Kinkade disses Picasso (again)
The One and Only Billy Shears
kitsch artist) Thomas Kinkade: "[Picasso] had a talent but didn't use it in
any significant way."
Oh yeah? What about "Guernica"?
Robert Matthews
What about "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon", which more or less invented the
modern era in painting?
But of course Kinkade is supremely able to pass judgement on Picasso, since
he's the world's greatest painter of kitschy never-were villages on collectible
plates.
Robert Matthews
Mametsuki
Mametsuki
Myname2use4now
>From: "The One and Only Billy Shears" bsh...@NOSPAMmydeja.com
>Date: 3/12/02 7:22 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <eYwj8.207$Ho1....@news1.fdn.com>
>
>Quote from today's Life section of USA Today, on marketing master (and
>kitsch artist) Thomas Kinkade: "[Picasso] had a talent but didn't use it in
>any significant way."
What an idiot.
>Oh yeah? What about "Guernica"?
But there are no ivy covered cottages in Guernica...therefore, it can't be
significant!
Fiona McQuarrie
: Quote from today's Life section of USA Today, on marketing master (and
: kitsch artist) Thomas Kinkade: "[Picasso] had a talent but didn't use it in
: any significant way."
I guess Picasso was too busy painting major masterworks to get around to
pictures of twee little ivy-covered cottages and rustic mills...
Fiona
kassa
> Quote from today's Life section of USA Today, on marketing master (and
> kitsch artist) Thomas Kinkade: "[Picasso] had a talent but didn't use it in
> any significant way."
I used to hate Picasso. I had a knee jerk reaction to him -- "If he
could really paint he wouldn't have done that crap" etc. I was dragged
to the Picasso museum in Barcelona. Anyone who hasn't seen his early
work should do what they can to see it. The work he was doing in his
early teens was completely representative and better than anything Kinkade
(or even most talented artists) have ever dreamed of.
If you're that good at the "real" stuff when you're 14, I guess there's
nowhere to go but to experiment :)
kassa (reformed cretin)
The One and Only Billy Shears
Picasso was an asshole.
Of course, comparing their artistic abilities is like comparing the New
England Patriots with a Pop Warner football team.
"David Sewell" <dr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:a6nmdp$2mr$1...@mothership.upress.Virginia.EDU...
> In article <20020313014924...@mb-fc.aol.com>,
> Mametsuki <mame...@aol.com> wrote:
> >kinkade is a untalented,painfully stupid asshole.
> >Mametsuki
>
> Unlike Thomas Kinkade, Pablo Picasso never got called an asshole.
SoulStar419
>pictures of twee little ivy-covered cottages and rustic mills...
>
>Fiona
>
>
And don't forget Kinkade's "Where's Jesus?" series of paintings...
-K.Simpson
http://hometown.aol.com/soulstar419/menu.html
scooby
downtown Fort Worth. My girlfriend dared me to go in because started
mocking Franklin-mintiness of the painting I saw in the window. As soon as
we entered we were pounces upon by a bubbly bible-drone who took great
pleasure in gushing over the paintings quality and cleverness.
She told how Kinkade painted these works so that they reflect different
times of day depending on the ambient lighting. "this is daytime," she
spurted while turning the dimmer switch up. "early evening," as she turned
the dimmer down. "and night," and she turned the lights off. I'm sure in
all his brilliance Picasso had never thought of that.
Then she squeal "and he always hides little love presents to his wife in the
paintings--like this little fish here." I think it was a fish anyway. "So
its an $8000 Where's Waldo," I said. With that she chirped "feel free to
look around and ask me any questions," and scuttled off.
Something was odd about the painting though. And as I looked really closely
at the canvas I noticed that none of his strokes had any relief at
all--except for these odd little dabs of color here and there. Other than
the dabs the paintings were completely flat and smooth. Something tells me
that I was looking at a collection of very expensive prints, or machine
painted canvases, or something definitely not painted by an artist.
This was no longer funny, and I felt I had to leave before the chirpy bubble
gassed us with chloroform and kidnapped us into her cult.
A few weeks late back in Dallas I wondered by a furniture store that also
had a Kinkade store attached to it. I went in with another friend of mine
just to show her how ridiculous these paintings were. Sure enough this
store had a remarkably similar clone helping potential customer with the
same inane stories. And much to my surprise, there on the wall in front of
me was the exact same painting as the one I had so closely studied 40 miles
away in Fort Worth.
Could they have simply moved the painting to the Dallas store? Perhaps.
But I doubt it. Why would you need to when all Kinkade has to do it click
the Print button to spit out an exact replica of all the other fake
paintings he "creates"
Kinkade's work is the antithesis of art, and his criticism of Picasso shows
just how blind he is. The End.
"The One and Only Billy Shears" <bsh...@NOSPAMmydeja.com> wrote in message
news:eYwj8.207$Ho1....@news1.fdn.com...
Myname2use4now
>From: "scooby" sco...@blah.com
>Date: 3/14/02 2:31 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <wU6k8.65875$PG1.248...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>
From what I understand, Kinkade doesn't paint each one (I guess that's only for
dummies like Picasso). He actually has people who do some of the work on the
paintings, so there may be a bunch of paintings like you saw all over the
place.
Callen Molenda
Myname2use4now wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Kinkade disses Picasso (again)
> >From: "scooby" sco...@blah.com
> >Date: 3/14/02 2:31 PM Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <wU6k8.65875$PG1.248...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>
> >
<snip a very funny discussion of Kinkade's paintings>
> >Kinkade's work is the antithesis of art, and his criticism of Picasso shows
> >just how blind he is. The End.
> >
>
> From what I understand, Kinkade doesn't paint each one (I guess that's only for
> dummies like Picasso). He actually has people who do some of the work on the
> paintings, so there may be a bunch of paintings like you saw all over the
> place.
This explains to me the offer of a local Kinkade gallery to have you bring in your
old paintings (presumably it doesn't matter who painted them) to have his
apprentices apply his magic of light (is that the right term?) to the paintings.
Isn't that kind of weird and creepy, to have your existing artwork tampered with by
some hacks in a shop?
C.
Myname2use4now
>Date: 3/14/02 5:26 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <3C91238A...@virginia.edu>
It happens often. I went to school for art and on a trip to a NYC art show (for
dealers and such) I saw some sculptures that I thought were Brancusi for sure
(one of my favorite artists). So I go up to the booth and I talk to the
"artist". I ask him if he does the work himself because they were very
"Brancusi" like and they were also very cheap. He says what he does is that he
"designs" them and that he's got a group of people in Mexico who actually do
the work. I was like...wow...he steals Brancusi's designs and then has Mexican
workers do the work, he signs them and then sells them...how AWFUL! I think
that whever you see a large number of "art work" from a particular artist, you
should be wary as to how the work came to be and who actually did the work. I
mean hell...in art it can take months just to come up with some good
inspiration, let alone get thousands of pieces of art work on the market.
Doppelganger
"scooby" <sco...@blah.com> wrote:
They are "canvas reproductions" - 4 color or ink jet printing on canvas,
with either texture added by machine, or painted by hand by assistants -
sometimes, but rarely, buy they artist. Yes, they swipe it with a brush
a few times, and the price skyrockets.
It's a common product in the decorative art market, and horribly
overpriced. They cost maybe $5 at the most to make, and they sell them
for outreageous prices to midwestern wives with no taste - the
"collector's value" is entirely artificial and anyone who "invests" in a
Kinkade reproduction is throwing money away.
I worked in the field, and while Kinkade isn't the worst of the
decorative artists, he's certainly the most vain, and has the worst
reputation for being VERY hard to deal with, and his office is full of
smug, arrogant Christians. I've been toldby people who tried to work
with him they can and do make business decisions based on wether the
business or person is a Christian - if you're Jewish, forget about
opening one of his retail chain "galleries".
His comments about Picasso are typical for him, but it doesn't bother me
- 100 years from now, Picasso will still hang in the musuems and he'll
be revered still, and Kinkade's hack work will be in landfills and
basements everywhere - IF they last that long. Most of the the stuff
they sell in the galleries are prints, and I doubt they are on archival
quality paper.
Oh - one last thing - the "technique" Kinkade uses is very simplistic
and can be taught to anyone in a matter of days - there are sweatshops
in Asia where they crank out copies like they are using a copy machine.
It's exactly the same as that guy with the frizzy hair who taught
painting with the "happy little trees" on PBS.
I worked with an Italian artist with a style similar to Kinkade - he's
been working longer, so I tend to think Kinkade ripped him off - and he
told me one day that a painting he sold the printing rights to my
company for $7500 or so took him all of an hour to paint.
The decorative art field cracked me up then, and still does to this day.
Kinkade and his ilk paint those to match couches, and to hang in hotel
lobbies. There's good money if you know what you're doing
marketing-wise, but it ain't art. The only problem is, they think it is.
Kinkade thinks his work belongs in museums. Seriously.
Rita Hansard
Callen Molenda wrote:
Yeah, but it sounds like a neat trick to do to that "Dogs Playing Poker" picture. I
wonder if they could stroke a little smoke in with the light.
>
>
> C.
McGeary
Doppelganger <Doppel...@attbbi.com> wrote:
> The decorative art field cracked me up then, and still does to this day.
> Kinkade and his ilk paint those to match couches, and to hang in hotel
> lobbies. There's good money if you know what you're doing
> marketing-wise, but it ain't art. The only problem is, they think it is.
> Kinkade thinks his work belongs in museums. Seriously.
There was a very entertaining profile of Kinkade in the New Yorker last
October. The guy has a hilariously overinflated view of his own talent
and his importance in the art world. IIRC, he bet the writer a million
bucks that there will be a Kinkade retrospective at a major American
art museum in his lifetime.
kimberly
wrote:
Why wait for a major art museum? You can see the same retrospective
at every mid-level mall in America.
--kimberly
Poliwhyrl
"kimberly" <kim...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:uc749ug1pd7b0jben...@4ax.com...
It'll be in a gallery adjacent to the "Successories" poster retrospective.
Myname2use4now
>Date: 3/15/02 1:01 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <XFqk8.17742$P4.15...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
KazamaSmokers
Y'know - I think Warhol would totally disagree with you on that.
Kinkade's paintings.. Kinkade's marketing... even the
salesdrones...they can all be seen as a kind of art.
Baby Strange
<sco...@blah.com> distracted me with:
>I had never heard of Thomas Kinkade until I stumbled into his store in
>downtown Fort Worth. My girlfriend dared me to go in because started
>mocking Franklin-mintiness of the painting I saw in the window. As soon as
>we entered we were pounces upon by a bubbly bible-drone who took great
>pleasure in gushing over the paintings quality and cleverness.
>
>She told how Kinkade painted these works so that they reflect different
>times of day depending on the ambient lighting. "this is daytime," she
>spurted while turning the dimmer switch up. "early evening," as she turned
>the dimmer down. "and night," and she turned the lights off. I'm sure in
>all his brilliance Picasso had never thought of that.
>
>Then she squeal "and he always hides little love presents to his wife in the
>paintings--like this little fish here." I think it was a fish anyway. "So
>its an $8000 Where's Waldo," I said. With that she chirped "feel free to
>look around and ask me any questions," and scuttled off.
>
>Something was odd about the painting though. And as I looked really closely
>at the canvas I noticed that none of his strokes had any relief at
>all--except for these odd little dabs of color here and there. Other than
>the dabs the paintings were completely flat and smooth. Something tells me
>that I was looking at a collection of very expensive prints, or machine
>painted canvases, or something definitely not painted by an artist.
They *are* prints. They have been "highlighted" with dabs of paint,
but what is being sold through the Thomas Kinkade, Painter of Shite
Galleries are extremely expensive reproductions. He doesn't make any
bones about it. In fact, he has "Master Highlighters" who travel
around the country, demonstrating the process, at the galleries.
I found an article on the Web that discusses his business in
fascinating detail--as well as his <cough> aesthetic philosophy. You
can read it at:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/014/6.48.html
He also has his own website:
www.thomaskinkade.com
I think his work is schlocky, sentimentalist crap, but then again you
can never underestimate the taste of the American public...
<snip>
>Kinkade's work is the antithesis of art, and his criticism of Picasso shows
>just how blind he is. The End.
Kinkade produces a *product* that bears a resemblance to art (albeit
of dubious quality). He merchandizes it to people who are otherwise
intimidated by "real" art--just as any company marketing
"collectibles" does. There is no difference between his art-product
and the collector's plates, dolls and sculpture advertised in
magazines--he's just learned how to market it using settings that put
the people who purchase it at ease.
Rather than downtown galleries with bare spaces, white walls, natural
light and gallery staff who may come across as aloof or condescending,
TK galleries are in malls. The one I went into recently has a facade
of very "traditional"-looking dark wood (actually a wood-like finish,
on closer inspection). It looks safe and conservative. It made me
think of a movie version of a banker's or stockbroker's office, which
is a calculated move when you are selling mass-produced products as
investments. The sales staff was just as you described, effusive and
non-threatening. There were also other products for sale at a wide
range of prices, so even those who could not afford a $6,000 version
of the art-product could still satisfy themselves with owning a
version of it.
Kinkade's art-product leaves a lot to be desired, but I find it
fascinating as a cultural phenomenon. Yeah, in fifty years Picasso
will still be revered and hanging in museums, and Kinkade will be
replaced by yet another in a long series of art-producers. Kinkade is
just one of such art-producers, and he won't be the last; what makes
him stand out is how thoroughly he has merchandised his product.
Baby Strange
>Hello fellow Kinkade haters, did you see this article about his new
>freakin' *book*? I apologize if this has been posted before but it makes
>an even better read the second and third time around. :)
>
>http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2002/03/18/light/index.html
>
>~K~
>----------------------------------------
>The Writer of Dreck?
>With his appalling new novel, Thomas Kinkade, "The Painter of Light?,"
>makes a strong bid to become the world champion of vapid, money-grubbing
>kitsch.
Oh. My. God.
A *NOVEL*?
This was hilarious! Thanks for posting it!
Loitering with Intent
"K. Smith" reported:
> Hello fellow Kinkade haters, did you see this article about his new
> freakin' *book*? I apologize if this has been posted before but it makes
> an even better read the second and third time around. :)
>
> http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2002/03/18/light/index.html
I thought this rather harsh. I find Kinkade indistinguishable from the
countless other uplifters preaching to the dispirited, the ill-educated, the
pantheistic & "romantic"--Oprah, those folks on the shopping channels, the
romance novel industry, crystal-gazers, that Mormon chap with the ugly
daughter on PBS, and so forth. I think the disdain for Kinkade in this
article and elsewhere has to do with his trespassing on the world of "fine
arts." I rather admire his own nose-thumbing at the Picasso-lovers. After
all, have you seen what lately passes as art at the MOMA, or at the Tate in
London?
Hogarth