Thomas Kinkade dies

My oldest daughter is a major fan of his work. It's sad that this happened to him so young. Daughter is pretty sad today...
 
sad.gif
 
The painter of light is now in the presence of the Light of Life.

Another unexpected death - he wasn't even sick. Heart attack?
 
Gina B said:
Just noticed the pic. Ransom, you're a dork. LOL
Click to expand...

I was a little surprised when I saw ransom's response too. Then I looked a second time and laughed.


Good one Ransom.

on a related note, I want to start a poll....

Whose posts do you NOT READ

Redgreen

Alayman

rsc2a


How would you answer the poll?
 
It was not great art. But it was art that carried a dream and a vision. The critics didn't really get that. I'll miss him. RIP, Thomas.
 
Izdaari said:
It was not great art. But it was art that carried a dream and a vision. The critics didn't really get that. I'll miss him. RIP, Thomas.
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying.  However I used to really like his stuff but the longer he was around the more they began to all kind of look the same.  I really began to appreciate instead of his make believe bridges and cabins by the streams the real life places like Carmel, CA and San Franciso.

The critics didn't care much for Norman Rockwell either but his paintings were rich in storytelling and emotions.  I especially liked his stuff.
 
Back about 5-6 years ago Joe Carter wrote an interesting blog post (unfortunately no longer available) comparing two paintings of the Chicago Water Tower. The first, he said, was technically superior and museum-worthy; the second alienated the viewer from the scene and used so much "light" that it looked like the city was on fire.  Obviously, the second picture was a Kinkade; the punchline was that the first one was also Thomas Kinkade, from some years earlier.

11111985_1_m.jpg
9447.jpg


Kinkade was, at one time, a good artist, in other words, but over time his paintings have become Flanderized to the cliche we're familiar with: garishly-coloured cottages bathed in an eerie glow.  His art is sentimental, not inspiring: instead of creating a desire in his viewers for heavenly things, it provokes a longing for a slice of earth that never really existed.
 
Just John said:
Izdaari said:
It was not great art. But it was art that carried a dream and a vision. The critics didn't really get that. I'll miss him. RIP, Thomas.
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying.  However I used to really like his stuff but the longer he was around the more they began to all kind of look the same.  I really began to appreciate instead of his make believe bridges and cabins by the streams the real life places like Carmel, CA and San Franciso.

The critics didn't care much for Norman Rockwell either but his paintings were rich in storytelling and emotions.  I especially liked his stuff.
Click to expand...

When you consider the so called art praised by modern critics, you can understand why they didnt like Kinkade....after all if the unwashed masses in fly over country like him, he can't be taken seriously by the elite.
These idiots would paint over the Sistine Chapel and replace it with gang graffiti !
 
But you cannot compare the Sistine Chapel to Kincade.  His was popular art. Michaelangelo was timeless, God centered, fantastically long lasting.  In 50 years, Thomas Kincade will be all but forgotten.
 
Ransom said:
Back about 5-6 years ago Joe Carter wrote an interesting blog post (unfortunately no longer available) comparing two paintings of the Chicago Water Tower. The first, he said, was technically superior and museum-worthy; the second alienated the viewer from the scene and used so much "light" that it looked like the city was on fire.  Obviously, the second picture was a Kinkade; the punchline was that the first one was also Thomas Kinkade, from some years earlier.

11111985_1_m.jpg
9447.jpg


Kinkade was, at one time, a good artist, in other words, but over time his paintings have become Flanderized to the cliche we're familiar with: garishly-coloured cottages bathed in an eerie glow.  His art is sentimental, not inspiring: instead of creating a desire in his viewers for heavenly things, it provokes a longing for a slice of earth that never really existed.
Click to expand...

Yes, they're paintings of a reality that never really existed. IOW, they're fantasy landscapes. But what's wrong with landscapes of a fantasy world?

Again, I am not contending that Kinkade's later work is great art. It's popular and not liked by the critics, and for good reason by their criteria. It won't endure like Michaelango or the other greats. I don't care, I like it. I like Frazetta too.
 
Bob said:
But you cannot compare the Sistine Chapel to Kincade.  His was popular art. Michaelangelo was timeless, God centered, fantastically long lasting.  In 50 years, Thomas Kincade will be all but forgotten.
Click to expand...

I wasn't making such a comparison, simply commenting on the taste of so called modern experts.
Try to keep up..... :)
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
Bob said:
But you cannot compare the Sistine Chapel to Kincade.  His was popular art. Michaelangelo was timeless, God centered, fantastically long lasting.  In 50 years, Thomas Kincade will be all but forgotten.
Click to expand...

I wasn't making such a comparison, simply commenting on the taste of so called modern experts.
Try to keep up..... :)
Click to expand...

Oh.
 
brianb said:
I preferred this guy
splashLandscape.jpg
Click to expand...

I used to watch him because for some reason, it just cracked me up. I think it was the combination of voice and hair. It was more entertaining than watching the painting come to life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top