Kinkade's work is largely ignored by the art community as kitch or even "shlocky" but one art critic disagrees. If we challenge artists to work in an almost impossible market, we shouldn't turn our backs when they succeed, simply because we don't like the work...see her review on why people like Kinkade...
http://www.miller-mccune.com/culture/thomas-kinkade-dies-scholars-look-at-his-impact-40554/
Anytime an artist is regularly featured on QVC, the art community will not like them...that said, he did do art, whether or not it was worth anything to culture is the question. While Matisse did say he wanted people to fall into his paintings, even to simply be beautiful, he did it in ways no one else ever had. He created his artistic language and completely changed what we saw as "art."
Kinkade has done the opposite...he's reverted to the "traditional" style to evoke traditional emotion through traditional symbolism. No image he made was unique. No painting he made had a unique story. No painting he made changed much of anything in regards to art culture. He was a great technical painter, and if his work REALLY pulls you in, then great....but as an artist in terms of historical importance, he'll disappear faster than Bouguereau (another great technical painter with vast fame who disappeared as artists began to change the culture of art).
I think it's very interesting to investigate WHY people like Kinkade to such an extent...but I don't think learning that changes anything about his historical, artistic and cultural worth.
No comments:
Post a Comment