But is it ... ART!

All the shit that doesn't fit!
If it doesn't go into the other forums, stick it in here.
A general free for all
rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

But is it ... ART!

Post by rubato »

I'm struggling to say something nice and non-snarkey about Thomas Kinkade.

He was a painter although most of his 'works' are actually prints with a few dabs of paint applied in an assembly line process which magically transformed 5$ offset lithographs into things which the buying public thought 'collectable' and paid from $100 to $10,000 for (although it is doubtful if any of them well ever sell for more, or even as much as, their orig. price since the market has been pre-flooded).

The pictures are competent, pleasant, and treacly sentimental and just what a lot of people want to look at in their homes.

The good things I can honestly say about him have to do with the price and separately, the value, of images. The first is that he found a way to make a living as a painter and get paid when the economics of making 1 of a kind 1 at a time works of art are prohibitively against any new comers and good for him for doing so. The second is that by pricing the works in a range which made them a significant purchase to a middle-income buyer he got those buyers to actually stop, look at and engage with an image when they are bombarded with images and almost never notice them.

I'd like him better if he had then directed all of those people outwards into the larger art world via open studios or something like that so that they could nourish and be nourished by the many artists in their own communities.

He was successful as an artist in an era which is very difficult for artists.

http://news.yahoo.com/calif-artist-thom ... 35368.html

yrs,
rubato

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21436
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: But is it ... ART!

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

It's as much art as whatever the stupid British Arts Council forks out thousands and thousands for - in fact, it's more art than almost anything being produced that doesn't involve velvet and Elvis. Perhaps I lie... about the second part.

But does his work cause anyone to think about art at all? Is it devoid of meaning? I think of it as similar to those Xmas television images of a log fire burning. Or goldfish.

Whatever - 54 is not a good innings.

Meade
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 20012
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: But is it ... ART!

Post by BoSoxGal »

He compared himself to Walt Disney and Norman Rockwell. I think not.

100 years from now, his 'art' won't be discussed in art history courses, and his 'novels' won't be discussed in literature courses.

It's dreck - although with regard to the pictures, at least they're pretty dreck. The books are the kind an intelligent person couldn't get past page two without gagging.

I feel sorry for him and his family, dying so young - but if you've seen a photo of him, it's obvious he didn't use his millions to take care of himself physically; probably died of heart disease.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

User avatar
dales
Posts: 10922
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 5:13 am
Location: SF Bay Area - NORTH California - USA

Re: But is it ... ART!

Post by dales »

Never cared much for his work, but many who did. :shrug

Your collective inability to acknowledge this obvious truth makes you all look like fools.


yrs,
rubato

User avatar
Rick
Posts: 3875
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:12 am
Location: Arkansas

Re: But is it ... ART!

Post by Rick »

Image
Sometimes it seems as though one has to cross the line just to figger out where it is

User avatar
dales
Posts: 10922
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 5:13 am
Location: SF Bay Area - NORTH California - USA

Re: But is it ... ART!

Post by dales »

LOL! :lol:

Your collective inability to acknowledge this obvious truth makes you all look like fools.


yrs,
rubato

dgs49
Posts: 3458
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:13 pm

Re: But is it ... ART!

Post by dgs49 »

I like Dave Barry's definition of not-art: "If I could have done it, it ain't art."

In every area of art there are those practitioners who manage to make a lot of money producing "art" for the masses, and it drives the self-appointed purists nuts. Clearly, there are many people with much more artistic talent who don't make a tiny fraction of the money, or get anywhere near as much public notoriety as the "whores."

Kinkade's pictures are no worse than Paul McCartney's music or Clive Cussler's novels. They give a lot of people some enjoyment but won't be remembered for very long after the artist passes from the scene.

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33646
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: But is it ... ART!

Post by Gob »

Image

Canberra's latest piece of public "art", known as "The Lemon Juicer", or "The Tear of the Taxpayer".
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

User avatar
Joe Guy
Posts: 15344
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: Redweird City, California

Re: But is it ... ART!

Post by Joe Guy »

.
Last edited by Joe Guy on Tue Apr 10, 2012 12:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Beer Sponge
Posts: 715
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 5:31 pm

Re: But is it ... ART!

Post by Beer Sponge »

Image
This one pissed me off! $600,000 in taxpayers money for a pile of silver balls? In my home town? And this shit is art?

Here is an article, for more on this crap.
Personally, I don’t believe in bros before hoes, or hoes before bros. There needs to be a balance. A homie-hoe-stasis, if you will.

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33646
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: But is it ... ART!

Post by Gob »

It's a load of balls!
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: But is it ... ART!

Post by rubato »

Re: "public art". It is as true there as it is in all things that if you are not making mistakes then you're doing nothing worthwhile.

yrs,
rubato

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: But is it ... ART!

Post by Lord Jim »

It seems to me that governmental bureaucracy judgements about art serve one useful purpose...

They provide the citizenry with physical, visual representations of the type of judgement these bureaucracies exercise on a daily basis in most other areas where they have decision making power....
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 9087
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: But is it ... ART!

Post by Sue U »

Does anyone now doubt that what Picasso, Braque and Cezanne created was "art"? Does anyone now doubt that De Kooning, Kilne, Motherwell, Frankenthaler and Rothko were artists? Does anyone now doubt that Duchamp, Ernst, Dali, Ray, Miro, Magritte and Tanguy were visionaries?

I swear, you people would have been sitting around Lascaux saying, "Well, it doesn't look like a horse to me!"
GAH!

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 20012
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: But is it ... ART!

Post by BoSoxGal »

So you think Kinkade will be taught alongside Picasso someday?
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 20012
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: But is it ... ART!

Post by BoSoxGal »

So much for the fairy tale:
MONTE SERENO, Calif. — Thomas Kinkade’s paramour is accused of threatening to release damaging information about the painter’s family and businesses on the morning of his alcohol-fueled death, according to court documents obtained by The Daily.

Amy Pinto, 48, had been living in Kinkade’s storybook mansion here since at least January 2011, roughly nine months after the artist had separated from his wife of 30 years.

Kinkade, 54, died April 6 after apparently “drinking all night,” according to a recording of a fire department dispatcher. An autopsy was conducted April 9, but a determination of the cause of death awaits the results of toxicology tests.

Pinto, who did not respond to The Daily’s requests for comment, was described by a local reporter as “in tears.”

But a complaint filed against Pinto in Santa Clara County Civil Court three days after his death paints a different picture of her state of mind.

Pinto showed a family friend, Linda Raasch, a trove of personal photographs, papers and memorabilia on the morning of Kinkade’s death, then refused to return them and threatened to release them even though Raasch warned it would hurt the family, according to the civil complaint.

And Kinkade bodyguard Dean Murray claimed he heard Pinto disparaging Kinkade’s wife and daughters on several occasions and that she was “gathering evidence” to “tear down” the family and its businesses, the complaint states.

“It could only be for her gain,” Raasch told The Daily. “One who truly loves someone would not have that in the forefront of their mind on the day their loved one dies.”

Raasch, the godmother of the Kinkades’ four daughters, would not disclose exactly what the family is afraid of.

But the complaint states Pinto has already released private information to the news media. She has been quoted as saying Kinkade died in his sleep, had heart issues, had been living with her for the past 18 months and loved her. Kinkade paid Pinto’s insurance, credit card bills and other expenses, according to the complaint.

Although not a secret, Kinkade’s separation from his wife, Nanette, went largely unpublicized until his death.

Kinkade built the world’s most profitable art empire, selling his idyllic scenes to buyers inspired by their messages of family and faith. He hid the letter “N” in each painting as a profession of love for Nanette and chronicled his family life in a quarterly magazine for collectors. He even named four model homes in a Kinkade-themed subdivision after each of his four daughters — Merritt, Chandler, Windsor and Everett.

“I think Thom honestly believed all of the things he was talking about, as kind of the meaning behind his paintings,” said Craig Fleming, the former chief executive and president of the Thomas Kinkade Co., one of Kinkade’s businesses.

But his public persona belied a troubled personal life that spiraled in 2010 with the separation, a drunken driving arrest and bankruptcy.

“That is not a message that Thom would have ever wanted to get out amongst his collectors,” Fleming said. “He was a very proud ... I think it probably would hurt the business if [Pinto] was saying those things.”

The complaint was filed on behalf of Kinkade’s parent company, Windermere Holdings, and Nanette, trustee of the Kinkade Family Trust, which owns the Kinkade companies and possibly more than 1,000 of his original paintings.

Pinto will not be served for “private reasons,” a spokeswoman for the trust said.
 
The complaint seeks an unspecified amount in damages and an order barring Pinto from talking and forcing her to return any items covered in a confidentiality agreement she signed in February 2011, shortly after she had moved in with Kinkade.

The complaint also claims she has business information and implied she might be working with others. Raasch said she was “appalled, shocked” at Pinto’s threat on the morning of the artist’s death. “It’s a true statement of her character.”

Nanette Kinkade and three daughters had traveled to Australia to visit the fourth daughter the evening before the painter’s death and were scheduled to stay until April 14, according to the couple’s separation papers.

Pinto has two daughters from a previous marriage — one in college and the other living with her ex-husband, Russell Walsh.

She graduated from the University of South Carolina-Columbia and worked as an electrical engineer, but mostly stayed home during their marriage, Walsh told The Daily. She returned to work full-time around the time of their divorce in 2007, but stopped working once she met Kinkade, Walsh said.

“I think she would have been happy not working,” he said.

Walsh described Pinto as a “very smart woman” born in India and raised in Kuwait, who graduated valedictorian from her high school and was involved with her church.

But he said Pinto’s values and lifestyle changed during a mid-life crisis — around her 40th birthday — and she even appeared on the plastic surgery reality TV show “Dr. 90210” to get breast implants.

In court papers, Walsh claims that after Pinto moved in with Kinkade, their youngest daughter — 16 at the time — had “little interest in having overnights with her mother anymore” because of Pinto’s lifestyle and spent only six nights with her in a five-month period.

When The Daily visited the Kinkade house on Friday, a security guard said Pinto and her daughter were inside, but didn’t want to be bothered.

Raasch said she “would imagine” the Kinkade family would be concerned that Pinto was still inside the home, given that she was purportedly gathering evidence to harm them.

— Additional reporting by Kamala Kelkar and Noreen O'Donnell
@missryley
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: But is it ... ART!

Post by Lord Jim »

Amy Pinto, 48, had been living in Kinkade’s storybook mansion here since at least January 2011, roughly nine months after the artist had separated from his wife of 30 years.

Kinkade, 54,
Guy ditches his wife of 30 years to take up with a chick who's only six years younger than him? What was he thinking? :shrug :lol:
ImageImageImage

User avatar
dales
Posts: 10922
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 5:13 am
Location: SF Bay Area - NORTH California - USA

Re: But is it ... ART!

Post by dales »

Image

Is the woman in the middle, Amy Pinto?

Your collective inability to acknowledge this obvious truth makes you all look like fools.


yrs,
rubato

User avatar
loCAtek
Posts: 8421
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:49 pm
Location: My San Ho'metown

Re: But is it ... ART!

Post by loCAtek »

Isn't he the guy, who spammed all those animated screensavers? :arg

rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: But is it ... ART!

Post by rubato »

Sue U wrote:Does anyone now doubt that what Picasso, Braque and Cezanne created was "art"? Does anyone now doubt that De Kooning, Kilne, Motherwell, Frankenthaler and Rothko were artists? Does anyone now doubt that Duchamp, Ernst, Dali, Ray, Miro, Magritte and Tanguy were visionaries?

I swear, you people would have been sitting around Lascaux saying, "Well, it doesn't look like a horse to me!"
You're talking about the Edmonton ball bearing sculpture not Kinkade, right, right?

yrs,
rubato

Post Reply