I'll respect the person if, and only if, I respect WHAT they did and HOW they did it. I respect neither in Kinkade's case. If "great success" is your benchmark, do you also respect the people who run drug cartels?
I can't do what he did either from the artistic aspect or the financial aspect... can any of you? This absolutely looks like jealousy to me. Like I stated before... I didn't care for his work. But he made many people happy and he became filthy rich for it. Jealousy...
I can't do what he did either from the artistic aspect or the financial aspect. Can any of you critics best him? And, by the way, what are the critics' credentials here?
This absolutely looks like jealousy to me. As I stated before I didn't care for his work but he made many people happy and he became filthy rich for it.
Jealousy...
Gotta admit, I love the financial bunko aspect of all this. Maybe it WAS art....a kind of performance art for the Wall Street rip-off goo-goo-fundamentalist anti-intellectual kitsch-swilling early 21st Century America-in-decline reality we all inhabit. Heck of a sentence, that.
I can't do what he did either from the artistic aspect or the financial aspect. Can any of you critics best him? And, by the way, what are the critics' credentials here?
This absolutely looks like jealousy to me. As I stated before I didn't care for his work but he made many people happy and he became filthy rich for it.
Jealousy...
You're starting to troll.
You nailed it.
1330349 said:Gotta admit, I love the financial bunko aspect of all this. Maybe it WAS art....a kind of performance art for the Wall Street rip-off goo-goo-fundamentalist anti-intellectual kitsch-swilling early 21st Century America-in-decline reality we all inhabit. Heck of a sentence, that.
I think you nailed it.
The reason the art world doesn't respond to Kinkade is because none not one of his ideas about subject-matter, surface, color, composition, touch, scale, form, or skill is remotely original. They're all cliché and already told.
I can't believe* we have here a 17-page thread on whether Kinkade was "Art" with a capital A. From the Saltz/Vulture piece:
Can we not separate the concepts of "painting" and "art"? He sold interior decorations and he was highly successful at it; just because he sold paintings doesn't mean he meant for them to be capital-A Art. He didn't claim to be breaking new ground or anything, he painted (or had people paint) things to make his customers happy, and it worked extremely well for him. What amuses me is that this so offends the self-proclaimed "art world", that someone dare to use a medium they hold dear for something other than pushing an envelope or whatever, that there is a collective urge to hate on Kinkade and his output.
And why the hate here? I see a hell of a lot of cliched barn / lighthouse / sunset photos even on APUG that fall way short of the standards that people seem to want to apply to Kinkade (seemingly only because he chose paint as his medium), yet we don't beat up on APUGgers in the gallery because why? Because they're not financially successful and therefore worthy of jealousy? We recognise the Art-vs-interior-decoration distinction in considering our own work and deciding what to put on the loungeroom wall, why get angsty when someone else does the same?
* yeah OK, this is APUG. I believe it.
I was trying to make a point. Why disrespect a person after they're dead? He had unprecedented success. How else should we interpret such hatred and disrespect?
that would be Kinkade: "It's fuzzy, has dramatic light that makes no sense, and spouts dogmatic, 'uplifting' propaganda at every turn!".
Maybe enough has been said on this topic? I'm tempted to close it, so let's keep it civil.
It went silly way upstream. I'd close it.
If the thread offends someone, don't read it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?