Thomas Kinkade dead at 54. IMO, no loss for the art world.

[barry2952]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...?ncid=webmail2

[zideman]

Agreed. Was just having this convo with an old art teacher. He wrote: "this is why i almost forgive him: In 2006 John Dandois, Media Arts Group executive, recounted a story that on one occasion ("about six years ago") Kinkade became drunk at a Siegfried & Roy magic show in Las Vegas and began shouting "Codpiece! Codpiece!" at the performers. Eventually he was calmed by his mother. Dandois also said of Kinkade, "Thom would be fine, he would be drinking, and then all of a sudden, you couldn't tell where the boundary was, and then he became very incoherent, and he would start cursing and doing a lot of weird stuff like touching himself."

Me: sounds like he bought the ticket but every time he tried to take the ride, someone pulled his e-brake.

[what]

for all the fans

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/phot...light-part.php

[barry2952]

There was one of his franchise stores is a small town near us. I was truly astounded at how much nauseating stuff could be in one place. Their damn lights dimmed up and down in the whole place to demonstrate his "thing".

That site is pretty funny.

[KahviVW]

[stolenface]

Thomas Kinkade dead at 54. IMO, no loss for the art world.

im gunna have to pull a barry.....


also, my grandpa has all of the Thomas Kinkade die cast classic pickups.

[barry2952]

Didn't say it wasn't a loss for his family, but his work makes me gag.

[LhW]

I disagree. Regardless of how you feel about his work, he was a defining figure and an icon. I do like his work, the problem is, like many some other artist, he did not explore his craft and go in other directions. At the same time, that was not his goal, his goal was to sell artwork. And he made a ton of money doing it.

When you contrast his work with oh, say, Picasso, Duchamp, etc. they were pure artists. Selling work was secondary. Artists like these pushed the concept of art, and tried a variety of media, ideas, etc.

I be Kinkade has an impressive body of personal work totally different from his iconic work that the world will ever see. Don't judge an artist by only one series (albeit ten million of them). I would be interested to see his other work - if any.

My wife and I were kidding that QVC would have a Kinkade bonanza in his honor. They would be hocking Kinkade dresses, hats, scarves, saw blades, with painting, etc. Poor guy, only 54, that sucks.

[barry2952]

Meh.

[what]

I disagree. Regardless of how you feel about his work, he was a defining figure and an icon. I do like his work, the problem is, like many some other artist, he did not explore his craft and go in other directions. At the same time, that was not his goal, his goal was to sell artwork. And he made a ton of money doing it.

He was to art what Paula Dean is to cooking.

[stolenface]

He was to art what Paula Dean is to cooking.

What in the way that they're both just down home Americana.

You know not everyone is a snob.

I'll take Paula's cooking over Ramsay's anyday. Just like I'd take a painting of a cabin over some abstract bs.

[what]

What in the way that they're both just down home Americana.

You know not everyone is a snob.

I'll take Paula's cooking over Ramsay's anyday. Just like I'd take a painting of a cabin over some abstract bs.

no, in the way they market crap to stupid people.

[stolenface]

no, in the way they market crap to stupid people.

[lemorris]

Like it or not, he got down.

If you're an artist that does work to pay the bills then what he accomplished was pretty amazing.

His work may not have been the best (depending on what you use to measure that by) but he sold the s_it out of his stuff and it looks like it won't end anytime soon. 1 in 20 homes have a piece of his work? (somethin like that)...that's incredible.

There's a couple local artist here where I live and I imagine there are a few where ever you cats live that have their art everywhere and you hate it when you see it just like I do, but I can't sit here and say I wouldn't sell on that level if I could. I wouldn't care if you hated it...you're not my customer anyway.

It's way different when you do art for a living.

So..RIP to dude...not my style, but respect for doin it his way.

[JacksSenseOfRejection]

Thomas Kinkade is more business man than artist, just like Sheappard Fairey. You can respect him for being a scummy business man, with a shrewd attitude towards the art business. But you can't respect him as an artist.

Making money off of art is not the point. It doesn't even make it good art.

Most painters who are famous and well known throughout history never made a ton of money off of art. Some never made any. But there were masters of the craft and were recognized at the time, sometimes posthumously.

I had a long talk about this with my friend who is a realist painter, about showing and selling etc. He was saying that having had his work shown in chelsea galleries, and seeing the people who look and buy the art there... he wasn't sure if he wanted to make money that way. Obviously he would love to have his paintings sell and be able to pay his bills, but he wanted to be known for his technique more so than how much money his pieces get auctioned for.

[adoniram7]

Thomas Kinkade is more business man than artist, just like Sheappard Fairey. You can respect him for being a scummy business man, with a shrewd attitude towards the art business. But you can't respect him as an artist.

Making money off of art is not the point. It doesn't even make it good art.

Most painters who are famous and well known throughout history never made a ton of money off of art. Some never made any. But there were masters of the craft and were recognized at the time, sometimes posthumously.

I had a long talk about this with my friend who is a realist painter, about showing and selling etc. He was saying that having had his work shown in chelsea galleries, and seeing the people who look and buy the art there... he wasn't sure if he wanted to make money that way. Obviously he would love to have his paintings sell and be able to pay his bills, but he wanted to be known for his technique more so than how much money his pieces get auctioned for.

I happen to disagree completely....

That he became popular is completely to his credit. That he created a distinct style
is completely to his credit. That he developed a business model around this and
was successful was to his credit.

And I can tell you without any doubt whatsoever, that 99.99% of the artists out
there, be they musicians, painters, or what not, vehemently disagree with this
statement:

"Making money off of art is not the point. It doesn't even make it good art. "

They would LOVE to make money at what they do. Then they could do it
full-time.

Few artists are both good at art and good at business, which is why so many of
them flounder in obscurity.

[JacksSenseOfRejection]

I happen to disagree completely....

That he became popular is completely to his credit. That he created a distinct style
is completely to his credit. That he developed a business model around this and
was successful was to his credit.

And I can tell you without any doubt whatsoever, that 99.99% of the artists out
there, be they musicians, painters, or what not, vehemently disagree with this
statement:

"Making money off of art is not the point. It doesn't even make it good art. "

They would LOVE to make money at what they do. Then they could do it
full-time.

Few artists are both good at art and good at business, which is why so many of
them flounder in obscurity.

Weird, living in Brooklyn/NYC and having worked in the Art, Fashion, Film, and Video industry professionally I would say your a bit off target.

As I said, would they like to be able to live off of their work full time instead of commissioned work or restoration work? Absolutely.

Would they want to be renowned on the sole fact that their work auctions for a high price? Absolutely not.

Have you ever worked with a well known professional artist? I have, he's had solo shows at the Whitney, PS1, MoMA, ICA. Sure he makes a bunch of money off of his art, but do you know what he fears the most? I'll give you a hint, he doesn't fear when his pieces don't sell. He fears when his work is criticized, or misunderstood, or ends up failing.

The painter I mentioned in my original post, is a known painter in his field. Has even spoken on panel discussions at Georgetown on the subject of the resurgence of realism in painting. Does he sell? Some times. He makes most of his living wage off of commission work, and he worries most about losing his edge, and losing his focus on what is important to him about his work. Again, yes he would love to sell. But he wants to sell for the fact that people enjoy his work and see his technique as special.

Kinkade made a name for himself and turned himself into a business. He was also one of those painters that towards the end, didn't actually make any of his own work anymore. Just like Sheppard Fairey, and quite a few other big names. Once they make the transition into businessman, then they no longer really make art.

[adoniram7]

Weird, living in Brooklyn/NYC and having worked in the Art, Fashion, Film, and Video industry professionally I would say your a bit off target.

As I said, would they like to be able to live off of their work full time instead of commissioned work or restoration work? Absolutely.

Would they want to be renowned on the sole fact that their work auctions for a high price? Absolutely not.

Have you ever worked with a well known professional artist? I have, he's had solo shows at the Whitney, PS1, MoMA, ICA. Sure he makes a bunch of money off of his art, but do you know what he fears the most? I'll give you a hint, he doesn't fear when his pieces don't sell. He fears when his work is criticized, or misunderstood, or ends up failing.

The painter I mentioned in my original post, is a known painter in his field. Has even spoken on panel discussions at Georgetown on the subject of the resurgence of realism in painting. Does he sell? Some times. He makes most of his living wage off of commission work, and he worries most about losing his edge, and losing his focus on what is important to him about his work. Again, yes he would love to sell. But he wants to sell for the fact that people enjoy his work and see his technique as special.

Kinkade made a name for himself and turned himself into a business. He was also one of those painters that towards the end, didn't actually make any of his own work anymore. Just like Sheppard Fairey, and quite a few other big names. Once they make the transition into businessman, then they no longer really make art.

Yes, I have artists in my family.

Unfortunately for artists, and musicians, and etc. the real world is harsh, and
people like what they like. That an artist is hammered for being successful is
far more often about jealousy than anything else.

If Kincaid decided, much like Tom Clancy did, that he was tired and wanted to
do other things, but people still demanded his stuff, so he farmed it out,
all I can say is, why judge this negatively?

And worse, now that we have the news of his passing, it's therefore time to
bring out that hate?

And at the absolute worse, if the quality of his material lessened as he aged,
for whatever reason, this then lessens his overall impact, popularity, and
success?

I say this because of what you said here:

"You can respect him for being a scummy business man, with a shrewd attitude towards the art business. But you can't respect him as an artist."

...which if you know anything about art is all kinds of wrong.

[lemorris]

Unfortunately for artists, and musicians, and etc. the real world is harsh, and
people like what they like. That an artist is hammered for being successful is
far more often about jealousy than anything else.

Like

[JacksSenseOfRejection]

Yes, I have artists in my family.

Unfortunately for artists, and musicians, and etc. the real world is harsh, and
people like what they like. That an artist is hammered for being successful is
far more often about jealousy than anything else.

If Kincaid decided, much like Tom Clancy did, that he was tired and wanted to
do other things, but people still demanded his stuff, so he farmed it out,
all I can say is, why judge this negatively?

And worse, now that we have the news of his passing, it's therefore time to
bring out that hate?

And at the absolute worse, if the quality of his material lessened as he aged,
for whatever reason, this then lessens his overall impact, popularity, and
success?

I say this because of what you said here:

"You can respect him for being a scummy business man, with a shrewd attitude towards the art business. But you can't respect him as an artist."

...which if you know anything about art is all kinds of wrong.

I'm sorry, I just disagree. I do no think that Kincaid contributed anything important to the realm of art. He's just as important as the guy who paints the olives coming to life picutres, or the guy who paints dogs playing poker.

Just because he sells, does not mean he is talented.

Same can be said for Clancy. Is he successful? Yes. Is he a great writer? No, not really. No one is ever going to hold him in the same regard as Joyce or Hemmingway.

[bmann]

I agree with Barry on this one. He's okay, but his stuff belongs in motels and retirement homes.

[adoniram7]

I'm sorry, I just disagree. I do no think that Kincaid contributed anything important to the realm of art. He's just as important as the guy who paints the olives coming to life picutres, or the guy who paints dogs playing poker.

Just because he sells, does not mean he is talented.

Same can be said for Clancy. Is he successful? Yes. Is he a great writer? No, not really. No one is ever going to hold him in the same regard as Joyce or Hemmingway.

Clancy has some great books, and started a whole genre.
Is he Joyce? No. But who the **** cares? He has created excellent fiction,
and has had a big impact on that world.

Again, crapping on someone's grave because you disagree it isn't great
art is beyond foolish.

[JacksSenseOfRejection]

Clancy has some great books, and started a whole genre.
Is he Joyce? No. But who the **** cares? He has created excellent fiction,
and has had a big impact on that world.

Again, crapping on someone's grave because you disagree it isn't great
art is beyond foolish.

What's beyond foolish? Having an opinion based on who the man is?

He's a hack, who was a better businessman than artist.

I'm sorry he was such a beloved influence of yours. I'm sure he influenced someone, but he did not influence the art scene at large. His work was not original, and he didn't have a technique worth talking about.

[lemorris]

My wife is an artist who is known in her field and makes her living selling her paintings and prints and stuff.

She's not a fan of Kincaids work like most of us appear to not be, but she told me that though she would have never attended one of his painting workshops, if she had an opportunity to attend a marketing seminar or whatever by him, she would have gone.

Being good at the business side is not something to be ashamed of. Matter of fact, if you want to be a professional, it's borderline neglectful to ignore it. You won't be professional for long if you do...that's in any field really.

We have an artist that passed away out here named Ted DeGrazia . His stuff is EVERYWHERE!!!!! Not what I dig, but the marketing behind his work is fabulous. His contribution like Kincaids may not be based in technique. Maybe his contribution is finding a way to be able to paint and not starve at the same time. Skill isn't the only measure of greatness. If it were then nobody is great because as we all know, there is always someone better..."great" hasn't been defined yet if you look at it that way.

You know...maybe it's because Kincaid is like a commercial fine artist. Some weird hybrid freak thing with a brush.

If I'm not mistaken, didn't Rockwell suffer this same kind of backlash in his day? How's his legacy doin?


not a plug but my wife's site if interested. http://www.andreenharris.com

[adoniram7]

This debate reminds me of famous musicians. The world is full of astonishingly
talented musicians that never make it, and decently talented musicians that
manage to make a pretty good living. Hell, even marginally talented musicians
that made it big.

Mick Jagger has one of the worst, technically speaking, male voices out there.
No great range. Not technically wonderful. No real support at all at times.
No resonance. (I have years of training and a great ear, so I at least have some
perspective). Yet, huge impact, as an effective lead vocalist of a rock 'n roll
band, GREAT.

Some musicians aren't all that wonderful musically, but had a great producer.
Some musicians write tunes that are considered "pop" but people still like 'em
and listen to 'em on the radio all of the time.

Some are like Justin Bieber - tremendously successful but just, I mean, just
HORRIBLE. He played a version of "Let it Be" for New Year's that was so bad
I was just in shock. But hey, should he pass on tomorrow I give him props for
making it to the top. Few people do.

[barry2952]

Sad.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/08/showbi...html?hpt=hp_t3