Thomas Kinkade’s “vision of the world isn’t just tacky, it’s anti-Incarnational”. Wow. I’ve never thought about this before. But now that you mention it, this sort of view is ridiculously common! By supporting Kinkade, and similar world views, it’s like everyone’s searching for their small-r-esurrection without the big-R-esurrection.

Very elaborated, thank you for you effort!
As for me, I’d describe it as old plain kitsch. But not only an ugly, but a creepy one.

Yet there is something wonderful and warming about his paintings anyway.  It doesn’t have to be logical. It’s art!

Yeah, that no discernable light source… It just looks so bad. And I hate his color schemes, too, which is weird, because I totally admit that real gardens and, well, nature can definitely be a riot of color all at once. But his look hallucinogenic. Must be the lighting?

Loved the “Hi, my name is HOLY”. I’d never really thought of Mr. Kinkade’s art as snything other than cute and colorful, but I have to say that I enjoy more realistic art better. Even something like the French Impressionists, whose art isn’t particularly clear all the time, is still more beautiful because it shows the world as it is, albeit a little out of focus. I understand what you’re saying about light emanating from everywhere and nowhere as belittling light (especially in the sense of God as light), but I don’t think he intends his art to have quite the anti-Incarnational bent you perceive in it.

This is well-done, Simcha and gives me a lot to think about.  I find it especially interesting to consider that it is not Kinkade’s skill that is lacking, but his taste.  It helps me to think of these kinds of paintings as just pretty pictures or interior decorations rather than art, because not every pretty picture needs to be great, or even good, art, in the same way that not every book I read needs to be great and not every meal I eat needs to be a gastronomical and nutritional masterpiece.  Of course we try to make good things the main of our diets, but Doritos happen.

Preach it, sister! You got an “Amen” over here.

I think Kinkade may fall into the category of “emotional porn” along with Romance novels, etc.

His subjects are just houses, and the lights on inside seem to suggest that the owner is inside, with hot muffins and a book and a fire, safely and comfortably isolated from the rest of the big mean world.

The houses are never in neighborhoods.  They’re never on a working farm.  They play into the idea “If only I could get away from all these nasty other people, I could be happy!”

But they’re NOT hermitages.  Hermits withdrew from the world because they loved it too much and wanted to do penance in the wilderness.  Hermits lived in harsh conditions, hovels, basically, and had to work and pray for every scrap of food.

This is the splendid isolation of hell all over again—where people look only to their own comfort, where no one ever bothers you with demands, where what’s important is YOUR cranberry muffin, cup of tea and fireplace, and where only YOUR wishes matter.

This isn’t peace, it’s oblivion.  And it’s probably not surprising that those are the paintings that are popular today, in the culture of death—Kinkade’s cottage is also a tomb, and it;s a tomb from which there can be no ressurection, because the occupant just wants to be left alone in “peace.”

Meanwhile, the landscapes of earlier eras are frequently about a journey TOWARDS something:  http://www.terminartors.com/files/artworks/5/8/1/58142/Turner_Joseph_Mallord_William-Buttermere_Lake_with_Part_of_Cromackwater_Cumberland_a_Shower.jpg

I don’t agree with your criticism of Kincaid’s art. He paints pretty pictures. Nothing more than that. Guess I’m not an art critic.

I think Carter’s piece, and your reference to it, nails it:  Kinkade is a decent artist who became a kitsch factory.  The popularity of his factory art is a commentary on two related items: 

1.  The mandatory, politicized, “transgressive” ugliness of what is required to be a member in good standing of the contemporary art establishment; and

2.  The instinctive recoiling of the average sensible person from such ugliness, a recoil which overshoots and finds its refuge not in good art, but kitsch.

There is good contemporary art out there—Odd Nerdrum’s figurative work, for example.  The art establishment *hates* him (he draws his inspiration from the Flemish masters), but only an idiot could call it “kitsch.”

Frankly, I find Kincade and his fans more sinned against than sinning.

“Emotional porn,” exactly. A short-cut to the emotion itself, without taking the longer trip through what is supposed to evoke the emotion.

You know, I used to write off a lot of modern art… and then one day in Rome, I got lost in the Vatican’s gallery of modern artists—and realized that a lot of it can be quite wonderful, even by artists I’d pegged as “ugly and depressing”—-  the difference was the subject matter—the works in the Vatican gallery were all gifts to various popes, and all were about God and Man, instead of just Man looking at himself.

BUT maybe that’s WHY so much modern art is so ugly and disturbing—because when we care only about ourselves and see everything in reference to how it effects US and what WE want, we become ugly and disturbing too.  The great artists all looked at the world and wanted to enter into conversation with it.  Today, as a culture, we only want to enter into conversation with ourselves—is it any wonder the result is depressing? It’s like our entire CULTURE is clinically depressed and trapped in its own head and thinks everything is about me, me, me…....

I think it’s also possible that idealized depictions like Kinkade’s show a longing for rest and for home.  I know that the greatest reward that awaits believers is to be in the presence of God, but there is also comfort in knowing that at our journey’s end there will be no sickness or sorrow and all things will be made new and beautiful.  It’s not wrong to try to imagine what that might be like, however imperfectly.  I can only imagine.  Again, I don’t like Kinkade’s paintings - they look like Fruity Pebbles to me - and it’s possible that Kinkade is just capitalizing on these deep-seated longings, but the longings are good and natural and right.

I heard somewhere that TK had an unhappy childhood and always came home to an empty/unloving house, hence the desire to make all his little cottages as cozy and welcoming as possible (all the lights on.)  I agree, though, that the effect is often more creepy than anything else.  ‘Round here, when the sky’s that color, we turn on the weather radio, grab the cat, and sit in the closet…

MIL loves TK. I’ve been working on a needlepoint pillow for her. You know…until now. I wonder if I could get that “Judith Beheading Holofernes” in petit point?

HAHAHAHAHAHA Oh Simcha, you’re awesome!!!!

I could never stand him, but it has nothing to do with the reasons you’re discussing. I just think it’s tacky art; one painting looks similar to another. Not my style.

“Kinkade-style light doesn’t show an affection for natural beauty—it shows his disdain for it. His light doesn’t reveal, it distorts. His paintings aren’t merely trivial, they’re a statement of contempt for the world.

His vision of the world isn’t just tacky, it’s anti-Incarnational.”

Yes, perfect summary.

I used to be a huge fan of Kincaid…cooled off and never could articulate why. I still think they’re pretty pictures, and Sara, several comments above, hit a good point by invoking a desire for rest. I think I just got tired of the saccharine quality. I like it in small doses, but I wouldn’t want one on my wall.

Maybe I missed something in your bio, but are you an art historian? Sorry, that sounds snarky, but I’m asking it honestly - your examination of the Caravaggio’s Judith and Kinkade’s Candlelight Cottage are much more nuanced than what I hear from 95% of the people I talk to about art. I, myself, am a graphic designer and so I took more than a few art history courses in college. For me, Kinkade has always been a guilty pleasure. Sort of like listening to bad pop music or eating Funyuns. I like his color work and I’ll admit to finding his impossibly glowy dream world kind of… dreamy. But I also listen to bad pop music sometimes and although I can’t remember the last time I cracked open a bag of Funyuns, I’m not above eating a whole can of Pringles, all by myself. Sometimes people want unreality - sometimes, as in the case of the theoretical pageant mom you described, they want it really, REALLY BAD. But most of us are vaguely aware that not-real food, not-real music, not-real art - like not-real relationships and not-real gods - will never fully satisfy us.

when i’ve been very, very bad, my girls threaten me with an old age in a thomas kinkade nursing home, starting sooner rather than later.  ordinarily i’m no fan of suicide but i’m afraid that life in a t.k. nursing home would make a plastic bag over the head look downright appealing.  btw deirdre, i really like your post.  and simcha, thanks for upgrading my “painter of lite” epithet.  yours is so much more apposite.

@Smoochagator:  no, just an amateur. In high school and much of college, art history and theory were the only ideas that seemed coherent and accessible to me, and I clung to them until things got better—so that’s why I have such a strong reaction when crap gets treated as art.

.

I understand having an affinity for stuff that’s in poor taste (whether it’s music, food, art, or whatever), but I think it behooves us to acknowledge when something’s inferior.  I can imagine a gourmand being equally horrified that I’m content to use garlic powder and margarine instead of fresh garlic and butter, if I’m in a hurry or whatever.  I’m not trying to elevate taste to a moral issue, but there IS some overlap.

When did Thomas Kinkade become Norman Rockwell?

What smoochagator said.

Great article. I’ve been familiar with Kincade’s work for many years, and as good an artist as he is, I’ve always found his pieces to be “fuzzy” and unreal. Your words truly echo the thoughts I’ve had rolling around in my head for years. All the best.. JG

Thanks Simcha,

You verbalized exactly why I have always been slightly revolted by Kincaids pictures. I never could put my finger on it. 
Now it all makes sense.

Okay, that’s one opinion.

Deirdre’s comment is brilliant and it reminds me of the ubiquitous commericals that depict women in perfectly clean, beautifully decorated and arranged, empty houses.  “Not peace, but oblivion”...brilliant.

I think the Thomas Kinkade movement can probably be traced back to the Joy of Painting guy who always insisted on painting “happy trees” on PBS. Bob Ross was his name, I think.

Please put down your cudgel, Ms. Fisher.  Not all are as demanding for realsim in the art they enjoy viewing as you profess to always be, and they don’t need to be.  If something attempts to portray something in a beautiful manner but falls short of your particular standards, please refrain from throwing verbal stones of derision.  By the way I am not a Kinkade fan.

The main thing that I don’t like about his work is that the lack of people (mentioned in the Carter piece) makes his work feel so….sterile?...sterilized?...I can’t quite put my finger on it. 

I realize not all beautiful art has to have people in it, but his particular style, combined with this lack leaves me with that feeling.

It seems not just anti-incarnational, but anti-human.

“...I think it behooves us to acknowledge when something’s inferior.”

Good point. There are non-food foods that I consume on a regular basis, and I am the first to admit that they are NOT even CLOSE to the real thing. (But I refuse to eat margarine. Ew.) The thing is, I hate to tell someone that their taste in art or music or literature (using that word loosely here) is bad. For instance, I only express my real opinion about the Twilight books (nevermind that they’re creepy and corny: THEY’RE POORLY WRITTEN!) in safe spaces because I know too many people that love them and I don’t want to come across as the elitist party pooper. Maybe that’s a moral failing on my part, because I shouldn’t be afraid to offend people with my honest opinion. I’ve just done it so often - and been frankly reminded that my taste isn’t all that great ANYWAY - that I’ve decided to take a vacation from it!

Ms. Fisher,

  I only started reading your blogs a short time ago, and I’ve come to expect
dead - on and insightful commentary on numerous topics.  With all respect, I think you missed your usual mark on this topic.  It might be useful to research - I haven’t myself, but that’s not my job, I’m not the blogger—to see what the artist himself believes from a religious standpoint.  I tend to think he might be closer to your / our “God-view” than you are giving him credit for.

  I look forward to your future blogs.

@RJ Orso - It seems to me that the best way to research an artist’s point of view about anything is to study his art.

His pictures remind me of a storybook. When I read the Anne of green gables series to my girls, I always envision her descriptions of houses as a T.K one.

I think his pictures describe what is truly inside of those homes, a loving family. I don’t have a T.K picture in my home, but the pictures I do have are ones that I like. I don’t care if they make sense to some Artsy person. I want a picture that I can daydream about.

That top painting is my favourite Kinkade, because in order for that much light to be coming from inside a house, in daylight, it has to be about kiln-temperature. Ow.

The painting here makes me want to yell “Turn out some of the lights!  It’s daytime in the summer!”

My son, 7 and developmentally disabled looked at it and said “Tornado coming?”

I have to say though, I’d like MY garden to look like that one.

Like I said yesterday on Simcha’s site, the problem is that when you are attempting to portray a world that never fell, that is unfallen, that never needed redemption or a Redeemer, you can’t actually create beauty.  You can only create prettiness.  And while there’s nothing actually wrong with prettiness, there’s nothing great or tragic or glorious about it either, the way there is with beauty.

Gerard Manley Hopkins says it best:

Pied Beauty

Glory be to God for dappled things—
For skies of couple-colour as a brinded cow;
For rose-moles all in stipple upon trout that swim;
Fresh-firecoal chestnut-falls; finches’ wings;
Landscape plotted and pieced—fold, fallow, and plough;
And áll trádes, their gear and tackle and trim.
All things counter, original, spare, strange;
Whatever is fickle, freckled (who knows how?)
With swift, slow; sweet, sour; adazzle, dim;
He fathers-forth whose beauty is past change: Praise Him.

Thanks for taking something beautiful and making it ugly.

At first I thought you were joking until I read the comments.  With all of the ugliness in the world, you choose to deride a painter whose style you don’t like.  You have every right to dislike it, but to criticize it in the way you did makes me ashamed of you.  I love Kinkades pictures.  I don’t like Rembrandt’s.  Does that make me someone who doesn’t see beneath the lines, or does that make me just an ordinary human being with different likes and dislikes in art.  I cannot think of what must be in your mind to take such a stand against a harmless gallery of pictures.  You’re just as bad as those people who claim that Bert and Ernie of Sesame Street are homosexuals.  Surely you must have something better to complain about such as evil in the world than to ascribe motives to simple pictures.  Again, it shows how your mind thinks, and that frightens me.  I agree with Terri, except you failed in making Mr. Kindades pictures ugly to me.

Wow. I’m stupid when it comes to art (and I come from a family of artists, poets and musicians). I never paid much mind to Kincaide other than that some of his stuff reminds me of a place I used to live very close to, Carmel By the Sea in Monterey Bay, California. There are some really interesting houses designed by artists- straight from a fairy tale. I’ve really liked Currier and Ive’s Christmas scenes and I’m wondering if they would fall in the same lot? Ms. Deirdre, I read your analagy this morning…very interesting

As bad as those people who claim Bert and Ernie of Sesame Street are homosexuals?  Just because she doesn’t like Thomas Kinkade “Painter of Light?”  Really?  You are bizarrely defensive when Simcha never said anything about those who like Kinkade’s work. She was commenting on the work itself and what it says about the artist. Just as it is you are free to enjoy it, Simcha is also free to say why she finds it repellant. Believe it or not, there are people who possess the ability to look with thoughtfulness at art and literature instead of just vaguely enjoying all the pretty colors or words. I believe it would be terrible to suppress this gift just because it might disturb someone’s hazy, ill-defined fantasies. There’s plenty of dumb, thoughtless, yet enjoyable art and literature out there, but it’s just silly to pretend it’s something wonderful just because you like it.

I understand that some people prefer Kinkade to, say, Caravaggio.  But I wonder how many people there are like that who have spent *a lot of time* looking at both. 

It’s like music.  If you’d never heard music before, you might enjoy the Beatles as much as Mozart.  But if you listen to both of them a lot, eventually you start to realize that even though the Beatles are pretty good, there’s just way more going on in Mozart.  His music is better, although its betterness doesn’t reveal itself unless you spend a lot of time on it.

I bet he could be the one to get the covers of Lewis’ Space Trilogy right, finally.

I majored in music. My composition teacher used to say that we studied the masters of composition in order to develop “good taste,” so that we didn’t end up writing sappy or simply self-centered music, but music that reflected the True, the Good, and the Beautiful. I think that it’s like that with visible art as well - we can develop good taste.

By the way, Simcha, what are your thoughts on Bouguereau?

@Melissa - not terribly familiar with Bouguereau, but my fleeting opinion as an “Artsy person” is - blech.  The only work of his I’m really familiar with is “Youth” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:William-Adolphe_Bouguereau_(1825-1905)_-_Youth_(1893).jpg which triggers my moth phobia - so maybe I’m not being fair.  Also, !!!GAY MUPPETS!!!  Oh gosh, I don’t know how that slipped out

Michael Gorman hits the nail on the head. Some good art is highly accessible (e. g. Monet, for most people), some takes longer to “open up”. But all good art will bear contemplation: being looked at with real attention for a long time and over and over again. Bad art won’t. On a different level, I think the same thing applies to liturgy. It isn’t a valid criticism of a liturgy to say that people who haven’t given much time to trying to enter into it find it boring.

This is the first time I have totally agreed with you, Simcha. I have always loved Caravaggio, Cézanne, and Vermeer. Kinkade always made my skin crawl and you help me understand why.

I am shocked and saddened that Simcha seems outraged at the beautiful art of T.Kincade.  Art is subjective, and seeing how popular Kincade is, it is no doubt that people appreciate his art; including myself.  Kincade is not a self-proclaimed theologian, but an artist with a true gift from God that he chooses to share.  I would love the world to be as beautiful, colorful, and serene; I would love to live in the world he paints.  I think Simcha is delusional to think it is her duty to vomit her arrogant and mean opinion about someone who is using his gift from God.  Kincade’s art gives me joy.

I was reading this to my 13 year old, aspiring artist daughter, and when you mentioned the oncoming storm in the background she said, “I think those are supposed to be trees,” as if there is a dark forest behind (surrounding) the cottage - for what it’s worth.

We are not Kinkade fans here either, but I don’t know that there is anything sinister about his art.  To me his cottages look like some little troll should come walking out the door - fanciful.  Maybe that’s the look he’s going for.  It goes well on Granny’s sofa pillow, maybe, but surely he’ll not go down in history as one of the greats! 

To each his own.

Mr. Kinkade has made quite the comfortable living pedaling his wares, so he has an appeal to many that you really can’t knock. As others have said, art is subjective. Besides, his stuff makes awesomely fun jigsaw puzzles. You should try putting one together on a rainy day sometime, Ms. Fisher! You might gain a new appreciation of his work.

It is hard work to be a blogger and to constantly have to come up with new material.  I understand that.  Bashing Thomas Kincade?  It is really an interesting roll. Keeping all the commenters entertained and coming back for more must be exhausting at times.  We have an endless array of opinions and arguments.  I think bloggers need a sabbatical once in awhile to reflect and rest.  Perhaps sometime off can produce a deeper thinking blogging world.

Kinkade’s art also rejects the principle of sufficient reason. The principle of sufficient reason states that if anything exists, happens, or is true, there must be a sufficient reason for that. That principle underlies all rational order and is from that that we know that a necessary being - God - is required to explain a universe that is contingent (that is, can not be or be different from what it is as logical possibilities). With Kinkade’s art, light and shadow “just happen” in a way to please the subjective consciousness of modern man, who has fallen prey to a phenomenalism, without integrating order, without orientation to the objective good and the Supreme Objective Good who is God, to simply indulge his appetites. Our society will only heal when people turn from giving priority to the subjectively satisfying to that of the objectively important, which is reflected in proper art. Part of the disease of modern thought is a rejection of the principle of sufficient reason as a perceived limitation on one’s autonomy.

Well said Beth.

“It is hard work to be a blogger and to constantly have to come up with new material.  I understand that.  Bashing Thomas Kincade?  It is really an interesting roll. Keeping all the commenters entertained and coming back for more must be exhausting at times.  We have an endless array of opinions and arguments.  I think bloggers need a sabbatical once in awhile to reflect and rest.  Perhaps sometime off can produce a deeper thinking blogging world.”

Today in the van as we were going to a picnic, I turned on the classical music station and caught the last five or so minutes of a Philip Glass Concerto for String Quartet. (#2, I think, but not sure.) The thing was interesting for the first 30 seconds, and then it kept on with the same three chords, slightly different tempos, like variations but with no theme. It bacame exasperating when it finally trailed off. In fact, the announcer mentioned that, that Glass’s work often does just ... trail off.

After the station break, what should come on next, but a Bach Brandenburg Concerto. We listened to the entire thrilling piece and I remarked to my son how much better it was. I tried to explain the difference, like how if Bach is calculus, Philip Glass is counting on fingers, or how Bach is a portrait by Sargent as opposed to the portrait that Napoleon Dynamite did to get the girl to go to prom with him.

This discussion is just the same. It is OK to enjoy Glass or Kincade or Funyuns or Molly Ringwald movies (speaking of my own personal foibles). But art is not merely subjective; as human communication, as spiritual interaction, it can be better or worse; art’s worth is not only, maybe not even MOSTLY, about how it makes you FEEL. There is either truth or untruth, reflection or lack thereof, evident in every artifact a human being creates.

I thought Simcha did a great job of showing the difference. And for those who can’t take criticism of something they like and that makes them feel good, really—find a different blog. After all, I loved Ladyhawke, and Simcha’s Jerk totally trashed it!

You Kinkade Kronies keep stating “art is subjective.” Since when is anything subjective? That’s like saying theology is subjective. We’re Catholics. We’ve been given the Truth, right?

JudithAnn writes, “I would love the world to be as beautiful, colorful, and serene; I would love to live in the world he paints.”  Really?  You’d like to live in an unfallen world that never needed a Redeemer?  Because that makes me think of these lines in the Exsultet:

O happy fault,
O necessary sin of Adam,
which gained for us so great a Redeemer!
Most blessed of all nights,
chosen by God to see Christ rising from the dead!
Of this night scripture says:
“The night will be as clear as day:
it will become my light, my joy.”

Picture a hushed, dark church on the eve of Easter, the only light coming from the flickering candles held by the crowd, among whom are those soon to be baptized and to receive the Light of Christ.  Picture those lines sung by a young man of 14, making his first attempt at this difficult chant.  Glory and awe, majesty and power, mixed together with the human, the ordinary, the mundane—the dripping of candle wax, the fidgeting of a child or the cry of an infant, the occasional wavering of the young man’s voice as he loses and then finds the proper note for this unaccompanied chant—suddenly growing in strength as the familiar line “O happy fault” is reached.

Flesh and spirit, matter and form, substance and shadow, sin and redemption, light shining into the uncomprehending darkness.  But pink glowing light without real darkness, the darkness of sin, of the fall, of the fallen soul?  Emanating, as Simcha and others point out, from no discernible source?

I have no issue with people who like Kinkade’s stuff as pretty decorations.  But to call it art is to misunderstand fundamentally the mission and purpose of art, which is to reflect and ponder the universal human experience and draw beauty—even if the work at first doesn’t seem beautiful—from that.

Simcha offered a thoughtful and humorous art critique. So far there hasn’t been even one attempt by those who are insulting her to say what it is they actually like about these paintings except for a vague “they are beautiful and they make me feel good.” There is no thought, no insight, just mindless and ugly reaction by those who arrogantly and ignorantly think they are appreciating beauty. It’s appalling. If you can’t find the internal fortitude to even attempt to understand what she’s saying, then you don’t deserve anything better than Kinkade.

This reminds me of Dave Barry’s Bad Song Contest.  Some reader had nominated a song (can’t remember what song) by asking “Why does everyone hate [song]? I hate it too, but I want to know *why*.”  That’s how I felt about Kinkade, so thank you for explaining so clearly and thoughtfully why. 
We’ve, as a culture (if you can call us a “culture”), gotten so used to “art=ugly” that it makes sense to me why people start to like Kinkade and similar awfulness.  His stuff is at least better than bare cubicle-like walls or actively deconstructive “art.”  But that doesn’t make it good; Twinkies may ward off starvation (and I like them!) but they’re not actually real food.  Yes, taste is subjective, but actual goodness of lots of things, including art, isn’t.

I’m puzzled at people who find these pictures restful or peaceful.  One thing I was noticing as I looked at them again is the fact that your eye can’t really rest anywhere in the picture.  There’s no real focal point.  (Not sure, but I think it’s the lurid chaos of colors that drives the eye away from wherever it tires to rest.  In black and white, it might be different.)  Anyway, to me, the effect is anything but restful.

Er, make that “tries to rest.”

Hi!
  I’m an artist, and I paint acrylics, watercolor, pastel, and what I call “marker paintings”.  I don’t like to paint “photorealistic”, and the only thing I like about TK is maybe his colors.  And, I don’t want to offend anyone, but I don’t care for Norman Rockwell; by that I mean his subject matter.  To me, it’s too saccrine and portrayed a world that never existed.
BTW Colet,  I wouldn’t mind having the Judith painting in paint-by number or embroidery.

I was always put off by the unnatural world of Mr. Kinkade, but didn’t want to seem too judgmental in criticizing it.  I just figured it was bad Christian chintz for people who needed something like that.  Have you ever been to a CBA (Christian Booksellers Association) convention?  Frightening.  There, in addition to books, you can get Psalm doormats, funny little angel statues, and the like.  We received a Kinkade painting as a wedding gift (not an original, but a print, I’m sure) and we “re-gifted” it as fast as possible.  I’m sure it’s still making the rounds.

Check out “The Young Martyr” by Delaroche for a stunning depiction of dark and light if you are ever in the Louvre (digital reps not quite as good).  Would definitely appeal to the Romantic tastes of Kincaid fans, but points to where true peace and join is found.
http://www.artmagick.com/pictures/picture.aspx?id=5112&name=the-young-martyr

The extreme reactions to this post remind me of the time I lost several online “friends” when I mentioned in my blog that I really didn’t understand why everyone was going nuts about the Crocodile Hunter’s recent death. I mean, sure, it was sudden and sad, but can we move on? None of us knew him personally, and as far as I could tell, no one I knew was a huge “fan.” WOW, that made people mad. And that’s probably why I am careful when sharing my opinions on certain parts of popular culture - people get REALLY ticked off when you knock something they like, I guess because they feel like you’re criticizing them personally? I try to remember that I have my reasons for enjoying the music, books, and art that I do, and it’s okay if other people DON’T enjoy it. And I also try to be respectful of other people’s tastes. To be fair, this is Simcha’s blog and therefore HER platform to share HER thoughts and opinions. She can be as brutally honest as she likes - just as anyone who disagrees with her can be as brutally honest as they like in their individual combox or their own blog :-D

Personally I can’t wait to see what lives inside those cottages.  Something with a bad case of radioactivity maybe.

Readers who had strong opinions about Thomas Kinkade, Aug. 24, 2011: 0.5%

Readers who have strong opinions about Thomas Kinkade, Aug. 25, 2011: 99%

My take on Kincaid: lights on, nobody home. Do you notice that he almost never include humans in his paintings, and the once (that I know of) that he tried horses he invented a new genus of mammals. They didn’t even qualify as equids. And as for not liking his color scheme: not to worry. You can go to a shop at a mall in Washington, DC and get a goodly number of his paintings repainted in whatever colors suit your living room. Rembrandt, eat your heart out. If you think Kincaid paints “art” you need to spend more time in museums looking at Renaissance, Baroque and Impressionist art.

I’m wondering what you think about Dali.  I had always felt very uncomfortable around his works, but was forced to go to his museum where I saw his religious paintings. I bought a print of The Discovery of America by Christopher Columbus.  I couldn’t NOT buy it.  While the light sources are all over the place, it evokes some sense of the sacred in me.

I’ve always felt that the source of light in TK pictures was the viewer, which poses its own theological problems.

The way the windows glow makes me feel like the Little Match Girl.

I love it when you write about art, Simcha; you always make me think deeper.

Re Mr. Kinkade ... his older work is not nearly as ... everything you said ... as his more recent work.  He never was and he never would have been an “important” artist, but I think he could have been better ... had he not lost his artistic soul to mammon ...

Geez, all so Holier than Thou.  You all remind me of a bunch of people I know who graduated from a college called “Christendom” who all think they are world experienced and all knowing. 

That being said, if you don’t like the paintings, don’t buy or look at them.  I don’t happen to like them all, but not everybody needs reality all the time for pete’s sake.  Bet none of you ever go to a Disney movie because they’re ‘unrealistic.’  Grow up.  And bet this doesn’t make your holier than thou comments.

You said it, justme. It’s like reading “The Lottery.”

Those of us who cring at Kinkade aren’t necessarily foes of representational art. In this case, as Simcha’s excellent critique demonstrates, it’s what’s being represented and how. These works are sheer phony schlock. Those interested in art painted with light should contemplate Caravaggio, Vermeer, and de la Tour beside a Kinkade and ask themselves : “Which of these things is not like the other?”

There are services that can turn any image into a counted cross stitch/needlework pattern. Judith is within your grasp!

“Sentimentality is an over-emphasis on innocence.  As such, it is inexcusable for Christians.”  Flannery O’Connor

You are brave, Simcha.

I think a lot of folks are under the impression that I’m arguing that good art must be ultra-realistic, or even representational, but I’m not—that’s silly.  I used to have a Mondrian in my bedroom, for goodness sake.  I think Kinkade is bad because he violates his own rules:  he sets up as if he’s going to give us a representational piece of art, but he cheats in a thousand ways.  I’m more than happy to hear a counter-argument from someone who can show otherwise, but “you mean old snob” doesn’t quite make the grade.

At 12:28, TheJerk wrote: “You Kinkade Kronies keep stating ‘art is subjective.’ Since when is anything subjective? That’s like saying theology is subjective. We’re Catholics. We’ve been given the Truth, right?”

We should chat about this. This person is essentially asserting that because a universal Truth exists, there is an objective way to judge art. As if the best painting in the world can be judged #1, with all subsequent ones placed in order below. What do people think about this?

I had a ton of Kincade wall calendars back in the day, but when he branched out into afghans and potholders and every product under the sun I knew he had jumped the shark. For the record, he does have some paintings of town squares, etc that do feature people. His “St. Nicholas Square” Christmas book depicts lots of 1940s era shoppers.

Thank you, Simcha, for giving me my daily dose of Caravaggio and for having a sense of humor about art criticism. All you Kincaid lovers, calm down. Simcha’s not going all Michael Voris and insisting that we boycott any store that buys into Kincaid’s secret anti-incarnation agenda.  In many ways, art interpretation is a game, a puzzle that requires you to find new angles of considering what you see.

PS Honestly, justme, taking cheap shots at a good school that is indeed named Christendom? Your know-it-all friends do not represent the entire institution. I’m sorry for whatever smugness you have encountered.

As a photographer, I have used a technique called HDR. It takes 3 or more exposures of different speeds of the same object and then merge them together to form a photo that looks like a Thomas Kinkade painting.

maybe you should post some of your artist ability and we could be the judge between your art and his…He’s an artist that’s the beauty of art you can be creative and do what you want with your medium.  Good grief if everyone just painted what they saw realistically we might as well stop painting all together and switch to photography…with no PHOTOSHOP!  GASP!

Umberto, you say, “We should chat about this. This person is essentially asserting that because a universal Truth exists, there is an objective way to judge art. As if the best painting in the world can be judged #1, with all subsequent ones placed in order below.”  I’ve heard this said often to prove all statements of value are subjective, but I don’t see how it’s anything but a fallacy and an assumption itself.  Why should the statement “X is objectively good” or even “X is objectively better than Y” commit me to claiming I could place all possible X, Y, Z’s, etc. on a scale from best to worst?  Do you think only the numerically measurable is objectively knowable?  Obviously, nobody is claiming they can do that when they talk about objectively good art.  I’m very certain that both Beethoven and Bach were great composers, great beyond praising.  Which is greater?  I haven’t a clue.  But I have no hesitation in saying either one is better than Michael Jackson.  I’m not sure whether Cotes du Rhone or Tempranillo is a better wine (and it may not even be a meaningful question), but I do know both are far better than that Gallo stuff that comes in gallon jugs.  Objectively.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/whats-so-bad-about-thomas-kinkade/#blogComments#ixzz1WAOPO0pQ

I always liked his art until I discovered an artist who was a real master of light.  Take a look at Edouard Cortes.  His use of light is unbelievable.

Look, obviously there are objective standards in art; there has to be or it wouldn’t be art.  However, how each person reacts to art - objectively good or bad - is subjective.  One can acknowledge an artist’s talent without liking his work - or even acknowledge the greatness of a piece without liking it (the Mona Lisa is one of my least favorite pieces).  I can’t stand Shakespeare’s Hamlet, but I acknowledge that it is a great work.
//
To switch this around, it’s acceptable to like something in spite of poor quality.  I like certain authors who never should’ve been published.  But one can’t always be reading Shakespeare, you know.  Sometimes we have to climb down to the proletariat and enjoy their efforts at greatness.  Acknowledging Kincade’s perhaps subpar talent doesn’t mean his artwork should be burned.
//
It’s like Harry Potter: Not the greatest books, not the greatest story ever told, but we can’t always be reading the Bible, can we?  We can have fun with escapism every now and then.

Simcha, do you have any evidence to support your belief in Kincade’s “disdain” for the world?  Or it this merely your interpretation of his art?  That’s a mighty judgmental thing to say about someone unless you have some sort of proof, in the form of a statement from the artist himself, that it’s true. 

You disappoint me with this piece.  It’s beneath you.  You usually do a very fine job of giving people a perspective on issues of spiritual or moral importance.  There are so many other worthy subjects about which you could write that writing just to say nasty things about someone whose art you don’t happen to like seems like a childish rant you go on to make yourself feel better.  Your disdain for Kincade is made perfectly clear.  If you feel that way, fine, but I don’t exactly see what your goal is in this post other than to “make fun”, as you say, of another human person.  Remember that God will ask you someday to give an account for every idle word you speak.

@Michelle Hood: Yes, that’s my interpretation of his art.  His paintings are what he says to the world, and I’m responding to what he says.  It’s true that I felt better after I wrote it, and that was because I did a careful job of explaining why I don’t like his stuff.  Very satisfying to put your finger on a nebulous problem. 

.

@Mary S et al:  I wasn’t saying, “Don’t you dare enjoy Kinkade,” I was saying, “I don’t like Kinkade—here’s why.”  Read, look at, eat whatever you want - why should I care?  I didn’t say anything about people who like him—all I did was talk about why I don’t like him.  I’m really scratching my head over why y’all are taking this so personally.

This “nebulous problem” is your problem, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be everyone else’s.  I have no objection to your dislike for Kinkade’s art; I object to your unjustified attack on the man himself and what you believe to be his view of the world. The idea that you can look at a person’s art and think you have somehow gotten inside his head and determined his innermost feelings is completely unrealistic.  It reminds me of those protestants who disagree with Catholicism and attribute to us all manner of deviant, evil motives when they, in fact, have no idea what we actually believe.

Kinkade seems like such a nice guy!

From Wikipedia:

The Los Angeles Times has reported that some of Kinkade’s former colleagues, employees, and even collectors of his work say that he has a long history of cursing and heckling other artists and performers. The Times further reported that he openly groped a woman’s breasts at a South Bend, Indiana, sales event, and mentioned his proclivity for ritual territory marking through urination, once relieving himself on a Winnie the Pooh figure at the Disneyland Hotel in Anaheim while saying “This one’s for you, Walt.” In a letter to licensed gallery owners acknowledging he may have behaved badly during a stressful time when he overindulged in food and drink, Kinkade said accounts of the alcohol-related incidents included “exaggerated, and in some cases outright fabricated personal accusations.” The letter did not address any incident specifically.

In 2006 John Dandois, Media Arts Group executive, recounted a story that on one occasion (“about six years ago”) Kinkade became drunk at a Siegfried & Roy magic show in Las Vegas and began shouting “Codpiece! Codpiece!” at the performers. Eventually he was calmed by his mother.[24] Dandois also said of Kinkade, “Thom would be fine, he would be drinking, and then all of a sudden, you couldn’t tell where the boundary was, and then he became very incoherent, and he would start cussing and doing a lot of weird stuff.” On 11 June 2010, Kinkade was arrested in Carmel, California on suspicion of driving while under the influence of alcohol.

Most info there is from this article:

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/mar/05/business/fi-kinkade5/3

Though the “CODPIECE!” bit does make me respect him a little more as a person, I still think his paintings are crapola.

Simcha, You say:
“I think Kinkade is bad because he violates his own rules:  he sets up as if he’s going to give us a representational piece of art, but he cheats in a thousand ways.”

Violates his own rules?!? It’s an art, not a science. It doesn’t have a clear procedure that must be followed, or distinct boundaries or rules. Art is fuzzy like that. It’s all about experimenting and trying to produce something new.

I think your analysis is inaccurate largely because of your claim that Kinkade “violates his own rules”...No! He doesn’t lay down rules to begin with (because it’s an ART, not a science!) He does SUGGEST that he is going to be representational, but then he surprises us by not doing so. He’s not breaking any rules by doing this. He’s just surprising us, doing something creative and unexpected, leading us to marvel and question what we are seeing.

It’s art!

Stained glass windows during the day - inside the church the images of the saints are illuminated not by their own light, but by the light of the sun/son.

Stained glass windows during the night - outside the church (you know, out in the cold dark world) the night is illuminated from a light witin the church that shines through the images of the saints.

Now that ought to give you goosebumps.

Well just as you write an article and have your own opinions about his art…many people have an opinion about what you write and how you have chosen to write it.  Personally I completely understand where you are coming from saying his paintings are not Christian iconography. 
Merely looking at it for a piece of art as I would (this is from an artistic point of view, I am not a critic) I personally like his unique perception of light…as an artist I feel he is allowed to express light or anything else the way he would like to whether it makes sense or not, it’s art.  While Kinkade is not my style as far as having it around the house and not a fan of his, I still appreciate his individual/unique trademark of lighting. In the artistic world everyone should be free to express themselves in their own unique way.
If your whole point is whether his painting as incarnational or anti-incarnational…I would have to agree with you they are anti incarnational.
I would encourage you to emphasis what is your own opinion and feeling about the art piece and what is actually fact…it would be much different if you said, when I look at his art it makes me FEEL “he has disdain for the world as it is.” I personally felt it was rather insulting for you to say “He loves the world in the same way that a pageant mom thinks her child is just adorable—or will be, after she loses ten pounds, dyes and curls her hair, gets implants, and makes herself almost unrecognizable with a thick layer of make-up.”  That may be your opinion but you wrote it as it was if it was a fact. 
Again I can see your argument about the piece itself and it’s spiritual origin or lack there of (I think you have a really good argument there).  It was your attack on the artist himself and your lack of articulating facts from your own feelings that I felt were rather insulting, ridged, and stifling for criticizing the wonderful freedom of expressing creativity and individuality found in the artistic world. 
Some people may have taken it personally because a lot of artists have their own concept of a lot of things and you totally pretty much slandered Kinkade by failing to articulate facts from your own feelings.
I’m thinking DANG what would this woman say not only about my own art but my personal character with out even knowing me.
Then again maybe that’s just me, I can’t speak for everyone.

If you want to see some work by a modern Catholic painter who knows what he’s doing, see here:

http://timothyjones.typepad.com/timothy_jones_daily_paint/2011/07/new-painting-spring-berries.html

And another one I really like:

http://timothyjones.typepad.com/timothy_jones_daily_paint/2011/02/contemporary-realism-gallery-now-at-fine-art-america.html

Just for comparison’s sake—not all painting being done today is schlocky dreck or drecky shlock.

@Hope: Agreed.

Wow! Imagine how awesome that Kincade would look under a blacklight! Seriously, I went to art school and was often chastised for acknowledging that not everything is art. Calling something art doesn’t make it so. If you go out on a limb and assert that everything created by anyone is art in its own way, that still doesn’t make it GOOD art.

” It was your attack on the artist himself and your lack of articulating facts from your own feelings that I felt were rather insulting, ridged, and stifling for criticizing the wonderful freedom of expressing creativity and individuality found in the artistic world.”

OK, please show where Simcha attacked Kinkade as a man. Please use words that she actually wrote. You won’t find them even if you were to read her post all the way through. But please try to stick to facts.

In case you missed it, she gave a fairly deft analysis of his art, and what he is saying through his art, and what it should mean to people who believe in the Incarnation.

And yes, THERE ARE RULES FOR ART. If there were no rules for art, then there is no such thing as bad art. We know that is not true.

We know that truth, beauty, and goodness exist. To say that you can’t judge art on its merits is to deny this fact.

“Well just as you write an article and have your own opinions about his art…many people have an opinion about what you write and how you have chosen to write it.”
//
That’s fine, but Simcha never insulted anyone who likes his work and yet she is insulted by people who take her dislike of the work personally.
//
“...as an artist I feel he is allowed to express light or anything else the way he would like to whether it makes sense or not, it’s art.”
//
That’s not the point. Nowhere did Simcha say he should be hogtied and prevented from ever creating again. But she is entitled to critique his work, and she makes extremely valid points. Her criticism is not invalid just because “it’s art.”
//
“In the artistic world everyone should be free to express themselves in their own unique way.”
//
Oh believe me, they are. They can cover the Virgin Mary with elephant dung and actually get paid by taxpayers. That doesn’t mean artists are exempt from criticism.
//
“I would encourage you to emphasis what is your own opinion and feeling about the art piece and what is actually fact…it would be much different if you said, when I look at his art it makes me FEEL “he has disdain for the world as it is.”
//
But that’s not the way to write critiques. You don’t need to see the word FEEL to understand that it is opinion.  This is supposed to be understood. Adults with an even minimally developed intellect don’t need that kind of hand holding. Immature, reactionary ignoramuses do.
//
“I personally felt it was rather insulting for you to say “He loves the world in the same way that a pageant mom thinks her child is just adorable—or will be, after she loses ten pounds, dyes and curls her hair, gets implants, and makes herself almost unrecognizable with a thick layer of make-up.”
//
It was insulting. So what?  It was insulting to the artist, not those who like his work. Art that can’t withstand criticism without loyal minions becoming thoughtlessly enraged is not a good sign of it’s merit.
//
“It was your attack on the artist himself and your lack of articulating facts from your own feelings that I felt were rather insulting, ridged, and stifling for criticizing the wonderful freedom of expressing creativity and individuality found in the artistic world.”
//
This doesn’t even make sense. The freedom to create is not tied to suppression of criticism. I would assume almost everyone who insulted Simcha wouldn’t have a problem criticizing Mapelethorpe’s “Piss Christ.” I assume they would like that freedom without being personally insulted by hordes of Maplethorpe devotees who can’t even defend the work artistically, but who just simply hate Christ. There’s not much difference intellectually between them and those here who just “like Kinkade.”
//
“Some people may have taken it personally because a lot of artists have their own concept of a lot of things and you totally pretty much slandered Kinkade by failing to articulate facts from your own feelings.”
//
This doesn’t make any sense either. But people take it personally because they are insecure in their own knowledge of art and don’t like to feel that their ignorance and trivial taste has been exposed. But there is no crime in ignorance, only in deliberately remaining so.
//
“I’m thinking DANG what would this woman say not only about my own art but my personal character with out even knowing me.”
//
Just some advice from someone in the creative field: Do not fear criticism. Embrace it. It’s hard not to feel stung on occasion, but the ability to defend your work (or the works of others you enjoy) is invaluable and will help you to grow as an artist. To someone who really takes the time to study art, the artist’s motives will reveal themselves. Skill (and Kinkade is skilled) may overshadow it for a time, but the truth usually manages to reveal itself. Personally, I think Kinkade’s art doesn’t reflect his own vision, but the vision of the people he’s creating it for.  And that is what is insulting. I like people too much to see the worst of themselves pandered to.

Some of them remind me of the old time country cottages, I must admit.

Simcha, I would never insult you, nor do I take this personally at all.  I don’t care enough about Kincade (or really about visual art at all) to make a fuss.  Truly, it was your commenters to whom I was speaking.  The ones who were all “Art is subjective!” “No! Art is objective, you bad Catholic!” “Not appreciating all pretty things makes YOU a bad Catholic!” :D:D:D:D
//
Please know I have the greatest respect for you and your opinions (it’s why I check your blog every day).

Aw, heck, Mary S, I wasn’t really talking to you - you just happened to be the last one who commented before I couldn’t take it no more.  I would be happy to talk about art all day long, but I don’t really have anything to say to people who insult me for the crime of being insulting, and who judge me for the crime of making judgments. I get that kind of inconsistent nonsense from my kids, but I have to put up with it from them, because they live here.

.

Just to show that I’m not mad, though, I hold out this palm branch to the folks who are, unlike me, unfettered by elitism and the desire to crush the creative spirit of those who simply enjoy beauty without getting all THINKY about it.  Pure souls:  please enjoy these two equally valuable and legitimate works of art, which are impossible to judge between, because . . . it’s art!

.

art #1:  http://tinyurl.com/3mof3bl

.

art #2:  http://tinyurl.com/3hwqpm6

Please, some of these people would clearly see Michaelangelo Buonarotti’s painting of the Sistine Chapel as trash, from the sound of some of you.  If you don’t like Kinkade’s paintings, don’t look at them.  Some of you are awfully judgemental for being “catholic”.

I thought the Sistine Chapel was by Michelangelo Bellingham.

No no, you’re thinking of Arsenio Buonarotti.  It’s okay, you probably didn’t go to college.

I’ve quite partial to this work by Arsenio Buanarotti:
.
http://tinyurl.com/yhyf468

Simcha, I was prepared to defend you until the bitter end, but you’ve crossed the line with your mean spirited insulting of horseshoe crabs. And recycling.

One more closing thought while Kinkade is obviously not painting Incarnational it’s totally ridiculous to say he’s anti-incarnational.

Why all this fuss over a schlockmeister, which is all this guy is? Just go to Google and type in Las Vegas, bankruptcy, drunken behavior, outsourcing to China.  Need I add any more? His art has long slipped to the point where he’s become the Ronco hockster of the latest trend in low-brow culture. And let’s not forget this guy’s bombed attempt to create a Disneyesque village development based on his “artwork” around San Francisco.
  He’s taken “Christian art” to a new lower bargain basement level to just pure kitsch.

Yeah, go ahead all you critics!  :)  lol   Eye gess eye shudda gawn too kollege lyke awl da resst uv yoo.  Mye poynt reemains… Iff yoo down’t lyke Kinkade down’t loock att hiz payntingz.  Wutt abuncha judgemental ‘catholics’ yew awl R.

Simcha, you really have done a very good job of explaining your reasons for disliking Kinkade without insulting people who like him.  I love that you have been hard on the argument, but gentle to the people.  Some of your commenters, on both sides of the debate, are pretty mean though.  Saying that people are unimaginative or stupid because they like these kinds of pictures is rude and only alienates people rather than convincing them.  And it reinforces the impression among the unarty of us that art is inaccessible to the masses and art lovers are snobs.  I know it’s silly, but sometimes I think, “Well, fine then!  You can keep your stinky old art!”  Of course, then my face gets mad at me for cutting off my nose.

Here’s part of the problem, I think.  Something can be “pretty” without being art.  I used to love my sparkly unicorn trapper keeper, but it wasn’t art.

Art is a visual means of communicating an idea.  That idea can be a good idea or a bad idea, and the artist can communicate it well or badly.  Good art is when a good idea is communicated well.  A well-communicated wrong idea (piss christ) is bad art.  A poorly communicated GOOD idea is also bad art.

So, whether TK is art depends on whether he’s trying to communicate something to viewers, rather than just ‘Sparkly pink things are pretty!!!’ (which is not up for debate.  So don’t try.)

Simcha decided to treat TK as if he IS art, and so is critiquing his message and his means of communication, and then pronouncing him bad.

The people angry at Simcha are upset b/c TK is pretty.  But by denying her right to critique his message and his means of communicating it, they’re also declaring him “Not Art”—just like those pretty rainbow posters with pegasi and unicorns frolicking with kittens.

You can’t have it both ways—if he’s art, she’s not “mean” to critique.  And if all that matters is the “pretty” and not the meaning, then he’s not art.

I would like to be a kitty in one of Kinkade’s psychedelic gardens…  with misty blue eyes and fluffy mauve fur… peacefully watching little blue birds fluttering provacatively above my head.

Well, I’d like to be under the sea, in an octopus’s garden in the shade!  Or a Kellogs cornflake, floating in my bowl taking movies!  :P

Listen, justme:  you keep saying that if I don’t like Kinkade’s work, then I shouldn’t look at it.  My friend, if you don’t like my posts, don’t read them.  How is it that you’re entitled to give an opinion of my writing, but if I give an opinion of his work, then I’m “judgmental?”  Surely you can see that, if you are entitled to say what you want about my writing, then I’m entitled to say whatever I want about Kinkade.  That doesn’t have anything to do with having gone to college, it’s just pure fairness.

I’m gonna go poop on a canvas and call it “Desert Cottage.” DON’T YOU JUDGE ME!

Simcha….too touchy for a blogger that is so arrogant when making comments, you always come accross as if your opinion is the absolute.  And a very rude comment that comment you made telling a reader they probably did not go to college….you sounded completely like you where trying to humiliate them for it, looking down on that person.  Many great and successful people have not gone to college!  Really enough.  You give the impression to be full of complexes….for a blogger that does not work….get over your complexes or stop blogging please.

I like Kinkade….I feel joy when I look at his paintings….and he gives me the impression he just saw the world through eyes full of joy….like children….like a fairy tale…..I don’t know the man….but a great art teacher once told me the meaning of an art piece is for the eyes of the beholder….whatever you understand or feel about it is fine because there is no right or wrong….but it is very much about you!  I love him and I am not ashamed to say it.  I think many people feel pure joy with Kinkade too!

Mary K, I know Simcha is perfectly capable of defending herself but - I went back through the comments to see what on earth you could be referring to and the only thing I could come up with was a joke between her and The Jerk.  I believe that is her husband.

Anyone who thinks fairy tales and children see the world through cotton-candied colored eyes of joy has clearly not read a fairy tale or talked to a child recently.

@Everybody, including everybody’s alter egos:  sorry I didn’t step in sooner, but I was out grocery shopping, and came home to find 15 new messages.  I don’t understand any of them.  I guess I’ll just go back and delete all the silliest stuff.  Let’s just blame it on the hurricane and start again, tomorrow, eh?

can you erase my comments?  I was wishing I could.

Fine. Just consider everything I’ve written performance art. That way I don’t have to apologize, and you can’t judge it because it’s ART!

Gonna go work on my painting of the Black Forest.

Geez, the Jerk, don’t you have a job or something?

If Kincade creates art, I’m sure the “Black Forest” painting and the “Desert Cottage” will be masterpieces.

Simcha,

Here’s the thing. I think people are responding so poorly to your article because you are not merely stating your PERSONAL opinion of Kinkade. Rather, saying that he is “anti-Incarnational” makes his work sound sinful. If he is truly making art that belittles the Incarnation, his work would be immoral for any good Catholic to enjoy.

Maybe that is not what you intended to imply, but that is how it came across. I saw several commenters who were agreeing with you, who then went on to say that Kinkade’s work is “emotional porn.” Can you see how the conotation there is sinful, rather than just one of individual taste and preference?

@A fan:  No, I understand why people are misunderstanding what I say.  Phrases like “anti-Incarnational” and “emotional porn” are jarring.  Most readers, though, understand that language doesn’t always have to be literal—in fact,figurative language is not only more interesting to read, but it’s very useful for introducing ideas which can’t be put across with literal language. 

.

For instance, when readers said, “emotional porn,” that not only opens up ideas about what is wrong with the painting in question, but it makes us think more about what is wrong with pornography.  Comparing one thing to another is how we come to understand things better. 

.

A few readers have also suggested that I be more explicit when I am stating my opinion (like when the little TV voice says, “The following is a paid advertisement,” so that viewers don’t mistake what follows for genuine entertainment).  Someday I will write a piece that takes that advice, and you will find it utterly unreadable.  If I were an editor, I would fire any writer who minced around like that.

.

Here’s a confession:  my first drafts often include the phrases, “I think” or, “In my opinion” or “of course I don’t mean to imply”—but then I tell myself, “Well, OBVIOUSLY it’s your opinion, since you’re saying it.”  So I take it out, because it’s crappy writing.  I may be arrogant, but I don’t mistake my own opinion for the absolute truth.  Any reader who mistakes my opinion for the absolute truth gets what he deserves.

I wouldn’t go so far to say it’s SINFUL to view and purchase Thomas Kinkade—but I think it may be dangerous.

The world of his paintings is very UN-Catholic.  There’s no messiness, no dirt, no need of redemption, no annoying neighbor, no relationships.  God told us that it is NOT GOOD for Man to be alone—-when we cut off all others, we cease to live in the image of God, who is a Trinity, not a Unity.  We need others to be truly in his image.

Good Catholic Art (as opposed to the Schlock, of which we, as a faith, have produced heaps!) recalls this fact.  When you look at a Medieval painting of the birth of Christ, there are often completely bizarre things going on in the background—“Look, the Magi are adoring Jesus, and there’s a dwarf falling off the bridge! And Bethlehem looks JUST LIKE FLORENCE!

As a child, I thought these backgrounds meant that the artist was bored, or too unimaginative to do a ‘realistic’ Holy Land.  Now I realize that they’re actually PART of the story.  Jesus came to redeem the WORLD.  OUR WORLD.  He redeems Florence just as He redeems Bethlehem.  A modern Medieval might paint the incarnation in Hoboken or Chicago or some little town on Oklahoma suffering from drought.  The Incarnation is for everywhere, and it makes the messy, fallen world GOOD again. 

It’s God restoring the order to his creation, which somehow STILL doesn’t look like a Kinkade painting, even after all the dying on the cross and everything.  I mean, sheesh… I STILL have neighbors, and they still annoy me sometimes, even after the Resurection!

Kinkade, on the other hand, paints a sort of Calvinism—the cottage people are predestined for this “Heaven”, the undeserving are somewhere else in their hovels and filth.  Whatever he is, his paintings are lies.

@Simcha—I only mistake your opinion for absolute truth when you agree with me.  The rest of the time you’re a foul demonic creature spewing forth vile, toxic lies. ;)

If anybody who likes Kincaid hasn’t read the First Things post Simcha linked to, I highly recommend it. Joe Carter does a really nice job comparing “good Kinkades” to “bad Kinkades.” It’s a good approach, I think, because he doesn’t just throw out a painting and attack it with some abstract rules—rather he shows some of the things Kinkade accomplished in his early paintings, and shows how certain elements get distorted to the point that they lose the qualities his earlier work had. He also has a revealing point about the absence of people in Kinkade’s famous money-makers: the cottage paintings. That’s intentional, and he quotes Kinkade on the point. Interesting - definitely worth a look.

Thank you, Joe.  In your last post you reminded readers of the article in “First Things” (Joe Carter, June, 2010).  Mr. Carter compares in a sensitive and intelligent manner the past/present of Kincade’s works. Yes, TKs style has changed, his personal life is going through a difficult time.  It is time to offer a prayer for this gifted talented man and for his family rather than to demonize him.  It is not the work of the Holy Spirit to demonize.  Criticism is partly right, but the attitude can be sinful.

But criticism is not demonization. Simcha never even mentioned Kinkade’s personal struggles and did not judge him in any way. She judged his art and she judged it harshly, but she did not demonize him and it is unfair for anyone to accuse her of that.

Sorry Julie; although personal struggles are not mentioned, Simcha crosses the line from critique of artwork to unfairly judging the artist.  In her last paragraph she moved from the art to the person of Kincade when she wrote ... ‘‘Kinkade isn’t content with shying away from ugliness:  He sees nothing beautiful in the world the way it is.  He thinks it needs polishing.  He loves the world in the same way that a pageant mom thinks her child is just adorable ... Kinkade’s-style shows his disdain for it [the world]. His light doesn’t reveal, it distorts. His paintings aren’t merely trivial, they’re a statement of contempt for the world.  His vision of the world isn’t just tacky, it’s anti-Incarnational.’’  Simcha isn’t content with shying away from ugliness:  SHE sees nothing beautiful in the world the way it is.  SHE thinks it needs polishing.  SHE loves the world in the same way that a pageant mom thinks her child is just adorable ... Her-style shows her disdain for it [the world]. Her words don’t reveal, they distorts Her words aren’t merely trivial, they’re a statement of contempt for the world.  Her vision of the world isn’t just tacky, it’s anti-Incarnational ... this is demonizing of the person. 

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/simcha-fisher/whats-so-bad-about-thomas-kinkade/#ixzz1WQUIMpKO

@JudithAnn:  I understand what you’re saying, but you’re simply mistaken when you say that I’m judging the artist.  The language I used is simply how people discuss art, whether it’s art by a painter, a poet, a musician, or a writer:  we use the artist’s name as a shorthand for his body of work.

.

I could also say, “Schubert is delighting in the exquisite pain of love” or “Frost rejects the easy sentimentality of the pastoral life” or “Michelangelo makes a vigorous argument against Manichaeism.”  Are these things true about the actual artists?  I have no idea, and it doesn’t matter, because everyone would know that I was referring to the work of art, and the effect that that art has on the viewer, and not referring to the artist himself.  It’s not unchristian or sinful, it’s simply how we talk when we’re talking about art.

.

We assume that the artist produces something as a statement, and it is commonplace, widely accepted, and widely understood that when we say the name of the artist, we mean his body of work.  To do otherwise would be a subtle insult:  we give him the credit of assuming that he actually means something when he puts his art out for public consumption.  As a writer, I wouldn’t want people saying, “Well, Simcha’s WORDS suggest such-and-such an idea—but I can’t really presume she actually says or believes anything in particular.”  That would tell me that I’m wasting my time.

JudithAnn,

“It is time to offer a prayer for this gifted talented man and for his family rather than to demonize him.  It is not the work of the Holy Spirit to demonize.  Criticism is partly right, but the attitude can be sinful.”

I’m pretty sure this criticism of Mr. Kinkade’s work hasn’t risen to the level of demonization. Regardless, if he is choosing to work through his difficult times by offering the world more of the same, his work is still subject to the normal critical criteria. As are Ms. Fischer’s criticisms; her analysis is valid or not depending on the same critical criteria. What her attitude may be in offering it to us is between her and her confessor.

I mention this because we see these two elements a lot in public discussions of public issues. Both that the agent should be cut some slack because he’s working through some difficult personal issues, and that criticism of public actions is somehow less valid because the critic has some personal animus or other ‘bad’ attitude going on. Most of these discussions would probably be conducted on a higher, more civil plane if those two considerations were kept out of them.

Simcha just do NCR and many readers a favor and stick to what you know, when you don’t your writing is a waste of time.

@Notlaughing:  I’m trying, Ringo, I’m trying!

I’m kind of shocked that so many Kinkade fans read the NCR on a regular basis!  Simcha, to keep your stats up, I recommend that you follow this up with a critique of Precious Moments, and maybe a few articles on why you hate “Ellen” and won’t let your kids watch it…

I must disagree on your analysis. I hadn’t heard or seen any Kinkade pictures until 5 minutes ago. But the criticism of the light source as anti-incarnational seems over the top. As far as I can see, the light source in most his pictures is the light of a very bright sun in a hazy day, and the light of the hearth—both are reasonable light sources, and have a reasonable emotional meaning—the importance of home and the luminosity of nature.

It isn’t the *light* source that is inaccurate, it is the saturation. In diffuse days, or a bright day with interior lighting, things are well lit, but colors are not saturated. His paintings have unnatural saturation.

Pre 17th century paintings will rarely have any colors this saturated other than red, mostly because we didn’t have good pigments, as a side note. Oils are also harder to work with in saturated colors, Acrylics and Watercolors are far easier for these colors.

Techniques aside, I don’t know, I don’t think hypersaturation is *anti-incarnational*  There is usually that rare day in the autumn or in the spring, or that perfect moment at dusk and dawn when the colors really shine. And I think that is the mood that is being captured—the expression of the twilight. Very elven sort of mood.

That said, I can’t say Kinkade’s subject matter/style really captures me and I’m not a fan.  But maybe it is a function of growin up with super-thick lenses that caused chromatic aberrations in my vision that I sympathize with the “over saturated” look.

I just found this on Wiki about Kincade, and unfortunately, it’s less telling about Kincade’s big-as-California-ego as it does about the fortunes of some big named actors:
  ” . . . A self-produced movie about Kinkade, Thomas Kinkade’s Christmas Cottage, was released on DVD in late November 2008. The semi-autobiographical story looks at the motivation and inspiration behind his most popular painting, The Christmas Cottage. Jared Padalecki plays Kinkade and Marcia Gay Harden plays his mother. Peter O’Toole plays young Kinkade’s mentor, who tells him “Paint the light, Thomas! PAINT THE LIGHT!”.[32][33]” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kinkade
  It’s dammned difficult to imagine the great Irish actor who portrayed Henry II twice (“Becket” and “Lion in Winter”) and the title role in “Lawrence of Arabia”...by far his best moment ... having anything to do with a movie about Thomas Kincade, much less a movie that was produced by Kincade himself!
  Gee this kinda does give pause to wonder what a great scene it would’ve been if O’Toole used his camel whip—with emphasis!—to drive that “Paint the Light” point home. LOL.
  An even better scene would’ve been another “mentor” yelling at Kincade, “GET THAT SCHLOCK OUT OF MY SIGHT!”

That’s sadder than the time Richard Burton guest starred in an episode of “The Fall Guy.”

Kincaid sort of reminds me of Louis L’amour in the literature world.  L’amour’s books are entertaining, as Kincaid’s pictures are beautiful to look at for a while.  But after reading or looking at quite a few of them, you realize that it’s the same plot or picture over and over. Then they start to get sappy.  In the end neither is really literature or great art, though one can be entertaining and the other pretty on a superficial level.

Say what you want about Kinkade, but I grew up looking at Goya’s painting of Saturn eating one of his sons…really, no joke.  My mother had it hanging in our breakfast nook of all places.  Eventually my father realized the painting was scaring us children and asked my mother to move it to their bedroom.  It’s funny though, because reading your article reminds me that these types of pieces are both extremes.  Goya’s dark paintings at the end of his life were morbid and seemed to have no redeeming qualities, while Kinkades are all fluff with no real life.

Well now I just want to comment for the sake of commenting—I would never have imagined so much energy expended from what I read as a commonsense analysis of why Kinkaide is a schlock artist. Maybe that’s why I am not a blogger.  Keep up the good work!

I have enjoyed reading the comments as much (more than?) the original post. The people who think S should stick to what she knows are missing the obvious rebuttal - those replying to her post should be sticking with what they know, and it surely is not how to read art criticism! Her short post followed several conventions that are not immediately obvious if you have never read any art criticism. Being critical is not unChristian, folks. Nice try. Knowing, learning, fostering, studying and loving beauty is Christian. To do that, you end up having to learn to be critical. Not mean. But critical.  (And she wasn’t mean. Really!)

I will never look at a Kinkade again without imagining a raging interior house fire about to ignite the roof rushes and turn the whole dang cottage into a blackened heap of smoldering ash. I guess if I had starting out liking his work, I would be outraged.

Thank you, Simcha.

That’s sadder than the time Richard Burton guest starred in an episode of “The Fall Guy.”

I saw that episode!  Yeah, I’m baffled that he showed up on what was basically a slobbering shaggy mutt of a show—goofy fun, but not remotely going to be considered for an award.  Sir Richard must have owed someone a huge favor.

Richard Burton gotta eat.

As a Catholic and an artist I can only say THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU.  T.K. is a painter of below average skill overall, no understanding of color, a weak draftsman, and intellectually challenged.  He is an excellent businessman however, ah well he can’t be bad at everything.

@Floyd, I’m checking out your site and the phonetic Greek is cracking me up (so sue me, I went to college).  Now to look at your paintings. ..

@Tootall: The sappiest part of Kincade’s little empire of kitsch n’ schlock are all his “spinoffs” ... Christmas table decorations made to look like the most idyllic Christmas-y scenes you could ever imagine. Imagine the hilarious incongruity of this scene: Everybody’s gathered around the Christmas dinner table with Kincade’s fairy-tale scene plunked inside an Advent Wreath (and you know this baby will have all the whistles, bells, lights, and schmalzy little carols playing) while the rest of the family’s turning the big dinner into a private version of the Griswold’s “Hap, Happy, Merry (fill in the blanks) Christmas” as all hell breaks loose and the turkey falls into an ash-heap.
  And y’know, every family has it’s own “Cousin Eddie” to add his ever-astute commentary on everything under the sun (or junky RV.) Come to think of it, why do I see a little of “Cousin Eddie” whenever I see a photographic likeness of Kincade? Is it because they represent such lofty parallel planes of cultural significance?
  Too coincidental. Yeah, that’s it. Come to think about it, though, the fictional “Cousin Eddie” seems far more real than anything close to reality Kincade can come close to.
  As for those cottages burning down, Christine. They won’t burn, they’ll MELT.
  And as a former “Cast Member” of Walt Disney World during its first decade, I was aghast, UTTERLY AGHAST (!) to find out Disney would ink any scrap of paper with Kincade. Okay, Disney’s in the business of trying to put a little lightness and fantasy in our lives and it’s done a wonderful job at that ... but linking up with Kincade? Mickey had better watch his six, and Scar close at hand ... just to keep the ever so piously packaged Kincade in line.
  Here’s another way to think of Kincade: Picture his mug in the Goya painting of Saturn eating his children. Only each of the three children will have an inscription: Artistry, Good Taste, and accurate portrayals of Christian Culture,.

I had no prior opinion on Thomas Kinkade, except the absent-minded musing that he must clean up financially.  That said, I would rather read Simcha’s hard-hitting criticism because it has its reasons, than hear so many people rush to defend him but not really be able to articulate what’s so great about it.  (Maiki’s post excepted, that was interesting…not at all fawning, either.) It reminds me of comparing poems in AP English and most people would choose the one that was saccharine and made them feel good, for no other particular reason, rather than the better poem (there actually are objective measures of this - for instance, use of devices like metaphor, ambiguous meaning, and irony).  Sorry, folks.
-
“The idea that you can look at a person’s art and think you have somehow gotten inside his head and determined his innermost feelings is completely unrealistic.”

Really, Michelle?  If that’s true, my life is a waste and I want nothing more to do with it.  I mean, I know that when music lovers go to a concert of Bach sonatas, what they primarily want to hear is Bach sonatas, not Hotshot Violinist’s Ego.  However, there’s no reason to hear them repeatedly in different versions if you “hear” no glimpse of the artist himself; I know the darn things well enough that I can play them back to myself over and over without ever the need for another human being.  But if you have no idea what I’m about after hearing me play, I have failed.
-
@ Mary: I’ve been reading this blog for a grand total of maybe two weeks.  When I discover something new I read the old posts backward.  I have figured out who The Jerk is, roughly, and recognized that remark as banter.  It’s entirely understandable for that all to go past you if you’re a new arrival, but if so, maybe you ought to hold off on the criticism; I’m afraid the egg is on your face this time.  Please take this as charitable advice, as that is all that’s meant by it.

On a semi-related note, I really begin to understand part of why professional musicians get extremely offended when people complain about the lack of emotion in performances, when what they really mean is they don’t see anybody making faces, since people are so dumb* that they really need to be told what they’re supposed to be feeling.  It’s kind of the same stuff.

*sarcasm

Floyd - I’m enjoying the intense brushwork in your paintings! The self-portrait is particularly moving.

Good grief!  You don’t have to like the guy’s paintings, but methinks this is much too much ado about nothing.  Some of his paintings I enjoy; others I don’t.  The lighthouse scenes are my favorite—they have a clear source of light!

Your point of view is well taken Jen. Simply put, either you like his works or you don’t.  The lighthouses are my favorite also; a couple of his works depicting bridges are quite lovely.

Either you agree with Simcha or you don’t. But when commenting on a thoughtfully written, negative critique of certain works, you might want to think about offering something more “the lighthouses are my favorite” by way of presenting an opposing opinion. Just a thought.

I have a BFA, and I suggested this to my professor. I wrote on this subject a few times.

up til the end. Yes, it’s tacky, I disagree with the Kitch idea. Tacky is in the eye of the beholder.  I personally think artist give Clement Greenberg far too much credibility. He’s the art equivalent of Phillip Glass, in my opinion.

I’m only now having the opportunity to read your piece, and kudos to you for your artistic and spiritual perception.  Coming this late to the party, whatever I might have said has already been said several times over by others!

But I have to say this: as an artist myself, I’m gratified that you put your finger precisely on what is about about Thomas Kinkade’s work that has always made me indefinably queasy.  It isn’t about technical skill (there are worse technicians, and better ones), or physical realism (both trompe l’oeil and abstraction, in the hands of a genius, can grab you and make you acknowledge their utter truthfulness)—no, it’s the absence of soul, of either divine or human spirit.  It’s the artistic equivalent of cotton candy: pretty, fluffy, sweet, and vanishing into nothingness on your tongue.

Now that I think of it, cotton candy makes me queasy, too….

I thought it was a great art criticism until the last few paragraphs
however, phrases like “anti-incarnational,” “emotional porn,” and “Normal people recoil from such extreme artifice” is taking a step past “Thomas Kinkade’s work lacks artistic merit.” into “Thomas Kinkade’s work is evil.” 

I read your response to “a fan”
“Most readers, though, understand that language doesn’t always have to be literal—in fact,figurative language is not only more interesting to read, but it’s very useful for introducing ideas which can’t be put across with literal language.”

That would hold true for most metaphors, but not ones where you are talking about sin.

Good Heavens! And to think people use their Christian faith and ties to bilk other Christians! Why I never heard of such a thing ... have you, everybody?
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/aug/29/business/fi-kinkade29 Five year old story, but it looks like our friend Thomas hasn’t changed his style and pallet lately.
  Reading more stories like this will turn me into another Inspector Louis Reynauld of “Casablanca” fame! Sigh, where’s Claude Rains when you need him for a good detective story about a cheesy “Christian artist” pulling it over other Christians. Imagine the lines.

While trolling through the Huffington Post for any write ups on Kincade, I came across two items. One more than hinted that he produced paintings/prints of NoKo’s “Fearless Leader,” bad enough, really bad enough. But he really set himself up for a bad deep fall when a story about his DUI in summertime 2010 appeared in this blogsite.
http://hiscrivener.wordpress.com/tag/compromise/
You’ll have to drop down a story past a gem about a really dumb and bad megachurch idea to get to Kincade. Not only does this story feature his mug shot, but look at the photo of one of his “products” not far below.
  Guess anybody dumb enough to buy this gem of marketing genius will find out the hard way if Kincade outsourced its production run to a very large nation 9/10 Americans love to hate for its manipulation of our trade “laws” and gullible “business leaders,” one of whom being an “artist” who discovered gold from Benedict Arnold busines practices. Oh yeah, and doesn’t this “artist” love to paint a modern-day “Americana”?
  Sigh, this Kincade’s definitely the “Cousin Eddie” of today’s Americana scene, along with all the schlockmeisters hawking velveteen Elvis (circa 1972-1978) “tapestries” sold on “commercially zoned” highways in the deep fried South ... man oh man, does this guy make it hard to keep a straight face! And I thought the Elvis of his Vegas years “fame” was bad enough!

I’m trying to be really careful with my words here.  I don’t want it to come across as a personal attack, and yet, as you said in another post, when someone displays their work for the world to see, they open themselves up to a response.

I find it interesting that you feel a ‘duty’ to make fun of someone.  And you seem to find your identity in, and are quite enamored with, your meanness.  If we notice things in our lives that are not in line with the way God wants us to be living, wouldn’t it be much more honoring to Him to try and work on that, than to revel in our shortcomings and flaunt them before the world under the guise of a “critique” that we think should be found funny?  Humor is a wonderful thing - mean humor - well, it’s not.

I hope that’s food for thought, and not taken as a personal attack.

I am with IMS and all those who did not buy this “critique” as merely a critique.  Taking out all of Simcha’s family members and friends that lash out at those people who were bothered by this “critique”, very few people are left who were not bothered by it to some degree, I think that says a lot!

“Unreal” you are right on the mark. Simcha’s article is a sounding board for a negative opinion under the guise of critique. I appreciate the way you did a fair and kind “critique of the critique.”

anti-incarnational?
In the first painting I see red trees and I think of the blood of the martyrs, in the purple tree I see the purple robes of Advent. I see a boat and I think of the Barque of Peter and I see a stream and think of living waters.
In the second painting I see a heart and I think of the hearts of Jesus and Mary. I see a cross in the second floor window and I see the eucharist in the lamplight…
Not so tacky after all.

Oh please. Thomas Kinkade is not the artistic anti-Christ. I think his paintings are tacky, but there’s nothing intrinisically wrong about them. A lot of people like them and they are harmless. Your attempt to show that they are somehow the artistic equivalent of bad theology that will lead people to Hell is silly—and I love your writing! But you are overthinking this one. There is no reason that an artist shouldn’t paint for his audience. He found an audience who likes to look at stuff like that and he makes them very, very happy. He managed to do it in a way that made him a millionaire (before he lost everything, that is)—unlike the famous “big eye 1960s girl” painters, or the painters who fascinated me as a child—the ones who painted heads of sea captains so that the embers of the pipes looked like they were really burning. Now THAT was art.

Steven wrote: It’s dammned difficult to imagine the great Irish actor who portrayed Henry II twice (“Becket” and “Lion in Winter”) and the title role in “Lawrence of Arabia”...by far his best moment ... having anything to do with a movie about Thomas Kincade, much less a movie that was produced by Kincade himself!

In his defense, wasn’t Peter O’Toole known for frequently performing while he was drunk? That might have been one of those times.

“In the first painting I see red trees and I think of the blood of the martyrs, in the purple tree I see the purple robes of Advent. I see a boat and I think of the Barque of Peter and I see a stream and think of living waters.”
//

Ok, but why? The meaning of an artistic work is not whatever the viewer hallucinates into it. It’s also not a Rorschach test. Interpretation depends on a willingness to look past yourself and your immediate perceptions and see what it is the artist is trying to say.
//

“Thomas Kinkade is not the artistic anti-Christ. I think his paintings are tacky, but there’s nothing intrinisically wrong about them.”
//

The horror of Kinkade is that he actually did display some gift in his earlier works, but renounced it to focus on this gluttonous but lucrative cacophony of light. It shows such a stark eagerness to take advantage of the inexperienced art viewer who will actually defend him for this display of contempt. The anti-Christ? Maybe not, but it is the opposite of Christ who never told people whatever pretty thing they might want to hear and who ended up nailed to a cross for his unpretty message.

The meaning of an artistic work is not whatever the viewer hallucinates into it.

This is true, especially when the art itself is hallucinigenic (read: much of modern art). however, the response to art is always subjective and may illicit different responses in different souls. My point is that, a Christian with a Catholic world view may see symbols or reminders, conscious or unconscious in even a mundane thing like a painting by Thomas Kincade. I never paid much attention to his work until today and this discussion. I looked at the paintings and this is what I saw in the context of the comment that Kincaides paintings are a trivial, anti-incanational, etc

Yeah, the most grotesque thing about Kinkaide is comparing his earlier, better work with the lucrative pink-and-purple horrors.  If you like Kinkaide, click on Simcha’s link to read the First Things article.  Look at the way he used to paint and ask yourself why he changed.
Liking Kinkaide isn’t a moral failing, of course, but I’m afraid it does mark one as a consumer of kitsch.  I actually rather like Nina’s response of inventing spiritual images for the paintings; that seems rather Theresian (I’ve heard that St. Therese liked some pretty saccharine art, but maybe that’s not true).  I think that having a piece of dreadful religious art can winnow out the people who will judge you for your poor taste…but having something truly beautiful can attract cultured, artistic people you might want to know better.  So maybe we should all have a Precious Moments print in the bathroom, and an interesting New Mexican santo in the living room.  That would show visitors that we are cultured but not snobby.  ;-)

The problem with so many Americans liking Kinkaide is that these same Americans tend to like “praise and worship” music and comforting church architecture.  It’s all part of a larger aesthetic.  So when I go to Mass, I often find a sanctuary that looks like a living room, sappy piano music instead of an organ, and songs like “Be Not Afraid.”  And I suffer.  I would really, really love to join the choir and suggest (in the friendliest way!) some chant or simple polyphonic pieces, but I know that no one would care.  Their tastes have already been formed, and this is what they like.

@Gail, Excellent point about O’Toole! I almost fell out of my chair laughing! Come to think about it, maybe Kincade’s recent “art” is reflecting a certain fondness for some liquid refreshments as well. Purple and pink cottages, and visages that would even turn the Precious Moments characters turning green as Kincade’s luscious grassy knolls.
  What’s that guy puttin’ in his likker? Paint thinner?

Clear explanation of why his work seems comforting but artificially so. I lean toward photography so light is particularly important for those like me who love what nature and a great lens (OR a decent smartphone camera) can produce!

“Jesus is the ‘Holy One of God.’ But the Holy One of God realized his sanctity not in extraordinary life, but one impregnated with ordinary things: work, family and social life, obscure human activities, simple things shared by all men. The perfection of God is cast in a material which men almost despise, which they don’t consider worth searching for because of its simplicity, its lack of interest, because it is common to all men.”

Reminded me of this^

I could never be with a woman who likes Thomas Kinkade. Barfo!

What about those artists who throw paint on a canvas or the modern art kind of artists? Are they all “distoriting” things? I think you over complecated a simple topic. The man paints because he’s good at it and he wants to convey a message. It’s a picture for crying out loud! The guy is good at painting and can paint some impressive things . . . can you paint such pictures? Probably not.

All in all, this “article” just made me laugh, because you are over-complecating a simple thing.

@The Political Informer

.

The only thing complicated here is your spelling. Seriously dude, Google a dictionary.

Rip TK

I understand that not everyone likes Kinkade’s art but, obviously, there are millions who do.  My wife and I both like to look through his galleries and view his paintings.

He brought pleasure to millions of people who bought or who have viewed his art and, really, isn’t that the point?

My understanding is that he was a devout Christian yet you seem to think his paintings depict the anti-Incarnate?  I don’t see that at all.  Perhaps it is just your interpretation.

He has touched so many lives with his painting and I am sorry to see him leave this earth so young.

I admire the way she frames this as a moral argument against kinkead: by appropriating the visual language of people who deeply believed in what they were doing and perverting it into a kind of garish distortion of that symbolism to sell kitsch to people who wouldn’t know the difference, she’s drawn a nice parallel to the difference between ‘Christianity’ and the ‘Christian values’ espoused by the right (or rather, the divide between expressed values and the values acted on) - and isn’t that what we’re really getting at here, a kind of parallel hucksterism posing as morality, sold hook line and sinker to people not discerning enough to realize they’re being lied to?

note to authoress, don’t forget to wipe the damp earth from your patent leather shoes after you tire of dancing on his grave

I never realized that there were so many Kinkade haters out there. I’m feeling a need to defend Kinkade as well as my love for his art! Quite frankly, I’m surprised to see the kind of snobby attitude at a Catholic website. I think most people are overanalyzing here. So..why do I, a university educated woman, enjoy Thomas Kinkade’s artwork? Well, for the very reason you are criticizing. I like the light and beauty. Just because I like it doesn’t mean I see everything he does as holy. It doesn’t detract from my belief of Jesus and the Resurrection. Not one bit. I know the difference between an ‘escapist fantasy’ such as what Kinkade produced and the reality of what I ‘ve learned from my Roman Catholic upbringing, now and currently embrace as a convert to the Eastern Orthodox Church.  What I truly don’t understand is when it comes to artistic express, Why must everything be so serious all the time? Kinkade’s art is the dessert one gets to enjoy after dutifully eating their vegetables. It’s an escape, a ‘virtual vacation’ as it were. What’s so wrong with that? What Kinkade’s critics fail to understand is that while the average person might enjoy viewing a ‘great work of art’ in a museum, they don’t necessarily want the Pieta in the middle of their living room and they don’t want to turn the hours into some mini Uffizi or Lourve. Rather, a person wants the personal art in their home to be an extension of their personality, their hopes, their dreams. That’s the reason why Kinkade’s work had such an appeal. Joe or Jane Average after a hard day dealing with cranky, negative, power-hungry people wants to just go home and enjoy the kinds of art (books, music, movies, etc) that makes them feel good, makes them happy. For some of that, that would be the works that Kinkade specialized it. There’s nothing wrong with that.

You had me until the end, where you easily topped any degree of hate or contempt that Kinkade may have ever had or intended. Sigh.

Thomas Kinkade had a variety of color schemes and styles of painting. They are not lighted pastel “Snow White” cottages. The painting are generally peaceful like a slice of heaven or an artfully displayed bouquet in a fallen world. Looking at them draws me to the One True Living God. Joy! Heaven is not a reality of this world.  That is good!

Sorry to post twice on this subject, but it dawned on me that I should better explain one of my sentences: knowing the difference between fantasy that Kinkade painted and knowing the truth as I know from what I’ve learned by converting to Eastern Orthodoxy. You see, in the Eastern Orthodox church, we do believe in what’s called the Uncreated Light, the very light you dismissed as anti-Incarnational. This “uncreated Light” was something that the disciples saw at Mt Tabor at the transfiguration of Christ, and we also believe a number saints have seen and experienced such as St. Symeon the New Theologian. Granted Kinkade’s ‘uncreated light’ is an artistic device used for the “prettiness”... but there is such a thing as Uncreated Light, and it’s beautiful!We who are Orthodox Christians belive in the Uncreated Light of God because we know that while cannot be a part of God’s essence we can see and participate in His energies…and the chances of one being able to experience the uncreated Light increases as one works towards theosis (union with God.)  One of the differences between the West and the East is that the East tends to put more focus on mysticism and mystery and the West on so-called “logic” and scholasticism.  I don’t think Kinkade was an Orthodox Christian but I think there is a possibility that he “got it” when it came to showing the uncreated Light as a symbol of hope. That is something I can appreciate.

I’m glad many people find inspiration in Kincade’s work, but he was a bottom-line-focused businessman who claimed to be a patriot, while his greeting cards were all printed in China.  I have no patience with this sort of hollow posturing. He certainly could afford to create jobs in the US (nothing against Chinese workers - but shipping jobs oversees is not patriotic.)

Reminder: Ms. Fisher wrote this post 20 months ago. She is not dancing on his grave as accused.

Pornography makes a lot of people feel good. So does gossip. So do gluttony, drunkenness, and spending the rent money on frivol. There are even a relative few people who feel good doing things that are distinctly criminal and antisocial.

This is not to say that the work of the late Mr. Kinkade (RIP) is remotely similar any of the above, only that “his paintings make lots of people feel good” is not a good defense of them. Neither is “they’re pretty”. Poison ivy is pretty. So are strippers. I would really, really like to read an explanation for Kinkade’s popularity from a fan who can give me a thoughtful, sensitive commentary, without defensiveness and without assuming that prettiness and the power to evoke emotional pleasure make something good and innocent. I could just as easily say that the paintings are wicked because I think they are ugly and they remind me of my nightmares.

I don’t think they’re wicked, but I do think they could be harmful if they are the only kind of art someone likes. A steady diet of sweetness and light is no more wholesome than one of the dark and disturbing. Both give an unbalanced view of this world and a total immersion in either will distort the mind.

Whoops, she only wrote it eight months ago, not 20! Still, Kinkade was alive then.

Just found a thoughtful piece by a lady explaining why a lot of people enjoy Kinkade. I appreciate her gentleness and the simple yet eloquent way she makes her point: http://kuchimakase.blogspot.com/

Shame on you. This is why the world considers you catholics hypocrites. Who are you to judge Kinkade’s heart and motives? Kinkade may have had an even more sincere love for Christ than you hypocrite. So how does it feel for me to call you a ‘hypocrite’? I can’t judge your heart just as you can’t judge Kinkade’s.

@Mark - I think you’re confusing ‘heart’ with ‘art’.

After reading all of this, I understand much better a certain “superior world view” mentality, that it seems that some very educated Catholics feel that they live-in.  I’m fairly well educated, but not a la institutional Catholicism.  However, I’m a convert for over 30 years, and take my own active Catholicism very seriously.  At times, I feel the sharp abrasiveness (and tendency to judge and exclude “others” who are seen/felt as being “different,” not “one of the club”), as we pass by one another, carrying out our various ministries and assignments.  I’ve always wondered about their inability to relate more openly and positively, to be affirming and inclusive, rather than “more knowledgeable,” “remote,” “better,” “more degreed,” or possibly even “fearful” and/or “threatened.”  This “discussion” has been a wonderful eye-opener.  We are the results of our strongly learned programming.  And this is understandable.  But I think the tendency to identify so strongly with such a staunch position, so unassailable in its assumed intellectual correctness, does strike me as being heavily weighted on judging and proving things, and misses some true divine qualities of a gentler sort, that perhaps simple Mr. Kinkade has touched on now and then.  Just saying.  Personally, I think Thomas Kinkade had talents that he very much enjoyed using, and he seems to have been diligent and successful in bringing forth his own visions and perspective using them.  Many people seem to enjoy his work, for whatever personal reasons, and I can’t really see the reason for such a strong animus against this man, simply because of his art.  It is sad that he had problems in his personal life, but is he really so exceptional in this—whether or not “we approve?”  Commercialism is a different aspect of this situation, and commercialism usually does unnerve me more than just a little bit,... but personally, I find Walt Disney to be MUCH scarier than Thomas Kinkade could ever be.  But, that’s just me.

It’s been a while since i read this article, but there are a few points. The term ‘kitch’ I despise it. I have an art degree, far to many art classes, and have studied the history and idea of kitch. While I personally find Kincaid’s work boring, I think the fact that other people like it is ok. The art world has been getting so weird and radical pretty much since the advent of Duchamp that something can pretty much be defined as art simply “because I say so”. Yet this same art world that defends pieces like ‘Everyone I Have Ever Slept With 1963-1995’ by Tracey Emin or ‘Piss Christ’ by Andres Serrano as wonderful. Which leads to another point. If you’re worried about the anti-christian possibilities, how about getting the really bad ones? have you seen Robert Mapplethorpe’s self portrait? Or the Blessed Virgin getting an abortion with a coat hanger? I’m sorry, but you need to pick your battles.

Sometimes comments reveal more about those commenting than the proposed topics of conversation.

I enjoyed this article when I read it back in August, and had occasion to call it back up when my 17-year-old mentioned Kinkade.  We read it together, laughed out loud, and he went away mostly agreeing, which is a rarity.  Thanks for a well-thought-out, funny, persuasive piece.

cymbaltadosage.webs.com cymbalta and pain relief
  http://cymbaltadosage.webs.com/  cymbalta can it make you sleepy
  cymbalta90mg.webs.com cymbalta urination difficulty
http://cymbalta90mg.webs.com/  cymbalta and osteoarthritis