> Linda and others...
> I do not own a Kincade but have seen his work and am curious on why
> you feel the way you do about his work. Several times now I have read
> posts "dissing" his work. Is it his commercial processed prints he
> passes off as finished art you detest or the way he is able to
> manipulate the public eye through his expert marketing campaigns.
> From what I have seen -he is able to capture a dream like vision of a
> landscape that most would love to escape to. His compositions and
> color schemes are very pleasing- his technique is well skillled and
> his ability to create that light thing he does (although a "gotcha"
> gimmic) is very cool. Is it wrong for an artist to capitalize on an
> idea through mass production and effective "expert" marketing?
> Students and I often have conversations such as this regarding "real
> art" I am curious.
I've also had a kneejerk negative response to Kinkade, as many of us
have. You bring up some interesting points.
Hmmmm, what bugs me so much? I've not really studied his pictures so
can't really comment on his technical skill. I think it's the intense
marketing, the catchphrase "Painter of Light," and the way his work's
promoted so heavily that people assume he MUST be a great artist. His
themes are idyllic, kind of Ronald Reagan's America (read: White, Middle
Class), or at least Jolly Peasant; a lot of people respond to that sort
of nostalgia, especially with the fear of terrorism hanging over our
heads. You're right, a lot of us think we'd love to escape to a place
like that. Someone on the list a few years ago mentioned how hard life
was inside those quaint cottages and down those village lanes.
That Painter of Light phrase bugs me the most, as though it was
something he invented (light, not the phrase). In one of the art
magazines a while back, there was an artist advertised as the _Master_
Painter of Light--who says? There are other "titled" artists
advertising now, as well. That's so obviously a marketing label, not a
These people have found a profitable niche, are exploiting it like
crazy--and who can blame them, really--but I think they've ceased to be
artists. Are they growing, learning anything new, experimenting,
branching out, trying new media (other than offset litho or Giclee)?
Will the fog/mist/twilight ever lift so we can see how these people
really live? Or even the real colors, which may not be too harmonious?
Would Kinkade ever show a farmer beating his carthorse or his wife, or
starving peasants, or mangy dogs, or anything less than the idyll we
expect? I feel the same way about R.C. Gorman. They're now