worked for me and have dedicated their time and their efforts to me. I've never tried to squeeze every last dime out of them. If you don't believe me, do a search for the news stories about this. I believe it occurred back in about 2003 or 04 before he bought back his galleries and went private again.

Simple Guy, your original post's wording was in extremely poor taste especially should his family read it. It's pretty obvious that his behaviour was less than stellar in regards to how he handled his galleries but the amount of venom in your post diminishes YOU and there are plenty of people out there just waiting for a chance to cut ANYONE down to size to be helping them do it!

I agree with the post. If it walks like a duck etc...

Yeah, I bet you only go for the kind of art in New York that has to be publicly funded and has a crucifix in a jar of urine or Mary in a pile of dung, right?

As if you could do any better!

Ah, yes, the old "you can't do any better" nonsense. By that logic, you shouldn't be able to criticize a movie, because you can't make movies, or criticize a singer, because you can't sing.

Like Demlefty, I'm sure I couldn't paint any better than Kinkade. But we're not claiming to be artists. He was claiming to be one. His stuff was no better than the "sofa-sized oils from $29" you see advertised at weekend sales at the nearest Holiday Inn, just a lot more expensive.

I do have to wonder whether he knew his stuff was garbage, but didn't care, since it was making him rich, or whether he actually thought the stuff was good.

Earlyout -

It's that old adage, if you can't do, then teach. Or in your case, if you have no talent, then be a critic. And then if that's all you're good for, then I'm glad I don't know you because I bet you're a real downer to be around.

I'm not a Kinkade fan. It was fine, but not my kind of fine. But I'm taken aback a bit by people who feel compelled to tell other people what is not good art. Isn't the essence of it what you think and feel having experienced it? If so, it can be garbage, or schlock, to you, but to other people it might be wonderful. So why, on the occasion of his death, would you feel the need to visit a site where you must know that his fans will be leaving messages in order to take a slap at his work?

I might not be capable of defining art for you, but I am pretty sure I can define boorish.

Don, I finished a 8 foot x 5 foot painting of a tornado that says i can do better. He had talent, but greed made him forgettable, i hope he had some money stashed away for the wife and kids.

RW -

Maybe that's true, maybe it's not. But your jealousy is showing because no one has heard of you...

That is how you define an artist? if their name is spoken on the tongue of every person? I could sit here and name out a thousand artists that you have never heard of, yet a single work or their's is worth more at auction than all of Kinkade's combined wrapped in Gold.

RW -

And so I guess in your reasoning, to be a SUCCESSFUL artist is then being a failure? Bad news for Norman Rockwell, Grant Wood, etc etc, then I guess. Gee, to use your talents to make a living. How HORRIBLE! Someone better tell all those young kids going to college or excelling in professional sports they're wasting their time trying to make a living! Not as long as you have 'ol RwEvans shooting you down for being a success!

Demlefty - Did you ever look at one of Kinkade's original paintings up close and touch the surface?

To say that his work was awful schlock is a very ignorant statement.

I admit that art is in the eye of the beholder. However, you are overlooking the FACT that he did sell thousands of paintings.

Mr. Kinkade developed a painting formula and procedure that allowed him to work on several paintings at the same time - going from one to another, to another, etc., and finally back to the first one. He was smart enough to figure out a way to mass produce original art work.

He set his sales goals on the "church crowd" and specifically, people over the age of 50. There are thousands of mostly grey-haired women and some men, who think Kinkade's work is the "bee's knees." Oooops, I just used a term you might not know.

If you carp about the quality of Kinkade's work, you are not paying homage to his total creativity. Plus, it sounds like you have a sour grapes attitude. You sound like you look for the negative instead of reinforcing the positive. The positive in Kinkade's case is this:

Kinkade made thousands of people very happy, simply by putting one of his paintings or prints on a wall in their house or office. You have not accomplished that, so kwiturbitchin.

Let's face it.....because he marketed himself as a "Christian painter", he sold his kitschy art. If he hadn't marketed his art with his religious beliefs, he wouldn't have sold much. His stuff was terrible and really only appealed to those who had little to no understanding of art. The fact that he ripped off so many investors just showed his true colors. He was all about the money and the mass production, not about art.

Don, ty for proving my point that you have no concept of what art is and you are painfully uneducated.

"Mr Kinkade had Beautiful paintings ' just saying Leave it at that

"You can't do any better" is actually a great indicator of artistic worth, because if you can, then that person's work shouldn't be worth a dime. However, too often art critics try to tell me that Kinkade's stuff is terrible while trying to justify why Andreas Gursky's "Rhein II" was worth $4.7 million. I can do way better than Gursky, both at photography and Photoshopping (Rhein II contains absolutely amateurish Photoshop cloning). I would have dragged 'Rhein II' into the recycle bin had I shot it.

I can sing, just not very well. I can paint too, and make movies, just not well at all. So why am I supposed to dismiss people who are excellent at these, while embracing people who are worse than I am as some sort of artistic geniuses?

RW -

And thank you for proving a point that you're a boorish snob that if we're not as smart as you then we're lower class. It must be lonely where you are putting yourself on such a high pedestal above everyone like that because you know SO much MORE than everyone else!

Thank you Don942805. I have read many of RW post and find his and others like him quite snobbish. How horrible for anyone to post some remarks like I have read here. Actually I consider people like RW trash for coming here and having no respect for Mr Kincades' family. It seems also they maybe people who hate religion. What a shame just little children arguing that my paintings are better than yours.

I hope his family knows that he brought much joy to many people including me. May you find peace and warmth in knowing his work was greatly loved.

DON I'm with you 100% and for those who can only hate and criticize let em have it LOW CLASS , lack of INTELLIGENCE . RW.... by trashing some artist hard work, especially after his death show that your mother did not teach you any values in your up bringing no matter how qualified critic you might be.IN regards to Mr. Kinkade's financial trouble it was his SHARKS (financial advisers) that put him in that situation,he was just trusted with them.I would love his work for ever, along with white hair millions across the globe . I'm a naturalized American living abroad, but I cannot accept so much disrespect and hate by so many Americans ,especially in times like this when country is on so much trail.WAKE UP PLEASE !!!!

Condolences to to Kinkade's family and RIP.Mr. KInkade .....too soon.....

While I am saddened at his passing at a young age, I thought his art was 'run of the mill.' And it was. What REALLY gets me about some of the comments about how "Well, an amateur painter we've never heard of is acting like he is better than an artist who made millions. What a loser!"
How do YOU know RW isn't gold waiting to happen?
I'll put it in the best way I know: music. There are ALOT of musicians I personally know who are so incredible, I find it a crime that they are poor, gigging in crappy bands to get by - because musicians are a dime a dozen. Meanwhile, you have 'musicians' who are rich & famous, but actually talentless. They just have good writers or better musicians holding them up, and some bands just suck! 3 bar chords per song and no substance to the lyrics - and making MILLIONS to screaming fans while cranking out the same generic music over and over (Nickelback, anyone?)
I'm sure none of you have heard of Todd Jones, Ian Baird or Mack Daniels. That is because they never made it famous beyond a local level, but are some of the best musicians in the midwest that SHOULD be signed. Mr Baird and Mr Daniels are two fine musicians who write and play all of the music they create, on real instruments. And Mr Jones can play anything & everything, from Chet Atkins to Steve Vai, and was a member of one of the biggest midwest country acts.

Fame and money has nothing to do with talent. Some of the greatest 'hacks' have made millions churning out mindless music, art and movies that the masses devour as if it were the greatest creation in the world. Kinkaide was standard, and DID use religion as a tool to sell his art.
Like no one ever used religion to make a buck. Gimme a break!
With all due respect, I feel sorry for his family and am sad he passed away at such a young age. But I'm not going to pretend he was the most wonderful artist ever. He was average, and found a nitch to sell his wares. Great marketer and built his wealth with his business savvy, not his art.

Others here have referenced Van Gogh here, he would've given' his ear to have had Kincade's painting sales while still alive.

I don't agree david,natural cause means you died of old age naturly,you watch in the end it will come out that he was battling something, smart***

No one dies of "old age." That's not a cause of death, and never appears on any death certificate.

I heard he drank alot, maybe that contributed to his early death?

So what would it say[early-out] he died late in life,my motto is [live long-die out]

Linda from calif.

It happens more than you think. A young woman I worked with died at age 29 and she had no known medical problems. Everyone was in a state of shock when her doctor told them her heart just stopped and the EMT tried everything to revive her. I'm almost 60 so we could be next.

You can be 32 and die of natural causes. Also, did you notice he was a tad overweight? Possible heart attack? Mitral Valve Prolapse?
Death does not dscriminate age.

I had a friend pass away this last July from natural causes. The doctors cannot figure out why a 25-year-old man would die in his sleep with no prior health problems. Many years back I knew a 29-year-old woman who dropped dead of a heart attack. She was physically in shape and did not suffer from heart problems. As Mr Krinkle said, "Death does not discriminate age."

OMG, why is it that people can't just let people who have passed on (and more importantly their families) alone. If you didn't like the man, his paintings or his beliefs, then so what? If he didn't cause you any harm, why be so disrespectful to him? And honestly, who cares how he died? And I don't mean any disrespect by that, but really what difference does it make how someone dies? Does it make it more tragic if he were to have died in a car accident or was killed by an intruder? Honestly, when it's my time to go I hope I go due to "natural causes". Give it a rest people. Of course, the morons I'm directing this to probably won't be able to figure out how to get back on here to this posting and they'll never see it, but I feel better. :-)

Calm down Debbie! When someone dies before the age of around 65 people wonder what was wrong. Human beings don't like loose ends especially when it involves someone/something they care about one way or another.

I do understand your frustration with people being unduly abrasive in criticizing the man's work in comments on an article about his death.

And I thought he was the "original" painter of light! We sold copies of his paintings at this western style food/

gift shop in Monterey,CA on Cannery Row back in the early 90's. I had heard about something he did that wasn't cool, and didn't know what it was at the time. Now I know! But I still think he was very talented! I loved the light he put in his paintings. 54 is so young! What a shock!

Oh for crying out loud! There is not such entity as "god"! That is how he ripped all those people of to begin with...... but they really are stupid to fall for anything related to the corrupt world of religion! There are so many stupid people who fall for all that crap about a "power in the sky".

Segdirb -

How ironic then it is that you have Charlie Brown in your ID picture. Charles Schulz was widely known for his belief in God. I pity you.

He may have believed in some form or idea of "God", but he described himself as a Secular Humanist. He was a well-known and vocal advocate of Secular Humanism, and spoke about it in many interviews.

"I do not go to church anymore... I guess you might say I've come around to secular humanism, an obligation I believe all humans have to others and the world we live in"

I'm not trying to get involved in some kind of 'God' discussion or anything - just throwing in $0.02.