thought they were very Norman Rockwell like and peacefull. Yeah, some had a religious theme (churches), but I enjoyed his seascapes and lighthouses.

Rockwell's paintings had character and told stories about real American people.

because Rockwell's were portraits and Kincaide's were still life. The genre was still Americana and a time gone by. That is how they were similar in theme.

Rockwell set his paintings in the real world. Kincaide's were set in an idealized fantasy fairy tale world. There's no place in America that ever looked like any of Kincaide's paintings. (Though there might be some little village in Ireland that bears a passing resemblance, except for not being radioactive enough to glow in the dark the way the paintings do.)

It is idealized, but in a different way. It is more OPTICALLY realistic than Kinkade's, but notice the exaggerated gestures and expressions of people in Rockwell's work. They are idealistically overacting for emphasis and sentimentality. That said, I respect Rockwell much more. He was a good honest guy, apparently and his later work was more impressive as he grew as an artist. He never tried to sell himself to the public as anything more than what he was, either.

Reminded me of LI, Ct., and New England. No place in America? Waves crashing on rocks? Saw that on both the East and West Coast of the US. I loved going to the bluff in Kings Park and Rocky Point watching the waves of the LI Sound crash on the rocks. His paintings reminded me of that. Yeah, there are places that still that look like that, and I miss that living in Florida. I loved looking at his painting of snow too. He had one of a Manhattan snow. That was nice too. A snowstorm in the middle of the night in Manhattan is very tranquil, and deserted. I remember that too from my childhood.

I guess all art is in the eye of the beholder.

Unfortunately, Rembrandt made lousy violins and Stradivarius was a terrible painter.

England.

Go to Google Images. Do a search for

cotswolds cottages

Or go to Trip Advisor

http://www.tripadvisor.com/Attractions-g186281-Activities-c25-Cotswolds_Gloucestershire_England.html

and click the link for Photos, this link:

http://www.tripadvisor.com/LocationPhotos-g186281-Cotswolds_Gloucestershire_England.html

Wikipedia article on the region:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotswolds

Kinkade loved the region. It's a popular vacation destination, and the real estate is pricey...and according to one NY Times article I read, Americans are the non-British nationality most interested in real estate there.

Shot in like a fairy tale fantasy way.
I don't know Kincaides work but already know I would not like it.

--and made them easily accessible through magazines. Kinkade had cheap reproductions touched up by underpaid factory workers, and passed that crap off as original "investment grad" art.

and did his own painting.

A more apt comparison would be to Maxfield Parrish, who was a commercial illustrator. Again, Parrish was a master draftsman and the worst of his illustrations outclass the best of Kinkade's efforts in every way, but their works enoyed similar commercial popularilty. The difference being that no one will want Kinkade's work much in the coming years, while Parrish's reputation will continue to improve.

Rockwells iconic (and incorrect) painting of Apollo 11 was assisted by another artist.
Rockwell was not comfortable rendering the space hardware portion, and hired another artist to paint much of the spacecraft.

Aside from the detail issues of the spacecraft being the wrong color and missing it's famous gold MLI blanket, you'll notice that the lighting on the Earth is completely different from the foreground.

But it remains a very cool painting.

By all accounts, in addition to being a terrific painter, Norman Rockwell was a great guy to know.
Kinkade was neither.

But Rockwell didn't hire painters to paint the whole thing, as Kinkade did. Many artists throughout time have had students or other artists help on paintings; what Kinkade did was more like a sweatshop than a studio!

I'd rather have one of the better original (not giclee) Kinkade paintings than a Mark Kostabi. :lol:

I believe he changed it from a low altitude variable-canvas geometry close support painting to a high altitude work that Stratofortress had already covered years and years earlier.

I currently detest Edmund Spenser, author of The Fairie Queen which I was forced to read and remember not one word of. But that is not why I detest him.

Were I at his grave I would not only dance, I would spit.

I like you

- George Bernard Shaw on his "despising" of Shakespeare

That would be the "liberal" position?

can access in Manhattan. You have the Metropolitan Museum, MoMA, the Whitney, the Frick.

Try some of them and just look around. I don't want you to make any judgments. Just look.

After you come back and you still feel the same way about Kinkade, then let us all know. And let us know the reasons you feel that way. Tell us how boring or awful the art you saw in the above mentioned museums were and how you have returned to Kinkade because he is so fulfilling.

I really want to hear about your journey...

But that's not the point: I am responding to the thread celebrating Kincade's death which was posted here on Saturday.

with me, it really doesn't.

Can we not celebrate fine art here, though, and say that? I find Kinkade terrible art but I don't hate anybody who likes his stuff. I just really feel they haven't been exposed to great art and that is a tragedy (to me).

I spent my childhood going from museum to musem, and library to libary. I wouldn't trade it for anything in the world.

It was so exciting!

I'm going to the MFA in Boston this coming Thursday to see the Manet exhibit on his creative use of black in his works. That speaks to my inner art wonk. The week after my very first trip to the Isabella Gardner in Boston to see the new wing. I have never been there and am excited about seeing El Jaleo...I may faint...

Right after my Electroconvulsive therapy sessions. They're so peaceful. So non-threatening.

Thinking scares me.

I didn't want to look stupid, but I hadn't the faintest idea who this guy was until yesterday.

Honestly, I still don't really know who the hell he is.

You LIKE him, but you've never seen one of his paintings?

oooooookay.

He's the Antichrist of the art world to some here.

Sure, his paintings smacked of "bubble gum" in pop music parlance, but even I like a certain amount if bubble gum from time to time

He just sucked.

Ill go throw out all the TK stuff I have so as not to disturb the harmony of the hive mind here

It has to do with studying painting and the visual arts my entire life and recognizing ignorance and fallacious thinking and naïveté.

There is pretty much nothing analogous between Kinkade's worthless stuff and Bubble Gum music. That is an insult to Bubble Gum music.

Can I see something you've painted? I bet it's really good

but that he is a life-long student of art...
there is a difference!

I just love self proclaimed "experts" that run around telling everybody what they're supposed to like.

Good thing I've got an iPhone so I don't have to waste paper printing out such opinions to take to Starbucks along with $5 for a cup of coffee.

However, I may need some soft 2 ply printer paper if i can find some

In other words you lost the argument.

My art is anti-war. Whether it is any good or not, I don't use it to con people out of their money.

I am not a "self-proclaimed 'expert.' I have degrees from universities and a life-time of study. It doesn't mean I am correct on every thing. But art is NOT entirely subjective. There is plenty that is objective and I'm sorry that you don't like that you are losing the argument, and have fallen back on personal insult.

At least "Bubble Gum" never pretended to be other than what it was--repetitive schlock intended to be imitated ad nauseum.
OTOH, Kinkade passed his "art" off as a serious "oeuvre" and made fraudulent millions from millions of suckers.

no hive mind here...

No whitewashing people's crimes for me.

Kinkade was a con artist.

So why is it acceptable to belittle people by misrepresenting their reasons for disliking him as "unhip" or "unchic?" That is not why people disliked him and it is insulting to say so.

And you talk about crimes? Congrats: You're the first on my ignore list, even though I like your kitten.

you might want to try diet hate,it's less filling, same bitter taste you love though...

Where have I cheered on death?

Holding ignorance in disdain is not hate. The OP is insulting to many people in a number of ways. Maybe they are the one with the hate problem.

If you won't dance merrily on Cheney's or Bush's grave, you are nearly complicit in their crimes.

...but you get used to it. I've been hear for 9 years, I think now. It never changes. Someone people don't like or don't agree with their policies and they're dancing on their grave. You won't be here long if you can't just overlook it and ignore it.
Duckie

This has been going on for years at DU. There are always small and lowlife people who seem to get a kick out of doing that for whatever reason. I think it is scummy and low but its really easy to just ignore it and move on.

It is interesting that pointing out what is bad about Kinkade's life and work is bad, but allowing falsehoods and ignorant idealisms about him to go unresponded to is good?

For the record, I have never said about anyone that I am glad they are dead.

No, I don't think there is anything wrong with pointing out things you disliked about a person who is no longer with us or in the news on account of that. What I'm talking about is the "Yes, I'm glad he is dead! I hated his art and how he was a religious dude and how terrible I thought his art was" attitude that some have exhibited. I mean come on, that doesn't exactly show much human empathy when they express those kinds of attitudes. I was born with sensitivity and empathy for other people, and I really don't give a damn if they happen to have different politics than me. Its (the politics they might have had) not all that important in the final analysis to me. <shrug>

It was his choice and he had a right to do it.
It was not 'art' but a formula that he commercialized and many people enjoyed it.
I personally didn't like it but the fact that others did gives is validity as a product.

this made him someone in whose death we should rejoice?

Even if you didn't like his work it hurt no one and made some people happy.

It's sad. Nothing to rejoice about.

For one thing, he got sued and lost.

Here is a different point of view:

Distasteful perhaps. I know nothing of a ponzi scheme his politics or lawsuit.
Perhaps there was more to object to than I was aware but still I take the OP point that his death is nothing to celebrate. Few deserve that kind of response. (And we know who those few are.)

Art (and art history) is my particular beat. I appreciate all sorts of art.

If people scrutinise the private lives of an artist (or anybody in any profession) they can find something to dislike.

There were a few gems in Kinkade's work, particularly early on. The man seemed to be an alcoholic. That is also not uncommon among artists.

God bless his wife and 3 daughters.

it's very good with tips and examples of sketching out in the world.
He co-wrote it with James Gurney.

He was talented without question.

and got outrageous prices for his reproductions which he sold as originals -- you have to look at how someone makes half a billion by age 44. It's not because his art was especially good--it's because he was a talented super huckster and ripped people off bigtime. If you admire that, OK.

when the sith lord dies I might post my jig on his grave

Selling prints as originals to unsuspecting pensioners and grandparents, thinking they're getting originals and an investment.

That's why, for me....

He made his money scamming his own galleries into the ground until they declared bankruptcy - often ruining the owners financially.

The man wasn't a politician or government official, so, whether he was a saint or a scoundrel, why the Hell is he being so vigorously discussed---or discussed at all---on a website devoted to the Democratic Party???



and

maybe because Kinkade reflects the corrupt & ruthless Corporations Gone Wild business climate that is at present strangling Washington and inflicting serial atrocities on the rest of us commoners?

Must've touched a nerve...

For pointing out truth.

Yes, I've studied art for years. All wasted, hunh?

Kinkade was a hypocrite and con-artist, as has been pointed out and documented by numerous posters, and this was reflected in his shallow, insincere, silly, mindless technically flawed product.

I'm not calling for anyone to celebrate death, nor have a attacked people personally with empty attacks like "high-brow pretentiousness snob," and calls of hypocrisy, which echo right-wing tactics of accusing liberals of being not tolerant or "elitist."

There is nothing wrong with arguing against celebrating a death, but that is not what THIS is: ---> "high-brow pretentiousness snob appeal"

Hissyspit!





I feel like Lucy Ricardo 'splainin' to Ricky why she did what she did, but here goes...you're one of my favorite DUers. I recommend a lot of your posts on a regular basis (enough to where I noticed your absence on DU3 for awhile) & my perception of you has always been that you're intelligent & impressive.





Actually, it wasn't you that I had in mind when I wrote that previous post. Okay?

Grave dancing is tacky, tacky, tacky. Lowbrow and low class.

Having appraised and collected art and sculpture for more years than I care to admit I appreciate that Mr. Kinkade's art gave many people joy. That's what counts. Renaissance sketches, certain Haitian paintings and 17th century Tibetan Buddhist bronzes are up my alley, but I would not be ashamed to own a Tom Kinkade.

Some of Kinkade's paintings - especially the earlier works- were quite lovely.

simply clicked over to the OP header that I agreed with, rather than state how I felt in reply to the negative OP's.


Then Hissyspit thought I was targetting him.


It doesn't have to be hanging in a museum for me to like a visually appealing painting.

That's very different from hiring people at crap wages to touch up a flood of cheap reproductions.

But that point's entirely moot, as one must actually be human to die.

shyster things you've done. If you want people to speak well of you after you're dead than you should be honest in you're dealings while you're alive. I don't bad mouth him for his art work because beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Kinkade's art isn't to my taste but it's pretty and if people enjoy it, good for them. It seems that he was just barely on the line between what was legal and what would be criminal. Kinkade was running a first class scam and still stayed legal (I think) but lots of people lost money because of it.

And I appreciate the way you explained it.

got rich doing it, and then used the proceeds of that theft to advocate and increase human suffering around the world.

The OP, mentions that his work reminded her of Norman Rockwell, well it should, Rockwell was one of his favorite sources.

But, because he died, hardly a feat, and was a semi-celebrity, he's off limits?

Why, exactly, should we change our negative (or positive) opinions of people merely because they are no longer breathing? Why, exactly, should we not express those opinions however we would have prior to said person joining the choir invisible?

"because that's how we should behave" identifies indoctrination, not rationale.

"to show respect" fails to identify a) the real reasons we need to do so and b) how lying, or at the very least withholding the truth, about the dead person shows respect.

So why - real reasons that make sense and impose a normative duty - why?

He is an asshole wearing religion on his sleeve to make a buck. Basically a dishonest rude drunk.

JMHO