Thomas Kinkade's death

Richard S. (rich815) · Apr 9, 2012

Darkroom317 said:
A......it is no doubt that Adams work has become over commercialized nearly to the extent of Kinkade.

What?? Kinkade's company was grossing $32M a quarter before it went private again a few years back. Every THREE months. I do not think Ansel Adams work was anywhere near that level nor ever will be.

Michael W · Apr 9, 2012

jnanian said:
kinkade used his imagination and created from scratch
with brushes and paints ...

I don't see much imagination or originality in his paintings. Most of them look like scenes from some Disney film of Snow White, or Hansel and Gretel. Cosy cottages with warm, glowing windows set in a snowy, rural landscape.

jesterthejedi · Apr 9, 2012

My own .02 here, it is really easy to take a beautiful subject and just copy or reproduce it. Real artistry is taking the ordinary subject and transforming it into a thing of beauty (or any character) then also the transformation of something beautiful and making it ordinary.

There are no professional artists, we are all amateurs, our work is what may be the professional.

gandolfi · Apr 9, 2012

Michael W said:
I'd say he's pretty much unknown outside the USA. I only became aware of him in recent times. It was also quite recently that I read about another very successful business that sells little model houses covered in snow. Both seem to be tapping into the same nostalgic fantasy.

Some of us do know about him.

we are told his story, and are ment to smile... maybe to shake our heads a little...

removed account4 · Apr 9, 2012

Michael W said:
I don't see much imagination or originality in his paintings. Most of them look like scenes from some Disney film of Snow White, or Hansel and Gretel. Cosy cottages with warm, glowing windows set in a snowy, rural landscape.

hi michael w

he was a commercial painter.
he knew what his client wanted and gave it to him/her.

dutch masters and 17th century rococo and renaissance painters
painted similar scenes ... but didn't sell millions of them
(i am sure they would have liked to )

i don't really see how any of adams work doesn't fit in that
category, he just reshot o'sullivans work but without the mule and portable darkroom ...

to be honest i don't like kinkade's work much, i find it to be kind of the same
as a curio cabinet filled with hummels ...
i am just arguing for the sake of arguing, sorry ...

but he knew his client ...

ann · Apr 9, 2012

Geddes an artist, what did I miss. A portrait photography who found a way to present children and babies in a new way, but not art in my opinion. Great at marketing.

Kinkade has made me ill for years, however, what can one expect from a nation that puts no value on art, either the understanding or study and appreciate of what is good, and / or bad. And just to be clear I am an American, live in the USA , and love my country, but the educational system drives me wild and oh by the way I taught for over 25 years. I would be in big trouble these days if I still taught in the "system"

DesertNate · Apr 9, 2012

If Norman Rockwell was an artist, then so is Kinkade. It may be milquetoast, but it pleases people. People don't want to be confronted in their living rooms.

BrianShaw · Apr 9, 2012

ann said:
Kinkade has made me ill for years, however, what can one expect from a nation that puts no value on art, either the understanding or study and appreciate of what is good, and / or bad.

I feel the same way about Buicks!

TheFlyingCamera · Apr 9, 2012

One major problem I have with Kinkade, particularly the claim to be "the painter of light" (not to mention the rip-off of Turner, who COULD actually paint) is the fact that Kinkade seemed to miss the fact that when painting "real life", there is only one sun, one light source. If you look at some of his paintings, you'll see what appears to be multiple light sources illuminating the scene. We're not on Tatooine, this is still the earth, last time I checked, and we don't have two suns and three moons.

I think the difference between Kinkade and Adams, as far as commercialization is concerned, is that Adams didn't start cranking out images "in his style" to meet demand - he may have churned the milk a bit in terms of volume production of the same images, but he wasn't going around and shooting a new version of "Clearing Winter Storm" every winter so he could have something for the February page of that year's calendar. That was Kinkade - milk the theme for all it was worth, and then some.

As far as his mark on Art History and critical opinion, in 10, 20, or even 100 years, he may be studied, but he will not ever be regarded as high art. His work does not induce contemplation and thought in the viewer - it provokes a limited range of emotion in his fans (warmth, comfort, nostalgia, "all is right with the world") , and it does so through the repetition of facile, monodimensional symbols designed to reinforce that emotional response. Of course, to his detractors, he also provokes a limited range of emotion, quite in contrast to the one he engenders in his fans. It's throwaway art because it can be digested in a single viewing, and repeat viewings do not generate new insight.

blansky · Apr 9, 2012

DesertNate said:
If Norman Rockwell was an artist, then so is Kinkade. It may be milquetoast, but it pleases people. People don't want to be confronted in their living rooms.

Not to confuse the issue but wasn't Rockwell more of an illustrator. Maybe the difference is sort of moot but his work is more in the vein of commercial illustrators of his era. Some of that became sought after art, but initially wasn't meant to be "art" per se.

Kinkade, to me was an American artist who cashed in on the "simplicity" of the American market. In other words he made a fortune churning out schlock to an uneducated population who "knew what they liked". Sort of like the Sarah Palin crowd who are proud of their lack of education/knowledge/sophistication.

In short, a massive market.

BrianShaw · Apr 9, 2012

TheFlyingCamera said:
That was Kinkade - milk the theme for all it was worth, and then some.

As far as his mark on Art History and critical opinion, in 10, 20, or even 100 years, he may be studied, but he will not ever be regarded as high art.

He may be studied even more in business schools than in art schools. It is possible that he is an exemplar of "high business".

dasBlute · Apr 9, 2012

"but adams is pretty much the photographic version of kinkade as far as i am concerned ..."
- jnanian

Sure - to you - but I suggest you're an outlier; and to me, this is balderdash.
Ansel, contributed as much as *anyone* to the field, inspired countless
photographers, carved a wide swath that half the large format photographers
are still wandering through. One could only dream to be so 'bad' as Ansel.

artonpaper · Apr 9, 2012

My Mom's favorite artist was Walt Disney. Kincaid is Disney-esque in a way. I think people who buy his work would probably buy Hummel figurines, paintings of ''Nobel Natives'' staring out at a sunset, and other sentimental subject . . . kitsch. I won't miss him. But I think to compare Ansel to Kinkade is off the mark. I understand why one might see that connection, but I think Adam's photographs came from a deep personal aesthetic, one steeped in contemplation. Also his drive toward technical mastery, and the fact that he codified the mysteries of exposure and development and print values is a real legacy he has left us, whether one thinks that his work is deep or sappy. It's hard to look at Kinkade not feel cynical. Adams was always sincere. I would find it hard to make that statement about Kinkade, from looking at his work.

BrianShaw · Apr 9, 2012

artonpaper said:
Adams was always sincere. I would find it hard to make that statement about Kinkade, from looking at his work.

Interesting. How so.. how do you know "sincerity" from looking at their works?

removed account4 · Apr 9, 2012

dasBlute said:
"but adams is pretty much the photographic version of kinkade as far as i am concerned ..."
- jnanian

Sure - to you - but I suggest you're an outlier; and to me, this is balderdash.
Ansel, contributed as much as *anyone* to the field, inspired countless
photographers, carved a wide swath that half the large format photographers
are still wandering through. One could only dream to be so 'bad' as Ansel.

perhaps i am an outlier, i am someone distant from the main feature ( adams )
the folks cutting kinkade down to size are outliers as well.
i have been doing large format work since the 1980s, and adams was never a photographer i looked towards
for inspiration or to follow in his path, so i suppose you are right.

i never said he didn't contribute anything to "photography" or "inspire people"
it just doesn't seem that adams really did anything different than o'sullivan and the others who documented the americanwest before him.
instead of wet plate or dry plate, he used film, and the zone system. compensating exposure and development for each scene had been around for a long time ...
adams made it popular it in the modern age ..

not really anything new, just re-birthing and re-creating modern genre of someone elses style.
it doesn't mean he is good bad it just means he is good at re-working someone else's style ... and in the end we are all guilty of that, except for painters, sculptors, architects, builders, photographers &c who go off the deep end
and invent their own style and language and technique and everything else.
kinkade wasn't doing anything new either, except making millions selling his work.

BrianShaw · Apr 9, 2012

jnanian said:
perhaps i am an outlier...

i have been doing large format work since the 1980s, and adams was never a photographer i looked towards
for inspiration or to follow in his path, so i suppose you are right.

You are not alone. Me too, right down to the LF "profile" except I'm not pro and probably not as talented as are you. The person who got me interested in LF was a total AA groupie. I can appreciate his work but mine is very different... and always has been.

sdotkling · Apr 9, 2012

Ooh, good, a fight about "art"!
One can't deny that Ansel Adams created a new esthetic in his work: monumental landscapes rendered with great skill, with that American patriotic veneer so many have found resonant over the years. The rampant commercialization of his images followed widespread acceptance and admiration. That---and his undeniable technical chops---put him in a much different class than the cynical Kincade, who invented nothing and wasn't even very good at the exploitative hokum he was peddling. (Maxfield Parrish and NC Wyeth did the magical-fairy-dust thing so much better a hundred years ago, and Walt Disney's Snow White is the atelier of Rembrandt by comparison.) I always wondered how on earth the guy could stock all those mall stores with paintings, and I figured he had a Chinese factory cranking them out: assembly line 1 worked on foliage, assembly line 2 handled mountain peaks. But then I read that it was mostly prints with a few brushstrokes added on top to qualify it as "original." This was art marketing at its weirdest dollar-gushing apex, and now that Kincade is dead, I would expect that nothing will change. Except they'll raise the prices.
This is just the same thing as big-eyed waifs on black velvet in the 1970's. The ironists, of course, have made the originator of that schlock-art (yeah, seems there was one guy who invented it and was then ripped off by others) highly collectible...though with a smirk.

BrianShaw · Apr 9, 2012

sdotkling said:
This is just the same thing as big-eyed waifs on black velvet in the 1970's.

... so what are those selling for these days? I almost purged my memory of them until you brought it up. Gee, thanks.

MDR · Apr 9, 2012

Adams is often called the last of the 19th century landscape photographers and that's what he is, the only thing unique to Adams is the overdramatization of the sky the rest is pure 19th century and even the sky isn't really unique to AA. To quote sdotkling ...he invented nothing... same thing could be said for AA. The zone system wasn't really something new btw. Both Kincade and AA are extremely important Artists AA popularized landscape photography and Kincade had huge success with his kitsch. Art is not the thing shown in galleries art can be anything see Duchamps. There is art for the masses something artist and critics often hate and bestow with demeaning comments and then their is gallery art often hated by the masses. So my question which is more important the thing created for a few hundred that often don't understand the art pieces content anyway or the thing that pleases a large amount of people and touches them on an emotional level. Imho both are important and both can be consindered art even if I or the critics don't like it. The funny thing is that if asked who they want to reach with their art a lot of artists tell the interviewer that they want to create art for the people, well Kincade and AA did Damien Hirst and some others didn't.

Dominik

Mainecoonmaniac · Apr 9, 2012

If you take a look at the world of commercial photography, it's mostly about creating images that will sell. Stock photography also. What also is in common with Kinkades work is that there's escapism and work that isn't challenging. For some, this type of art and photography is palatable. There are not right are wrongs here. I do cringe when Americans go to Paris and go to McDonalds. Those are the types that think Thomas Kincade is the cat's meow. Does anybody remember Burger King offering prints of Leroy Neiman? How many of those posters are still hanging on people's walls. It's probably landfilled decades ago. Like commercial photography, it's disposable art. I might be proven wrong, but I think Kincade's work will follow the same fate. We shouldn't shame those that love posters of poker playing dogs. What ever floats your boat.

pbromaghin · Apr 9, 2012

sdotkling said:
Ooh, good, a fight about "art"!
One can't deny that Ansel Adams created a new esthetic in his work: monumental landscapes rendered with great skill, with that American patriotic veneer so many have found resonant over the years. The rampant commercialization of his images followed widespread acceptance and admiration.

Right. The big difference is that AA was great before he was a commercial success. He really didn't make much money until Bill Turnage showed up.

sdotkling said:
I always wondered how on earth the guy could stock all those mall stores with paintings, and I figured he had a Chinese factory cranking them out: assembly line 1 worked on foliage, assembly line 2 handled mountain peaks. But then I read that it was mostly prints with a few brushstrokes added on top to qualify it as "original."

As I understand it, a lot of those brush strokes were done by starving art students he hired.

Brian C. Miller · Apr 9, 2012

Adams didn't create a new esthetic, and Kinkade wasn't a cynic. Adams created a dramatization of what he found, while Kinkade created a fantasy land out of his head. For a moment, compare Kinkade to Salvador Dali. Both painted essentially dreamscapes. Kinkade stretched and deformed light like Dali did with basic form.

There are lots of current photographers who are close to what Kinkade did. Look at any of the movie-esque things like "Diner" and you'll see plenty of light that's out of place. Everybody has an intangible light on them.

Mainecoonmaniac · Apr 9, 2012

Forget Kinkade. Digital photographers can to it to with HDR.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/makahiki/2676542006/

My teeth hurt just as much as looking at Thomas Kincade's stuff now

BrianShaw · Apr 9, 2012

I was about to introduce a new twist to the thread: Olan Mills. Portrait photography for the masses. But maybe I shouldn't.

k_jupiter · Apr 9, 2012

BrianShaw said:
I was about to introduce a new twist to the thread: Olan Mills. Portrait photography for the masses. But maybe I shouldn't.

Did Olan Mills die too? What a great photographer.

Anyhow Mr. Shaw, your work is pretty darned good, I don't think you need take second seat to anyone.

I understand what jnanian is saying to a point. I don't like AA just because of the amount of manipulation it takes to create those prints, as if they aren't prints of those negatives, but fabrications for the lust of the general public.

But good expressions of what AA wanted to present. It just wasn't what AA shot.

That said, I do a bit of manipulation of my scenic landscapes, it's part of pulling in what I saw to the material I have available.

So, no, I don't put kinkade in the same level as AA, but there are similarities.

tim in san jose

Thomas Kinkade's death

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency