Without the darkness there can be no light

"This is what makes Thomas Kinkade ["one of the most financially successful artists in the world" now "beset by legal troubles," but that's not our point here] exasperating: He is both a creator of some of the most inspiring [that's debatable] paintings of the past two decades and a producer of some of the worst schlock [no question] ever manufactured by a talented artist," writes Joe Carter, linked by the Anchoress.

"I took a gander at your link of his 'real' stuff (left) vs this dross (right)" as blogged by Joe Carter, we wrote in the comments at The Anchoress's latest post about self-described "painter of light" Thomas Kinkade's "saccharine little cottages on exclusive little coves in a perfect little world." We'd been vaguely aware of Kinkade's vapid motel-friendly "art" — and even been fond of some of his appropriately sugar-coated Xmas card illustrations — but would never have given it a second thought had not the Divine Miss Scalia brought it to our attention. Here's what we wrote in her comments:

Obviously sold out. Proved what I already knew in my heart, not to mention my art-educated eye. The popular stuff has no soul, no sense of space, none of the mystery of the early-morning or late-afternoon light. No contrast of values. Totally made me think of the bland dumbing down of statism, where everyone gives up one’s individuality for the “greater good of the whole.” By contrast, the individualism and yearning and Chekhovian/Bergmanesque aloneness of, for example, John Singer Sargent’s portrait of the Daughters of Edward Darley Boit.

"Ominous use of dark and light and lengthy sequences without dialogue characterize both Tiny and Baby's and Ingmar Bergman's films," we wrote a couple of years back, comparing the cinematographic style of the Chelsea Grays' "Want your supper?" with that of the great Swedish director's "The Virgin Spring" … "in the magic light of a setting sun, Baby (left) and Tiny are at it again, inviting our camera's eye to explore the sounds of silence," we blogged years later in "Lengthy sequences without dialogue."

Greeting-card art. The last thing Kinkade's "mass-marketed" travesties are about is 'light." He takes the low road, trying to dazzle with all light all the time. The result is a bland sameness throughout. The light fantastic is revealed only by the dark that surrounds it, like the wolves that lurk just outside the campfire of civilization waiting for the light to dim. Without the darkness there can be no light.

Comments

[Teresa]

I've never been a fan of his art. Now let me stop right here and say I am NOT an art snob. I like all kinds of cheesy stuff that real "arteests" would never dream of even looking at... but there has always been something about his paintings that doesn't work for me. I just can't quite put my finger on it.

Obviously with all the money he made from his work, I am not in the majority but there it is. I guess it does appeal to many people though - I was always surprised about that. Heh. Personally I'd rather look at the pic of Tiny and Baby.

[Tim Abbott]

I feel the same way about Mort Kunsler, the "Thomas Kincaid" of Civil War art. http://www.mortkunstler.com/

[Gayle Miller]

The pic of Tiny and Baby is wondrous now as it was when you first took it. But then THEY were/are wondrous in and of themselves. The quality of a photograph is in direct proportion to the quality of the subject - Tiny and Baby never took a bad picture. Nor does Tiny and her suitor take bad pics now.

And while I'm no art expert, I am reasonably well educated and have fairly eclectic tastes that do not include Kinkade the sellout. I adore oriental art including ancient Japanese painting on rice paper and I have one Ben Shahn signed print that is my pride and joy. Why? Not because it's valuable or even goes with my decor but simply because it makes me feel good to look at it! That's MY criteria.

Egad I miss Baby (and Sam) a lot.

[KingShamus]

See, I think Kinkade's work is pleasant. It's the visual equivalent of instrumental soft rock; unobtrusive and easy enough to deal with when it stays in the background.

But does it excite? Does it evoke emotions? Eh, not so much.

[Sissy Willis]

KingShamus: One thing that makes my toes curl is background noise that's "unobtrusive." Drives me up a wall. Quiet, please. :D

[Retriever]

Lovely post, and gorgeous kitties--good to see them again! I yawn over Kinkade. By contrast, I adore Norman Rockwell, another mass market artist. Better painters of light: Degas, Turner, El Greco, Caravaggio, Rembrandt, Canetto, The Dutch Masters. For starters...

[Sissy Willis]

Retriever: I totally agree. Check out my Normal Rockwell post Obama: Freedom of speech? Who needs it?

"Because Rockwell's subject matter was usually on the corny side, serious art critics tended to look down upon the artist's accomplishment, but beyond the anecdotal component — much loved by the average American — his compositional and painterly skills were quite remarkable."

... a Cat-cum-Vermeer starring Tiny:

The universal within the commonplace

... and a few more Light reflections

[Carolynscottoncorner.blogspot.com]

Sissy, your sensitivity to the play of dark and light is one thing about your photos that influenced me to start adding photos to my blog. But I'm a rank amateur. Not up to considering form and light a whole lot just yet. Still at the stage of simple exuberance.

[Elisson]

Aaahh, Mr. Kinkade. My thoughts on his mall-friendly "art" are already well-known to my Esteemed Readers.

Your photographs, on the other hand, glow with their own light. Please keep sharing them!