Tomas Kinkaid, Rabid Zep Fans…

Saw a frightening 60 Minutes special a few months ago on the “art” of Thomas Kinkade:

Who is the artist who has sold more canvases than any other painter in history? More than Picasso, Rembrandt, Gaughin, Monet, Manet, Renoir and Van Gogh combined? If you didn’t say Thomas Kinkade, then you’ve been shopping in the wrong places. He is the most collected living artist in the U.S. and worldwide. He produces paintings by the container load. And he is to art what Henry Ford was to automobiles.

At Strata Lucida, Chris draws out connections between uncritical Kinkade fans (not that it’s wrong to want to be soothed every now and then, but some of these folks are adamant that art which challenges is pointless) and uncritical rock fans (those who can’t brook any challenge to their fave band’s greatness, or who suffer from the “[my pet band] can do no wrong, all Zep moments are equally good” syndrome).

I do tend to agree with most of Zeppelin fans in the Trickster thread than not (I don’t think big hair or Tolkein quotes are marks against Zeppelin — dude, that’s what they’re about!) But we have been hearing more backlash against “fine art” lately.

Full circle to 60 Minutes: Andy Rooney launched a tirade against the majority of publicly funded art installations the other night. Rooney’s piece smacked of “I just want to be soothed by public art — where are the good old statues?” But yes, I know there’s a hell of a lot of bad public art out there.

Music: Link Wray :: Rumble

6 Replies to “Tomas Kinkaid, Rabid Zep Fans…”

  1. I don’t know about art but I know what I like.
    I’ll be a-surfin’ in your blood on a Saturday night.
    Oh devil with the blue dress, blue dress on.
    I go crazy and crazier. Going, going, gone.

    – The Cramps “I Ain’t Nuthin’ But A Gore Hound”

  2. Thought about this some more last night.

    One of the usual riticisms of modern art is that it’s less “artistic” than classical art. That it would be easy for a nvice to paint, sy, and Andy Warhol soup can. And to a certain extent, I agree. I could, in about 5 minutes, compose a piece that could easily be mistaken for an original by Piet Mondriaan.

    Now, I don’t want to get into the “your piece would be derivative, while Mondriaan was ground-breaking in terms of defining art.” Let’s just all agree that it’s not too difficult to recreate a Mondriaan.

    And a lot of people hold this up as being a sign that “it’s not art.”

    Probably quite a few of them being the same people that think Kinkade’s art is splendid.

    What am I missing? It doesn’t take a DaVinci to paint a Kinkade. To my mind painting a fantasy landscape has to be among the easiest of artistic projects. Far more so than, say, an oddly lit human face. There are tons of landscape artists. Tons.

    So, if the measure of “art” is “it’s not really easy to recreate,” then this non-artist thinks Mondriaan and Kinkade are about the same. Except Mondriaan was ground-breaking.

  3. Gah.

    Many apologies for my craptastic typing. I have a raging herpetetic keratitis infection in my right (dominant) eye. I can barely see.

    Please add/subtract letters where necessary when reading my posts.

  4. I honestly didn’t intend that as criticism of your typing.

    Sorry for any misunderstanding.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.