I really don’t take one, single stance in either direction regarding the Thomas Kinkade controversy. I feel that his work has definitely lost most of its value with such an over-saturated market, but I still love the images he creates and the feelings that they cause me to have. Personally, I love the winter scenes with the snow-covered cottages in cool hues that are warmed by the lights flickering in streetlamps, candles in the windows, and even car headlights. The worlds in his paintings seem so cozy, I want to be there with a good book and a mug of chai tea.
As a result of the “warm fuzzies” that I get from seeing Kinkade’s paintings, I absolutely understand the “chocolate box art” nickname that Kinkade’s work has received by those who think less of him and I even agree with it. Even with that said, I still enjoy his paintings. I love his use of colors that seem to absolutely glow in the right li
ghting, as if they were windows onto living, breathing places. My Dad has print of one of his paintings of Old Town Auburn, complete with the big, orange courthouse and the old red and white fire station. The sky appears to have just cleared up after a rain shower, with every surface shimmering and a sweet yellow-orange sunset. His work just seems so real and makes Auburn seem like the absolute Utopia he creates in the painting. I grew up there and the painting brings back a-million-and-one memories from my childhood.
Ultimately, I’m actually pretty defensive of Thomas Kinkade and his work. I love the feeling I get from his paintings. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to create images the evoke feelings of comfort and love. I have yet to hear a decent argument as to why getting these feelings from a piece of art is wrong. What about women’s needlework and tapestries from hundreds of years ago? These pieces are considered “art” yet they’re often just simple designs that weren’t considered anything spectacular in their time. Does something have to be a minimum of two hundred years old in order to be allowed to cause warm-fuzzies?
On the other hand, I also think that Kinkade has DEFINITELY overdone it. He’s put too much out there and really has no secrets left to share. If the allegations by the press and public are true, then I do agree that Kinkade is just another capitalist pig who has taken something beautiful and twisted and manipulated it to suit his own means. The democrat in me thinks that’s horrible, yet the realistic side of me says “that’s life”. In all honesty, I really think it’s ultimately up to the consumer. If people enjoy something, why ruin it for them? Yes, that statement doesn’t work for things like heroine and drunk-driving, but honestly? When has a Kinkade painting ever caused someone to plow into a tree, killing two passengers and maiming a third? Kinkade has so many fans, myself and my family included, so why punish us as well by trying to defame Kinkade’s work and get him out of mainstream America.
As a result of the “warm fuzzies” that I get from seeing Kinkade’s paintings, I absolutely understand the “chocolate box art” nickname that Kinkade’s work has received by those who think less of him and I even agree with it. Even with that said, I still enjoy his paintings. I love his use of colors that seem to absolutely glow in the right li
ghting, as if they were windows onto living, breathing places. My Dad has print of one of his paintings of Old Town Auburn, complete with the big, orange courthouse and the old red and white fire station. The sky appears to have just cleared up after a rain shower, with every surface shimmering and a sweet yellow-orange sunset. His work just seems so real and makes Auburn seem like the absolute Utopia he creates in the painting. I grew up there and the painting brings back a-million-and-one memories from my childhood.Ultimately, I’m actually pretty defensive of Thomas Kinkade and his work. I love the feeling I get from his paintings. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to create images the evoke feelings of comfort and love. I have yet to hear a decent argument as to why getting these feelings from a piece of art is wrong. What about women’s needlework and tapestries from hundreds of years ago? These pieces are considered “art” yet they’re often just simple designs that weren’t considered anything spectacular in their time. Does something have to be a minimum of two hundred years old in order to be allowed to cause warm-fuzzies?
On the other hand, I also think that Kinkade has DEFINITELY overdone it. He’s put too much out there and really has no secrets left to share. If the allegations by the press and public are true, then I do agree that Kinkade is just another capitalist pig who has taken something beautiful and twisted and manipulated it to suit his own means. The democrat in me thinks that’s horrible, yet the realistic side of me says “that’s life”. In all honesty, I really think it’s ultimately up to the consumer. If people enjoy something, why ruin it for them? Yes, that statement doesn’t work for things like heroine and drunk-driving, but honestly? When has a Kinkade painting ever caused someone to plow into a tree, killing two passengers and maiming a third? Kinkade has so many fans, myself and my family included, so why punish us as well by trying to defame Kinkade’s work and get him out of mainstream America.
3 comments:
I agree with "Why ruin it". Although I am not personally a fan of Kinkade, I understand how he has a following and evokes comfort emotion. In my blog I comment on how each of us on some level, whether we admit it or not, want to be in one of those paintings. Saturation is his downfall, but as long as there are people who love his work, let it be.
Some of his work gives me the "warm fuzzies" too. Sometimes life is "just like a box of chocolates".
i agree it is ultimately up to the customer, but the problem is that maybe the customers buying his art don't know what he is really doing. I personally didn't know about any of this until we had to read about it for this class.
Post a Comment