"How did we go from Rembrandt to Kinkade?" I asked, in a post marking the reopening of my weekend feature, The Gallery. I knew that even a mildly critical mention of Thomas Kinkade, the Painter of Light, would spark controversy and it didn't take long before admirers of his work came to his defense. In the second comment, Bevets added an interesting perspective:
Suppose you had never heard of Kincaid and you saw one of his paintings in a respectable art gallery. Suppose you found out that Kincaid cut off his ear and died a long time ago without any money. Can you say with certainty that your opinion of his aesthetics would be the same?
That's an excellent question. Can I be certain that my opinion of his aesthetics would be the same?
Absolutely.
To show why I am confident in my opinion, let�s examine two works of art on similar themes. Both are images of the Water Tower in Chicago. Both have a carriage, trees, and people with umbrellas. In fact, the paintings are almost identical in theme and content.
And yet the first is unquestionably technically superior. The use of texture and shadow puts the viewer within the picture. You can almost feel the cold Chicago air and hear the sounds of the serene yet bustling city. The second painting, however, distances the viewer from the scene. Light is overused (notice the light coming from every window and the background lights that resemble a brushfire), presenting a faux golden glow that is unrealistic and dull. And the carriage, though more sharply drawn than in the other painting, is two-dimensional and distracting. While the first work is worthy of gracing a museum wall, the second is only worthy of garnishing a cheap greeting card.
As you could probably guess, the second painting is by Thomas Kinkade, circa 2004.
But what about the first painting, the more aesthetically superior rendition of the Water Tower? It too is by Thomas Kinkade. He painted it in 1998.
This is what is so distressing about Thomas Kinkade: he is both a creator of some of the most inspiring paintings of the past two decades and a producer of some of the worst schlock ever manufactured by a talented artist.
Both the harshest critics and the keenest admirers of Kinkade's work, however, tend to be unfamiliar with his more meritable paintings. But it is his oft-overlooked cityscapes and early mountain scenes that truly reveal his keen eye, technical brilliance, and aesthetic sensitivity. Take, for example, his use of various shades of red in San Francisco, 1909 or his subtle use of white light in his depiction of the Yukon town of Dawson.
Kinkade is at his best when he captures the human side of cities, such as in New York, Central Park at Sixth Avenue. But just as a baker can ruin a suburb dessert by adding to much sugar, Kinkade can lose the sense of a place by attempting to romanticize a scene. His San Francisco, Late Afternoon at Union Square perfectly captures the mood of a city street after a rain. Yet three years later, painting the almost exact same scene, he clogs it with color until it loses the magic of his previous work. The first street scene was about a place, San Francisco; the second scene is about a different place, the consumer's living room wall.
But Kinkade is best known for his cottage and nature scenes, so it is there that the bulk of critical attention must be placed.
It was nine paintings into his oeuvre that he attempted his first cottage scene. The Blue Cottage differs from much of the later variations on the theme because of its simplicity in its use of light and color. But it also contains something missing from almost all of his later cottage paintings: humans.
Kinkade justifies the absence of people in his picturesque scenarios because he doesn't want to exclude any viewers from being able to step into the fantasy. "When you paint people, you limit people," Kinkade explains, offering the example of a hypothetical Vietnamese-American family. "Why would they want to look at a picture of a dozen white people sitting around a Thanksgiving table?"
What the artist fails to understand is that Vietnamese-Americans (as well as African-, Mexican-, Chinese, and other hyphenated Americans) probably do not share the Anglo-American cottage fantasy. And his cottage scenes are precisely that: fantasies. Adults hang paintings of Kinkade's paintings of cottages in their living room for the same reason that little girls put posters of unicorns and rainbows on their bedroom walls. It is a pseudo-referential nostalgia, a longing for what does not exist in reality but exists in the fantasy realm of possibility.
No other painting epitomizes this nostalgia for a place that never existed better than Cottage by the Sea. As Kinkade explains:
Though this cottage doesn't exist anywhere but in my painting, I think for many of us it represents an ideal seaside getaway. Of course, I had to paint the scene at sunset. After all, what would a seaside cottage be without a beautiful sunset to watch?
What is so dispiriting about this painting is that rather than being created in order to be challenging or even inspiring, it's intended only to be comforting. It invites the viewer to enter a world of unnatural nature, a world where the "light" comes from within, and the warmth comes not from the receding sun but from inside the walls of the perfect Anglo shelter. The cottage is a self-contained safe place where the viewer can shut himself in and get away from the harsh realities of creation, particularly away from other people. The Cottage by the Sea offers a place where the viewer can enter the perfect world of Kinkade's creation -- and escape the messy world of Kinkade's Creator.
Related:
David Bruce of the Hollywood Jesus News also admires Kinkade as a person and artist yet notes:
Kinkade's paintings represent the problem with Christian art in the postmodern era. Most of his paintings are of isolated family cottages with gorgeously lit windows filled with light coming from within the home. He is called the painter of lights. Most of his paintings are devoid of people. On those rare occasions, when he does depict people, they are usually from some by gone era -the so-called good old days. All his paintings are pleasant, and peaceful, yet devoid of any kind of conflict or connection to the real world. This pleasant non conflict style is why the Evangelical Christian community has not produced one single world-class painter in the 20th century. Not one. And, there are none on the horizon.
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/mt/mt-trackback.cgi/3165
1
I disagree with David Bruce on this idea;
posted on 10.27.2006 8:03 AM"This pleasant non conflict style is why the Evangelical Christian community has not produced one single world-class painter in the 20th century. Not one. And, there are none on the horizon."
I am not an art critic, expert, or anything else that would qualify me to make any statement about who's who in the art world, Christian or otherwise. I am, however, representative of the average art viewer and I know how paintings make me feel. I think that David Hayward, aka Churchpundit, is at least on the horizon. His work is powerful and breath taking and projects a decidedly Christian influnce without using cliche scenery for the sake of adding Crosses or biblical figures to portray that influence. Realizing that the 20th century has passed, David appears to have been doing this a while and, while his reach is subtle it is felt among those who have seen his work. Admittedly I am very immature in my walk and just starting the path to my calling. But, I know what makes me focus on Christ when I am confused or stressed, and David's work does that for me.
2
I don't know if there are any great Christian painters or not. I'm really not qualified to judge. What I'd like to know is - who are the great painters of our day, Christian or not, who are painting natural scenes or cityscapes like this? I get the sense that this kind of art is denigrated in the art world.
posted on 10.27.2006 11:48 AM3
I didn't know that Kincade was considered a "Christian" artist and to be honest I don't exactly know why that might be. Is it because his paintings are "wholesome?" Why does the "Christian" market have to mean "vile schlock" on the order of those dreadful paintings of wide-eyed kittens wearing big red bows? What is Christian about that? It's treacle!
The Kincade "Painter of Light" pieces seem empty and uninspiring and they certainly would never lead me to contemplation or prayer.
But I like this analysis and am grateful to have found it because I would not have been aware of Kincade's other, earlier work - which does indeed seem more accessible, immediate and beguiling.
But you know...in the end art is "what speaks to you," so if someone likes the other stuff, well (shrug) whatever floats your boat, right? :-)
posted on 10.27.2006 12:22 PM4
"What is so dispiriting about this painting is that rather than being created in order to be challenging or even inspiring, it's intended only to be comforting. It invites the viewer to enter a world of unnatural nature, a world where the 'light' comes from within, and the warmth comes not from the receding sun but from inside the walls of the perfect Anglo shelter."
In other words, a Return to the Womb.
Or what Gagdad Bob describes (in an unrelated blog posting) as "the dyad of nipple and infant's lips".
("That suckling sound you hear...")
posted on 10.27.2006 12:30 PM5
"But just as a baker can ruin a suburb dessert by adding to much sugar...."
Not to nitpick, but this convergence of typos painted its own picture--that of the ultimate post-prandial confection consisting of a heaping bowl of unadulterated sucrose enjoyed on the periphery of a metropolitan area.
posted on 10.27.2006 1:56 PM6
In all seriousness, Joe, I share your disdain for what the Kinkade empire represents. I was unaware of his earlier work, which does indeed reveal a keen eye for color, contrast and context that invites the viewer to interact with the subject. His later stuff is glorified wallpaper, as artfully satired here:
http://www.larknews.com/december_2005/
posted on 10.27.2006 2:10 PM7
I am, however, representative of the average art viewer and I know how paintings make me feel.
But art is not primarily about making us "feel." There are objective standards to good art and beauty, and Kinkade (at least his later stuff) fails on all counts. To merely say that art makes you feel good is no answer to the nihilist who declares a pile of bricks to be great art because he makes him feel good.
This is on par with too much modern evangelicalism whose sole claim to truth is how Jesus makes them feel, with no understanding of the objective, propositional truths that underlie Christianity.
No wonder we're losing on so many fronts.
posted on 10.27.2006 2:48 PM8
I heartily agree with your examination of Kinkade. I think the only painting (singular) of his that I ever liked was an early one I saw in a gallery at the mall (appropriately enough). A year or two later, I went to look for the painting to show to a friend (you know, as an example of his "good" work?): nowhere to be found.
The examples you've given here of his early work are gorgeous -- and puzzling. I would buy them if they were available... The rest of his work is frankly hack kitzch. He's destroyed his talent for the sake of a buck.
"Where are the great Christian artists of our day?" In the Catholic Church for the most part. Read a bit about the history of the Reformation and you'll find out why great artists stopped getting commissions and private funding for great works of art. And why suddenly it was very unpopular to depict Christ or the Saints at all, let alone in any work of art. The scars from that war still show in the lack of talented artists who feel called to "evangelize" through art. Or if they are indeed called, their work ends up getting dumbed down like Kinkade's because of the expectation the Christian community has that art neither provoke nor inspire -- only soothe.
Great post.
posted on 10.28.2006 6:17 AM9
Would it be going too far to say that Kincaide has sold his artistic birthright for mere cottage?
[ducks]
posted on 10.28.2006 9:24 AM10
Wha--? That's the most bizarre thing I have ever heard. For example, I'm not Vietnamese-American but I can certainly enjoy Vietnamese art without feeling alienated or resentful that the things and people depicted therein don't look like me or reference my own cultural fantasies. Do people actually think of what they are saying anymore?
posted on 10.28.2006 9:50 AM11
Tom, Point taken with the intent and "point" of art. But your statement reflects the view that I am attempting to distance my self from. Your knowledge and ideas about art goes further than I am prepared to(read educated), or desire to go.
posted on 10.28.2006 4:15 PM"This is on par with too much modern evangelicalism whose sole claim to truth is how Jesus makes them feel, with no understanding of the objective, propositional truths that underlie Christianity."
I'll assume you aren't lumping me in with mordern evangelicalism based on my ideas about art. That said, I can agree that this statement is correct. My walk with Christ and my journey to answer the call to ministry would directly conflict their view that, all too often, seeks a feel good faith. The challenge of seeking the mind of Christ and his will for me would be very easy to walk away from, because it is, sometimes, so difficult. BTW I agree with Joe on Kincade. Interesting point, thanks. Pray for me as I try to find "understanding of the objective, propositional truths that underlie Christianity." That's a good way to put it.
12
There is no question that the artistic merit of Kincaid's former work exceeds the latter more commercial efforts. But I've always thought that Kincaid's cottages, lighted interiors and lanterns represent Heaven to those who love his work. . . on my Father's estate there are many cottages, so to speak. It's just charitable Christian behavior to acknowledge without complaint that there are awful hymns and trite artwork that mean a lot to those who find solace or hope in them.
posted on 10.29.2006 8:36 AM13
I'll assume you aren't lumping me in with mordern evangelicalism based on my ideas about art.
Chris
No, I'm not, and I apologize if that was seemingly implied.
posted on 10.30.2006 10:24 AM14
You know, I don't think of good art as being comforting or not. It's art that makes me want to look at it for a long time, or again and again.
I don't really think you could look at the cottages for a long time. But that picture of Dawson... you could walk into it and step into the muddy slush in the wheelruts.
Btw, the color palette of the cottages _is_ the same color palette used for slushy rainbow unicorns. The kind on folders and jigsaw puzzles. Pretty spooky, actually.
posted on 10.30.2006 7:59 PM15
I don't know what all the hubbub is about. I'm not a fan of Kinkade's art, and my wife reviles it, but what's the big deal? I'm with Lea on this topic. Art can serve many purposes. Why shouldn't "mere comfort" be considered an acceptable purpose? Why would comfort need to be coupled with "challenge" or "inspiration" to make art legitimate? I'd like to point out that the "messy world" Kinkade's art offers respite from is emphatically not the world of Kinkade's creator. The messiness is what we've done to it, and why is it illegitimate for him to paint an idyll? What are these objective standards of good art and beauty? Sure, some things are more technically skillful. Sure, some so-called art simply symbolizes a false and empty philosophy. Sure, some art portrays filth and defiles the person who looks at it. What objective standards of good art and beauty do Kinkade's paintings fail to meet?
I'm not trying to deny our right to criticize. Critics, however, judge according to their own cultivated and articulable tastes. Joe's description of one painting as clogged with color is an example of good criticism; it vividly conveys to us how the painting clashes with Joe's own taste in art without villifying the artist. It's also acceptable for Joe to prefer art that challenges or inspires, and to tell us so. When we express criticism of art, though, we need to do it in a way that makes clear the modality of our criticism. I can criticize a lot of hip-hop music because it's filth. I'm not functioning as a music critic when I do that but applying my Christian view of the world to the particular hip-hop song as an expression of a competing worldview. I don't think there are any grounds to do similar with Kinkade, judging strictly from the art itself. Whatever anyone may know about his beliefs personally, I can't say. That means that when we criticize Kinkade's art, we're functioning as art critics and our criticisms are expressions of our personal tastes, no more, no less.
It seems to me that Kinkade's approach is not too much different from the painter Eric Sloane's. Sloane would paint, for example, a barn in the countryside with the light of a setting sun hitting it in a certain way. He would paint from his own memory of personally significant moments, having witnessed something memorable, and would say that he wanted his paintings to evoke similar precious memories in the people who saw them. I don't like the seaside cottage painting either. Don't we all have idealized memories of seasides and sunsets and cottages, though, even if only of images in a coffee table book? Why shouldn't Kinkade paint an image that evokes those?
posted on 11.01.2006 6:59 PM16
I'm Christian too and I don't know why this is so disturbing that Mr Kinkade is too. Just enjoy his art and that's all. If you want to kwow what's Christian then ask..... Art is for everybody and no need too make a big deal regarding that. Thanks for your art Mr. Kinkade and God bless you.
posted on 11.09.2006 12:25 AM17
That's OK Joe. I am not interested in World Class Painters. The reason we Love Thomas Kincaid's work so much is that it appeals to our spirit of Love, Peace, and Harmony.
You see man is a Sinful being by nature but "Nature" is not Sinful. Man is born of Sin and until he acknowledges that he is a Sinner he will never evolve, but he will only become more of a Degenerate...for we are Degenerating not evolving. You will see in a few more years just how Degenerate "Man" has become.
posted on 11.04.2007 4:45 PMYou see, the PEACE and HARMONY we see in his paintings draw us into the painting itself as if we are there or have been somewhere in our lives that look exactly like his renderings.
World Class Artist only paint Conflict and Turmoil from your perspective I see. Is this all they see in the world today? What happened to Love and Kindness and Caring for One Another.I know it's hard but if you open your heart and look closely there is still some Love and Kindness in the world.
Look at the news tomorrow morning and ask yourself where you would rather be in regards to the following question....Would rather live in the City or the Country"? If you are over 50 years old I know the answer already. "THE COUNTRY".
18
"I'd like to point out that the "messy world" Kinkade's art offers respite from is emphatically not the world of Kinkade's creator. The messiness is what we've done to it..."
-Agkyra
Oh, I certainly hope not! As a Christian from an evangelical background, I hope the insipid, uninspiring, challenge-free, frankly BORING world represented in Kincaid's glorified paint-by-number wallpapers do not represent similarly limited creativity on the part of the Creator! He DID, bless Him, make a wonderfully messy world. Those who want to run from that can be my guest, but as for me and my house, I want real art. I'd rather have a big-eyed kitten on black velvet than a piece of later Kindaid junk... it's cheaper, and it matches my couch better...
posted on 02.24.2008 12:28 AM