I don't think Kincaide does art a favor at all. Making art isn't about
producing something that looks good in your livingroom, it doesn't have to
'match your couch', and it doesn't necessarily have to employ all of the
traditional ideas of color, shape, line, texture etc. In my opinion, artists
like Kincaide have degraded art by becoming so absorbed by consummerist
ideals. His paintings are 'pretty', they don't make me wonder, they don't
awe me or keep me looking, in fact, I don't even think about his use of any
artistic elements when I look at them because they are so damn boring. I
would rather have a photograph.
As far as I am concerned, this is what the modernist painters revolted
against. The patronage system is dead, let's not bring it back in the form
of "the market". Unfortunately, the market has a enormous grip on us.
Artists are 'recruited' out of grad school by dealers who 'know' the market
and keep these young artists painting/creating for this market. I believe
this is an anathema to art, it's destroyer. Where does personal vision and
creativity go when the market begins to dictate what an artist creates?
Where does artistic responsibilty go when he/she begins painting/creating to
please a customer instead of creating to pose questions, to create
alternative answers, to cause us to wonder about the work, ourselves and the
world around us. Kincaide's paintings are like most Hollywood movies, they
have everything resolved and wrapped up in a neat little box for us by the
end of the film (canvas), perhaps believing that we are too stupid to figure
things out for ourselves.
OK, nuff said. Karen Bernauer
San Diego, Ca