Reuben's last name is spelled Kincaid-they're not related.The Partridge family was one of my favorite shows-I actually have a Partridge Family Greatest Hits tape.
The back and forth between Keith and Laurie was funny too,there was a lot of sexual tension,but of course I din't notice it at the time.
Thomas Kinkade is the worst artist of all time,and also at this point in time,the most popular-proof that we live in a degenerate age.His website is here:
So why do you think he is so bad? Is it his commercialism that you hate or his art? I like his art. It is very simple I know but it is much better than I can do ( or anyone else I personally know can do ). I really think his use of highlighting is great. Have you ever seen some of his work ( or even one of his cheap reproductions with highlighting ) in person that is lit up properly? I have only seen them once but I thought they were amazing.
I like his stuff and his enterprising attitude. I'm sure he generates a lot of tax revenue that goes to many worthy causes like better roads to drive my SUV on.
But art pretty much is way down their on my list to give a crap about.
I just visited his website and I don't see anything wrong with it.
I'm not an art snob and I dont' buy into the notion that shit has to be weird, tortured, dark, "edgy", etc. to have merit.
Sometimes a tree is just a tree.
See, I've ALWAYS dug on Norman Rockwell, since I was about 4 years old (honestly!) and have put up with some snide comments and opinions from more of my black-clad, funky shoe-wearing friends.
I honestly came to believe that some of these people were down on him simply because that's the hip thing to do.
**** that.
Now, Rockwell is getting this attention and acclaim and undergoing a "rediscovery" and "new appreciation" by the same clowns who, just two, five or ten years ago, were raking him, his style and his subject matter over the coals.
Now it's the "thing to do" to check out his exhibit at the Guggenheim or wherever.
Idiots.
It's ALWAYS been good, only now some of you are given the green light to "like it", without fear of appearing unhip.
The above is EXACTLY the reason I completely ignore critics, know-it-alls and so-called "experts" in various fields. Sooner or later, they come around and the degree to which they appear to be completely full of shit (and themselves) is revealed.
Besides all that, art is art. No rules and no one "right way". It's completely subjective and one man's Monet is another's Warhol.
If it's good and speaks to ME, then that's all that really matters, isn't it?
Kinkade's stuff doesn't bother me at all. It's actually reassuring.
So why do you think he is so bad?</strong><hr></blockquote>
He has no reason to call himself an artist. The work he does is bad as the factory-made sofa paintings you can get on the roadside, next to the velvet paintings of Elvis and Jesus.
[quote]<strong> Is it his commercialism that you hate or his art? I like his art. It is very simple I know but it is much better than I can do ( or anyone else I personally know can do ).</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh please, to each his own, but his work is so boring, contrived and completely commercial. A cottage here, a lighthouse there and every single one has a color pallette straight from the tube. Blech.
[quote]<strong>I really think his use of highlighting is great. Have you ever seen some of his work ( or even one of his cheap reproductions with highlighting ) in person that is lit up properly? I have only seen them once but I thought they were amazing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You need to go to a museum or a reputable gallery somewhere. I've seen his original work and his "hand-hightlighted" reproductions. Pure contrived garbage. 80% percent of the highlighting is done by other workers too.
Have you seen Thomas Eakins, Maxfield Parrish, Andrew Wyeth and family or even Norman Rockwell's original artwork? Far more enriching. Than this "illustrator".
There was a Maxfield Parrish exhibit recently here and I was awed by his use of color and light in his later work. Mostly landscapes and yes, even cottages snuggled in snow. But these were works of a true master's incredible experience in light and color.
Yes, originals of his work are hard to come by and reproductions of his work never will compare to them, but I'd grab a reproduction if I wanted one of them far quicker than this hack.
Christ, he's even whoring his art into house designs and real estate...barf.
<strong>Oh please, to each his own, but his work is so boring, contrived and completely commercial. A cottage here, a lighthouse there and every single one has a color pallette straight from the tube. Blech.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How many different things possibly exist for a landscape painter that people will want to buy. Yeah there are more than just cottages and lighthouses but not that many. He paints really nice ocean scenes near the lighthouses and sunsets with the cottages.
I am only vaguely familiar with the color pallette straight from a tube from an art class I took a couple of years ago so this doesn't bother me much. Maybe he was never taught how to mix the colors?
<strong>You need to go to a museum or a reputable gallery somewhere. I've seen his original work and his "hand-hightlighted" reproductions. Pure contrived garbage. 80% percent of the highlighting is done by other workers too.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I will admit that I am not that "enlightened". I don't know much about art. I have not been to that many art galleries or seen that many original paintings by famous people.
Of course the majority of his paintings are highlighted by other workers. The man only has 24 hours in a day. This method is a way to make the paintings a lot more affordable to the "non artist" people like me who would like a nice canvas painting by a decent "illustrator" ( no I don't own one nor do I plan to buy one unless they come down in price alot further ).
<strong>Have you seen Thomas Eakins, Maxfield Parrish, Andrew Wyeth and family or even Norman Rockwell's original artwork? Far more enriching. Than this "illustrator".</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't believe I have seen any of these people's original artwork. I also don't believe I will ever be able to afford any of these painter's original artworks. I may someday be able to afford a kinkade reproduction with some hand done highlights.
<strong>There was a Maxfield Parrish exhibit recently here and I was awed by his use of color and light in his later work. Mostly landscapes and yes, even cottages snuggled in snow. But these were works of a true master's incredible experience in light and color.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry I haven't heard of him, but I am sure he is a great painter. I would love to see it next time its in town.
<strong>Christ, he's even whoring his art into house designs and real estate...barf. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't like it either but people actually want this. He is just laughing at them all the way to the bank. Don't tell me you wouldn't do the same thing if their was demand for an Artman @_@ town.
I don't believe I have seen any of these people's original artwork. I also don't believe I will ever be able to afford any of these painter's original artworks.
<hr></blockquote>
Probably not any of the paintings,but many prints and drawings by the above mentioned artists are surprisingly affordable,at least in relation to the amounts that Kinkade charges,from a few hundred to a several thousand dollars.
I saw on 60 minutes that a couple had spent over $150,000 dollars on works by Kinkade,for that price they could have put together a pretty decent collection of prints by Rembrandt.What really bothers me about Kinkade is that he is ripping off his customers.
I hate Thomas Kinkade. I hate with a passion, but not just the simple everyday passionate hate reserved for the asshole who keys your car or steals your CDs; no, the passionate hate felt only for the ultimate in violation and betrayal. I hold firm in my conviction that Thomas Kinkade, along with institutions such as the RI/MPAA, represents the most readily accessible form of pure evil on this Earth.
Thomas Kinkade does not 'paint light', as he claims. Rather, he paints banality. He paints trite, idyllic scenes with no power and no message. They look to me not light, but fluffy, and that's exactly what they are. They are, just like light yogurt and light popcorn, without taste or substance and are strictly quite bad for the digestion. I am disgusted whenever I walk by one of his kiosks are mall-outlets, foisting mass produced, mass marketed 'art' upon unsuspecting consumers who have no exposure to art beyond what they seen on billboards and their television screen.
Art ideally should be original and thought-provoking; the best of it should tug at the heart (except perhaps in cold-hearted bastards like myself and Thomas Kinkade). Thomas Kinkade's 'art' does none of this. Thomas Kinkade produces mass market drivel which lowers the expectation of what art is by making it what it is not in just the same way the Friends and Survivor and WWTBAM destroy the good of TV and Charlie Sheen destroys good cinema. He is a painter only in the sense that he uses a brush to put certain chemicals on paper or canvas; I would much more readily compare him to the workman painting the walls than the artist painting art.
Thomas Kinkade does not create art by his painting--he destroys it. His destruction, deception, and fraudulency have earned him a special place in the Inferno along with all the other traitors.
Well, I do consider myself something of an "artiste" , someone who studies and cherishes art, creativity, expression. This guy's work isn't my cup of tea, and I would not place him exactly in the realm of "ideas," but nonetheless I do not object to his otherwise mindless works, given that they are pretty droll.
Hey, get used to it. If there's one thing that's becoming clear to me while working in a large firm with very rich clients, coming from a firm with very provincial clients, it's that there's no accounting for taste. To each his own, though we may try to raise the bar so to speak.
What worries me more than this guy who makes little attempt to be a snooty "artiste" are the Tarqays who have little more talent and a lot more pretension. As a Texas school teacher once told me "an ounce of pretension is worth a ton of shit."
I don't see anything wrong with his paintings. There are so many...there's bound to be one I like and one I dislike. What's wrong with him that you'd hate him so?
Is it the fact that his art is mass produced? I don't know about you but I'd reather see a common picture or painting in a living room than an empty white wall.
He can't paint better than I can, and I don't see this lack of passion or lack of dynamism that you're talking about.
Did Bob Ross paint without energy? That dude was always stoned when he painted his 'happy little trees.' I loved watching his show...he had a soothing voice and the tapping of the brush was calming. That alone was art.
And if Kinkade puts more paintings of his in homes than any other artist, then so be it. More power to him. That's art as well. He's putting life into drab households, adding to possible coffee table conversations.
<strong>I don't see anything wrong with his paintings. There are so many...there's bound to be one I like and one I dislike. What's wrong with him that you'd hate him so?
Is it the fact that his art is mass produced? I don't know about you but I'd reather see a common picture or painting in a living room than an empty white wall.
He can't paint better than I can, and I don't see this lack of passion or lack of dynamism that you're talking about.
Did Bob Ross paint without energy? That dude was always stoned when he painted his 'happy little trees.' I loved watching his show...he had a soothing voice and the tapping of the brush was calming. That alone was art.
And if Kinkade puts more paintings of his in homes than any other artist, then so be it. More power to him. That's art as well. He's putting life into drab households, adding to possible coffee table conversations.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bob Ross must have lived in Muncie, Indiana, because I remember a day when my family (from New Castle) went out to eat up in Muncie. Bob Ross sat right next to us. You couldn't miss him with his hair, you know. My nephew, God rest his soul, was 7-ish and knew who he was. He went and got his autograph. He was a nice man, God rest his soul, too!
Watching Bob Ross was (and is) one of my favorite things ever.
Just a relaxing, cool way to spend thirty minutes...with someone who obviously enjoyed and loved what he did. How often can you find that?
A nice guy, by all accounts.
And, to be honest, I learned a lot from him, especially about shadows and casting light and how nothing is every really pure white or pure black in nature and so forth.
If I'm screwing around in Photoshop or Painter and end up doing a landscape, it's HIS techniques for mountains and trees that I use!
He died of lymphoma (I believe that's what it was) a few years ago. I remember I was flipping through "Entertainment Weekly" and I came to the section where they talk about births, deaths, lawsuits, divorces, marriages, etc. of famous people and they listed his death.
I remember being genuinely sad for a few hours afterward, because I had no idea.
Jeez Lucky ...we must be a minority here. Both Kinkade and Ross are banal assholes of the art world (what's left of it). Just shows that the artworld has become banal and stupid as usual...where's the next Andy Warhol when we need him/her?
I was inspired by the ones above (especially Howard Pyle and N. C. Wyeth) and many more.
If I was stuck creatively...I would question myself with..."Hmmm, how would <a href="http://www.wedge.org/bigdaddy.htm"; target="_blank">Big Daddy Roth</a> deal with it?"
Comments
Talk about a great rock & roll manager!
[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: Rick1138 ]</p>
That was such a better show than the Brady Bunch, yet the Brady Bunch gets all the attention and glory.
I can actually watch The Partridge Family and enjoy it, unlike the Bradys.
Thomas Kinkade is the worst artist of all time,and also at this point in time,the most popular-proof that we live in a degenerate age.His website is here:
<a href="http://www.thomaskinkade.com"; target="_blank">http://www.thomaskinkade.com</a>;
[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: Rick1138 ]</p>
So why do you think he is so bad? Is it his commercialism that you hate or his art? I like his art. It is very simple I know but it is much better than I can do ( or anyone else I personally know can do ). I really think his use of highlighting is great. Have you ever seen some of his work ( or even one of his cheap reproductions with highlighting ) in person that is lit up properly? I have only seen them once but I thought they were amazing.
But art pretty much is way down their on my list to give a crap about.
I'm not an art snob and I dont' buy into the notion that shit has to be weird, tortured, dark, "edgy", etc. to have merit.
Sometimes a tree is just a tree.
See, I've ALWAYS dug on Norman Rockwell, since I was about 4 years old (honestly!) and have put up with some snide comments and opinions from more of my black-clad, funky shoe-wearing friends.
I honestly came to believe that some of these people were down on him simply because that's the hip thing to do.
**** that.
Now, Rockwell is getting this attention and acclaim and undergoing a "rediscovery" and "new appreciation" by the same clowns who, just two, five or ten years ago, were raking him, his style and his subject matter over the coals.
Now it's the "thing to do" to check out his exhibit at the Guggenheim or wherever.
Idiots.
It's ALWAYS been good, only now some of you are given the green light to "like it", without fear of appearing unhip.
The above is EXACTLY the reason I completely ignore critics, know-it-alls and so-called "experts" in various fields. Sooner or later, they come around and the degree to which they appear to be completely full of shit (and themselves) is revealed.
Besides all that, art is art. No rules and no one "right way". It's completely subjective and one man's Monet is another's Warhol.
If it's good and speaks to ME, then that's all that really matters, isn't it?
Kinkade's stuff doesn't bother me at all. It's actually reassuring.
<strong>Back on topic...
So why do you think he is so bad?</strong><hr></blockquote>
He has no reason to call himself an artist. The work he does is bad as the factory-made sofa paintings you can get on the roadside, next to the velvet paintings of Elvis and Jesus.
[quote]<strong> Is it his commercialism that you hate or his art? I like his art. It is very simple I know but it is much better than I can do ( or anyone else I personally know can do ).</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh please, to each his own, but his work is so boring, contrived and completely commercial. A cottage here, a lighthouse there and every single one has a color pallette straight from the tube. Blech.
[quote]<strong>I really think his use of highlighting is great. Have you ever seen some of his work ( or even one of his cheap reproductions with highlighting ) in person that is lit up properly? I have only seen them once but I thought they were amazing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You need to go to a museum or a reputable gallery somewhere. I've seen his original work and his "hand-hightlighted" reproductions. Pure contrived garbage. 80% percent of the highlighting is done by other workers too.
Have you seen Thomas Eakins, Maxfield Parrish, Andrew Wyeth and family or even Norman Rockwell's original artwork? Far more enriching. Than this "illustrator".
There was a Maxfield Parrish exhibit recently here and I was awed by his use of color and light in his later work. Mostly landscapes and yes, even cottages snuggled in snow. But these were works of a true master's incredible experience in light and color.
Yes, originals of his work are hard to come by and reproductions of his work never will compare to them, but I'd grab a reproduction if I wanted one of them far quicker than this hack.
Christ, he's even whoring his art into house designs and real estate...barf.
<strong>Oh please, to each his own, but his work is so boring, contrived and completely commercial. A cottage here, a lighthouse there and every single one has a color pallette straight from the tube. Blech.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How many different things possibly exist for a landscape painter that people will want to buy. Yeah there are more than just cottages and lighthouses but not that many. He paints really nice ocean scenes near the lighthouses and sunsets with the cottages.
I am only vaguely familiar with the color pallette straight from a tube from an art class I took a couple of years ago so this doesn't bother me much. Maybe he was never taught how to mix the colors?
[quote]Originally posted by Artman @_@:
<strong>You need to go to a museum or a reputable gallery somewhere. I've seen his original work and his "hand-hightlighted" reproductions. Pure contrived garbage. 80% percent of the highlighting is done by other workers too.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I will admit that I am not that "enlightened". I don't know much about art. I have not been to that many art galleries or seen that many original paintings by famous people.
Of course the majority of his paintings are highlighted by other workers. The man only has 24 hours in a day. This method is a way to make the paintings a lot more affordable to the "non artist" people like me who would like a nice canvas painting by a decent "illustrator" ( no I don't own one nor do I plan to buy one unless they come down in price alot further ).
[quote]Originally posted by Artman @_@:
<strong>Have you seen Thomas Eakins, Maxfield Parrish, Andrew Wyeth and family or even Norman Rockwell's original artwork? Far more enriching. Than this "illustrator".</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't believe I have seen any of these people's original artwork. I also don't believe I will ever be able to afford any of these painter's original artworks. I may someday be able to afford a kinkade reproduction with some hand done highlights.
[quote]Originally posted by Artman @_@:
<strong>There was a Maxfield Parrish exhibit recently here and I was awed by his use of color and light in his later work. Mostly landscapes and yes, even cottages snuggled in snow. But these were works of a true master's incredible experience in light and color.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry I haven't heard of him, but I am sure he is a great painter. I would love to see it next time its in town.
[quote]Originally posted by Artman @_@:
<strong>Christ, he's even whoring his art into house designs and real estate...barf.
I don't like it either but people actually want this. He is just laughing at them all the way to the bank. Don't tell me you wouldn't do the same thing if their was demand for an Artman @_@ town.
[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: MasterZeus ]</p>
<strong>Don't tell me you wouldn't do the same thing if their was demand for an Artman @_@ town.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmmm...didn't think of that...heh. It would look like the neighorhood in "Edward Scissorhands" except everyone would be driving custom hot rods...
Like I said, to each his own. If you feel something from his work than I guess he accomplished something.
Here...get enlightened...
<a href="http://artcyclopedia.com/artists/eakins_thomas.html"; target="_blank">Thomas Eakins</a>
<a href="http://www.independentweb.com/parrish/"; target="_blank">Maxfield Parrish</a>
<a href="http://www.brandywinemuseum.org/"; target="_blank">The Wyeth's</a>
<a href="http://www.nrm.org/"; target="_blank">Norman Rockwell</a>
Enjoy!
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Gallery/6498/"; target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Gallery/6498/</a>;
<a href="http://www.abcgallery.com/L/levitan/levitan.html"; target="_blank">http://www.abcgallery.com/L/levitan/levitan.html</a>;
[quote]
I don't believe I have seen any of these people's original artwork. I also don't believe I will ever be able to afford any of these painter's original artworks.
<hr></blockquote>
Probably not any of the paintings,but many prints and drawings by the above mentioned artists are surprisingly affordable,at least in relation to the amounts that Kinkade charges,from a few hundred to a several thousand dollars.
I saw on 60 minutes that a couple had spent over $150,000 dollars on works by Kinkade,for that price they could have put together a pretty decent collection of prints by Rembrandt.What really bothers me about Kinkade is that he is ripping off his customers.
Thomas Kinkade does not 'paint light', as he claims. Rather, he paints banality. He paints trite, idyllic scenes with no power and no message. They look to me not light, but fluffy, and that's exactly what they are. They are, just like light yogurt and light popcorn, without taste or substance and are strictly quite bad for the digestion. I am disgusted whenever I walk by one of his kiosks are mall-outlets, foisting mass produced, mass marketed 'art' upon unsuspecting consumers who have no exposure to art beyond what they seen on billboards and their television screen.
Art ideally should be original and thought-provoking; the best of it should tug at the heart (except perhaps in cold-hearted bastards like myself and Thomas Kinkade). Thomas Kinkade's 'art' does none of this. Thomas Kinkade produces mass market drivel which lowers the expectation of what art is by making it what it is not in just the same way the Friends and Survivor and WWTBAM destroy the good of TV and Charlie Sheen destroys good cinema. He is a painter only in the sense that he uses a brush to put certain chemicals on paper or canvas; I would much more readily compare him to the workman painting the walls than the artist painting art.
Thomas Kinkade does not create art by his painting--he destroys it. His destruction, deception, and fraudulency have earned him a special place in the Inferno along with all the other traitors.
God Bless America
Edit: Spelling
[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: Lucky ]</p>
Feel free to express how you really feel without fear of ridicule or rejection.
<strong>Lucky, you're among friends and good people here, so don't feel as though you have to hold back.
Feel free to express how you really feel without fear of ridicule or rejection.
Hey, get used to it. If there's one thing that's becoming clear to me while working in a large firm with very rich clients, coming from a firm with very provincial clients, it's that there's no accounting for taste. To each his own, though we may try to raise the bar so to speak.
What worries me more than this guy who makes little attempt to be a snooty "artiste" are the Tarqays who have little more talent and a lot more pretension. As a Texas school teacher once told me "an ounce of pretension is worth a ton of shit."
Is it the fact that his art is mass produced? I don't know about you but I'd reather see a common picture or painting in a living room than an empty white wall.
He can't paint better than I can, and I don't see this lack of passion or lack of dynamism that you're talking about.
Did Bob Ross paint without energy? That dude was always stoned when he painted his 'happy little trees.' I loved watching his show...he had a soothing voice and the tapping of the brush was calming. That alone was art.
And if Kinkade puts more paintings of his in homes than any other artist, then so be it. More power to him. That's art as well. He's putting life into drab households, adding to possible coffee table conversations.
<strong>I don't see anything wrong with his paintings. There are so many...there's bound to be one I like and one I dislike. What's wrong with him that you'd hate him so?
Is it the fact that his art is mass produced? I don't know about you but I'd reather see a common picture or painting in a living room than an empty white wall.
He can't paint better than I can, and I don't see this lack of passion or lack of dynamism that you're talking about.
Did Bob Ross paint without energy? That dude was always stoned when he painted his 'happy little trees.' I loved watching his show...he had a soothing voice and the tapping of the brush was calming. That alone was art.
And if Kinkade puts more paintings of his in homes than any other artist, then so be it. More power to him. That's art as well. He's putting life into drab households, adding to possible coffee table conversations.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bob Ross must have lived in Muncie, Indiana, because I remember a day when my family (from New Castle) went out to eat up in Muncie. Bob Ross sat right next to us. You couldn't miss him with his hair, you know. My nephew, God rest his soul, was 7-ish and knew who he was. He went and got his autograph. He was a nice man, God rest his soul, too!
(not much of a story)
JRC
Just a relaxing, cool way to spend thirty minutes...with someone who obviously enjoyed and loved what he did. How often can you find that?
A nice guy, by all accounts.
And, to be honest, I learned a lot from him, especially about shadows and casting light and how nothing is every really pure white or pure black in nature and so forth.
If I'm screwing around in Photoshop or Painter and end up doing a landscape, it's HIS techniques for mountains and trees that I use!
He died of lymphoma (I believe that's what it was) a few years ago. I remember I was flipping through "Entertainment Weekly" and I came to the section where they talk about births, deaths, lawsuits, divorces, marriages, etc. of famous people and they listed his death.
I remember being genuinely sad for a few hours afterward, because I had no idea.
I was inspired by the ones above (especially Howard Pyle and N. C. Wyeth) and many more.
If I was stuck creatively...I would question myself with..."Hmmm, how would <a href="http://www.wedge.org/bigdaddy.htm"; target="_blank">Big Daddy Roth</a> deal with it?"