Thomas Kinkade: Artist or Poser?

[Renart]

My friend and I have been arguing for some time over whether or not Thomas Kinkade can be considered an artist. His cozy cottages and attractive landscapes appeal to many viewers and encourages them to feel comfort and nostalgia by emphasizing soft edges and light, which may be considered an artistic skill. However, Kinkade’s subject matter is unchallenging and easily digestible and his paintings are massed produced as if they were coming off of an assembly line in a factory. Each painting seems to follow a formula that is then recycled and regurgitated to the point of exhaustion and his kitsch-like themes neglect to engage the viewer in any sort of thinking. I do not understand how a painting can touch a person when it is manufactured like that, with little-to-no thought process behind it. What is the appeal? Do you believe Thomas Kinkade is an artist or do you believe he is just the CEO of another company manufacturing goods to be sold to the masses?...

[worldfamousartist]

If Kinkade is not an artist, then is Jeff Koons not an artist as well? Or Damian Hirst? Or Warhol?

If Thomas Kinkade is one thing, it's a drunk:
http://www.artinfo.com/news/story/34908/thomas-kinkade-arrested-for-alleged-drunk-driving/

[Melissa]

While I always try to refrain in judging what art is or not. I do have trouble thinking of Thomas Kinkade as an artist but then many artists over the centuries have been ridiculed for their art. To me it seems that he is more interested in making money then art.

[ajolguin]

I have always had a personal distaste for Thomas Kinkade. I think that he has definitely has mastered his technique and knows how to make something that is appealing. The problem is, is that he uses his talent for profit only. It's art in one sense, but it's soul-less. He doesn't have a message or any feeling behind his work. He's not trying to discover new techniques or make something intriguing or controversial. Soooo... it's all a matter of taste.

[nickystixx]

i think this is the tragedy of the capitalist mindset that bleed's into all aspects of our mind's these days. i believe a younger Kinkade's passion for art was inspired by something more than profit, and that is how he was able to develop his skill, but when he started making money with it, art became something different to him. i think "worldfamousartist"'s reference to Jeff Koons was referring to those shiny metal balloon dogs he makes for tons of money. the difference between Koons and Kinkade is that Koons does so much more than shiny dogs.

[KZizo]

I agree he seems to be in it more for profit to a point where it is not even art anymore just mass production.

[cvb]

This is a topic worthy of discussion forever....

After being an artist, teacher of art and art history and a writer about art & culture, I have some perspective that I might share with you. Each artist has a personal growth history personally and artistically. Each of you can reflect upon this for yourself.

You may master certain techniques and materials well which often earns you good grades in school and praise from your instructors. But, as has often been said, the artwork is more interesting if there is a message beyond the technique.

Yet, you may say, what did the Impressionists have to "say" ? They had a lot to say about life around them shown to us with a new technique. Was there a message ? I would say yes, since many people at the time were outraged at their work.

So, this can be an ongoing discussion for us or whatever you like.

Cheryl
Art Fortune

[Sarah]

Tolstoy is a man that immediately comes to mind when speaking of this subject. Tolstoy's "what is art" publication is at the basic level of art theory. He states that if there is successful transmission of emotion, then it is indeed art. This is the most elementary concept that can help define art.

So... If Thomas Kinkade makes mass produced pieces can is this transmission of emotion possible?

But, if you look at it from another perspective... Does he intentionally create art in order to create a happy or comfortable emotion? If so, then he does successfully transmit emotion to an audience.

Obviously Tolstoy's theories are not absolute and we cannot base all of our opinions on this. But, this basic element of Tolstoy's theories can lead us to think of this concept on multiple levels and from different angles. The question of ''what is art?'' is ours to contemplate and challenge.

[Sarah]

Tolstoy is a man that immediately comes to mind when speaking of this subject. Tolstoy's "what is art" publication is at the basic level of art theory. He states that if there is successful transmission of emotion, then it is indeed art. This is the most elementary concept that can help define art.

So... If Thomas Kinkade makes mass produced pieces, is this transmission of emotion possible?

But, if you look at it from another perspective... Does he intentionally create art in order to create a happy or comfortable emotion? If so, then he does successfully transmit emotion to an audience.

Obviously Tolstoy's theories are not absolute and we cannot base all of our opinions on this. But, this basic element of Tolstoy's theories can lead us to think of this concept on multiple levels and from different angles.

The question of ''what is art?'' is ours to contemplate and challenge.

[Sarah]

Sorry about the repeat. Not sure why this posted twice... just learning how to use the cite :)

[Stephie]

Libraries could be filled with volumes trying to explain and define this simple and minute 3-letter word, art. It is probably, in part, the fact that its illusive definition has continued to be ungraspable by humanity that it continues to intrigues all of us so. But I am sure as long as there is paint, definitions will be expressed and discussed and no conclusion will be drawn. But that doesn’t mean that the intrigue ever leave the pursuit. I have had this discussion in my own mind several times about Kinkade’s work and my conclusion begins with an example off the canvass. I once knew a professional ballerina who was offered a presidios spot in a dance company and she, surprisingly, turned it down. She said that she just couldn’t get paid for performing ballet. She said it would have ruined her dancing. She’ll never meet a tin solider in the Nutcracker or her prince in Swan Lake, but no audience has ever cheered for more true of an artist than her. Art in many cases is a matter of taste, and the plethora of variety in art, its openness and it depth is delightfully welcoming to practically anyone and everything. But I do believe that if Kinkade had to receive money in the mail from his brother for his entire life just to survive and had never ever received any recognition for his work that he would have continued to paint. If I can’t feel emotion in a painting, in my personal opinion, it is not art. Now, that isn’t to say that some can’t look at Duchamp’s Fountain and feel emotion. Even with Duchamp’s piece, in all its simplistic and modern glory, there is thought and there is a message, hence emotion, not just a dollar sign. It is true that every new movement in art was met with some level of resistance. But Kinkade’s work, which always comes with its nice little prices tags, etched into cheap-gold plates, centered underneath his paintings, housed in dimly-lit galleries, tuck inside of malls… I don’t consider a movement, or a style or a forwarding of art. I would say it is devaluing and disrespectful to it if anything. A brilliant business and marketing man Kinkade is, but an artist, I think not. Somewhere in Kinkade’s chest there once beat the heart of an artist I believe, I really do, but that scarlet-red organ, long ago turned cold and cashy green. I believe that one of the most beautiful things about art is that true artists don’t do it for financial benefits, there are not many pursuits in this world that you can say that about, but art, art is one of them. The term starving artist was born out of some consistent occurrence, and it is because artists love their canvasses more than bread and their paint more than water.

[Marielle]

I think that the question of "what is art?" is the basis for whether or not we can consider Thomas Kinkade a true artist. Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately) there will never be an end to the debate because there will always be someone who disagrees with us. To me personally, Thomas Kinkade is not an artist. I find his paintings stilted and very formulaic without any raw emotion. He seems to imbue his paintings with a sleepy happiness that I feel to be a feigned emotion as if he took a Norman Rockwell painting and distilled it of any reality. All you are left with is an overdose of picturesque. That being said, the man can move paint with a precise skill. If he would paint the world as it is, with his eyes open, I think he could be an artist.

[misshipp]

I agree, it depends on what your opinion of art is. Is it a technique, a work that evokes emotion, something that makes a statement, a capture of your soul, or something that simply frees your mind. Whether it is or isn't art depends on your own perspective.