Thomas Kinkade...Artist?

Jeez...I just don't know what to think of Thomas Kinkade and his genuinity. Everything I have read about him and his charecter has been so black and white.


I'm going to start off by making one thing clear: whether or not he is a true artist, the man does have talent. I've seen his paintings before taking this class and while taking this class, and it is undeniable: his work is spectacular and pleasing to the eye. Look at this picture to the bottom right; I know I sure can't paint like that.



The majority of Kinkade's paintings are bought by people of the public to bring home and hang in their family rooms. This brings me to the main question of this blog: is this truly art, is Kinkade an artist? What does his work mean, where is it's depth and what does it say to us.



How many people have Chris Olifi's Holy Virgin Mary hanging in their home? I doubt that Mr. Olifi created that piece to make millions off of. With that comparison, is it to be said that Thomas Kinkade has some financial motivation here? Absolutely, I'm sure all of you can agree with me on that. Remember reading this "Kinkade’s success started in the 1990s, when he and his friend Kenneth Raasch started Media Arts Group. Eight years later the company was listed in Forbes as a top ten business to watch. When Kinkade was on QVC, he sold over $2 million worth of products in one hour." (Wikepedia)



Of course we can't know exactly what when on in the mind of Kinkade when this happened, but as human beings, we can make a pretty good guess: he realizes that he can paint these beautiful, fluffy, feel-good, chocolate box paintings, they have a massive appeal to the public, who are willing to pay big money for this "art," he gets his first taste of millions, and over the years continues to pump out these paintings for that reason.



I also think that the "Christian hook" has a lot to do with his success (and fraudulant behavior). I read in the Wikepedia article that many who bought into Kinkade's gallery franchise saw it as a religious oppurtunity. And with his reputation of being a devout Christian, he was trusted. The 2006 lawsuit against him claimed that franchise owners were "defrauded." Basically, lied to. Well, I guess not directly lied to, but not given full truth and cheated of information. Do true Christians do that??



I do think that Kinkade is simply feeding into consumer demand, it just doesn't seem like art to me. Look at what has happened to his paintings and their revenues over the past 10-20 years: this is the model of capitalism.

Analyze That...

Thank you Marie for finding this fantastic picture! Hmmm, where do I even start with this one. There is certainly a lot going on here.

Well, beggining with an overall analysis, this looks like it is taking place many many years ago, I would say back in the time of Moses. Look like there were a group of warriors that were headed somewhere on their horses (crossing a valley or a river) and they had an unexpected run-in with a lion. The two in the distance are overlooking on their horses, and the closest to the attacked warrior is attempting to slay the lion before he kills the man.

Lots of drama here: we have three different emotions going on at once. The warriors overlooking the fight have a look of shock and horror on their face as they watch what is going on, the man attacking the lion appears outraged and very determined--(you can see it in his eyebrows), and the poor guy being mauled by the lion clearly looks like he is in a lot of pain and anguish as he gazes up at the sky waiting for the lion to stop.

A classic image of man vs. beast.

First thing I noticed: check out the analytic lines going on here. Though the people and animals in this image are indeed in motion, the lines are static and intense. With the exception of the lion's victim, the three other warriors are very focused on the lion and his fate; he is the focal point. We see contour lines in this image as well...take a look at the muscle definition in the attacked man's chest, also in the horse and even in the lion if you look closely enough.

Looking beyond the action section of this image, we see mountains, trees and what looks like rain clouds brewing in the background. A good example of aerial perspective here: the mountains very far away appear to be the darkest, the tree and wolf mid-distance look a little bit lighter, and the mountains and land closest to us appear to be the lightest.

The chiaroscuro, the contrast, is easy to find in this picture: the darkest part of the picture are the rain clouds and distant mountains, while the lighter parts are closest to the front. The highlights from what I can tell are the lion's victim and his distressed horse. See how the light hits their chests...

An interesting picture overall...it's nice to be able to apply term we have learned to a piece of art in our own words...

Analyze This...

http://cellar.org/iotd.php?threadid=1192

Watch the Magic!

It took me a little while to decide which object I could use for this assignment, and I finally decided to use my 6-inch statue of St. Francis. The sun hits the front of my house at a better angle, so I photographed him there on my walkway. My first shot (seen above) was taken in the morning, approximately 10 am, and the second was taken hours later at 4pm. What a difference...more than I realized when I took these photographs.The first picture just looks totally dull to me. There is sunshine, yes, but it is in the background and brings no light to the front and center. The light brings focus to the photograph, and in this picture the attention is drawn to the street behind it...St. Francis looses his presence in this photo. The chiaroscuro, the contrast here is dramatic with the sunshine hitting one area and shade overtaking another.

Now look at the photograph taken later on in the afternoon. Totally different lighting. Bright, angelic, illuminous would be a few words to refer to St. Francis in this photo. This lighting is much more fitting for the object of this photo as well; being a religious figure, we imagine a certain brightness.

As said in our textbook, we associate good, pure spirits with light and brightness and the evil spirits whith dark and dispair. When we see art with angels, saints, Christ and so on, they are usually bathed in light. Look at how the sun hits the side of his face, it lights him right up. If you look closely at his face, he is looking upward, as if up into the heavens.

The suns light has given two shots of essentially the same photo different identities. The first isn't much more of a boring picture of a statue with some plants around it. The second is an illuminous shot of a spiritual fugure. It is amazing how the placement and angle of light in a photograph can give it a whole new meaning...