Thomas Kinkade Paintings

[CP_alum08]

I've actually read that some of the 'signed' paintings aren't really even his signature! There was a big story on him and his assembly line process a few years ago on 20/20 or Dateline, or something like that, check it out.

Truth be told there are many artists who use the assembly line process, with Andy Warhol being the most famous. However he is still a predominately featured artist in museums and text books because he was the first to do it, making him creative in that sense.

Artists and art historians don't like this type of work because a lot of what makes art 'good' is the process. Sure pretty sells, but generally only to people who don't know any better or who just don't care. This is why a lot of art snobs scoff at digital photography being considered fine art because it lacks most of the process of traditional film photography.

I would be extremely leery of buying an 'original' Kinkade from a mall. yes there are paintings Kinkade has done himself, but they sell for tens of thousands of dollars and I don't think any are readily available anymore.

 

[PurpleDragon]

I'm shocked no one else posted this yet.

http://www.thestreet.com/story/10863800/6/5-completely-worthless-collectibles.html

His stuff is pretty much worthless these days for the very same reason people have mentioned. He mass produced his "signature" paint by number paintings and flooded the market with them out of greed. He isn't in it for the art, hes in it to make money and nothing more, which is why hes disliked by so many people.

 

[devoy1701]

Wow folks. First let me apologize again for starting such a sensitive thread. As you can already tell, i have complete ignorance on the subject of art, and Kinkade. My post was more to just comment on how pleasing to the eyes i thought his Disney work was, and wanted to share it with Disney fans on this site. I had no idea he was so controversial among the community, and among artists.

To the point mentioned above, I have a question. Why, then, does Mr. Kinkade sign these paintings and why are they marketed as is, if he only contributes 3%? The salesman (i know, he was being a salesman), pitched me "Oh this one is a signed original from Kinkade and here is his signature".

Another modern day example of this would be James Patterson....who is the most successful fictional writer of all time (last time I heard). There are many of his books over the past couple years that he co-authored with other lesser known writers, when infact, all he did was edit the story, transpose it to his style that we're used to, and slap his name on the front in 2 inch font and you have an instant #1 NY Times Best Seller. Don't get me wrong, James Patterson is one of my favorite authors...but after reading as many of his books as I have, you can tell the difference between one that he exclusively wrote, and one that he co-authored.

Yes, Patterson is giving credit to the author for his "help", but it's being marketed as a Patterson book, and it's the name Patterson that turns the book into a best seller.

 

[EaglesfanNJ]

EaglesfanNJ -I have a suggestion for you. You might like to check out Peter Ellenshaw's paintings of Winnie the Pooh and friends.We like them alot, and prints are inexpensive and easy to find on-line. We gave a framed copy of "Autumn Leaves" to a friend for Christmas last year and she loves it.

Good to know, thank you!

 

[Testtrack321]

Kinkade also urinated on a statue of Winny the Pooh while stating "This one's for you Walt!"

So there is another tie in between the two.

-dave

Quoted, again, for truth.

It's from a Time article. Here's an OC article on the piece...

http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2006/03/painter_showers_oc_with_christ.php

Full quote...

And then there is Kinkade's proclivity for "ritual territory marking," as he called it, which allegedly manifested itself in the late 1990s outside the Disneyland Hotel in Anaheim.
"This one's for you, Walt," the artist quipped late one night as he urinated on a Winnie the Pooh figure, said Terry Sheppard, a former vice president for Kinkade's company, in an interview.

For those in for a good LULZ read the AV Club "Year of a Million Flops" review of the "movie" they did about this life.

http://www.avclub.com/articles/commemorative-keepsake-yuletide-case-file-152-thom,36618/

 

[fosse76]

Well, many of you would be shocked that artists such as Michaelangelo (you don't really believe that he painted the Sistine all by himself, do you), Jacques Louis David, and other Masters ALL employed apprentices who did much of the painting on some of their masterpieces (in some cases the artist himself barely touched it). It isn't uncommon, and certainly nothing knew.

As for the definition of art, however, it's description as needing to have a profound meaning to have worth is a fairly recent construct by contemporary artists. Most of the classic art hanging on museum walls served a function. Most of it was commissioned. Leonardo did not simply paint the Mona Lisa because he thought she had an enigmatic smile...her husband paid him to paint her portrait (then for whatever reason he brought it with him to France). Michelangelo was forced to paint the Sistine (he was dragged to the Vatican by the Pope's soldiers). Art, having a deeper meaning is simply a modern construct by selfish artists attempting to validate their work.

As for Kinkaide, I see nothing special about it, but to denigrate it simply because it doesn't espouse the meaning of life doesn't invalidate it as art.

 

[Testtrack321]

As for Kinkaide, I see nothing special about it, but to denigrate it simply because it doesn't espouse the meaning of life doesn't invalidate it as art.

It's never been about the looks, it's been about him taking conventions of art that make certain, actual art pieces unique and using it for pure profit. When people pour their hearts and soul into pieces that depict the world how they see it, then to have a hack like Kinkade come along is insulting to them and to me.

Kinkade is a joke to art just as Milli Vanilli is a joke to music.

 

[Thumbelina]

I love Thomas Kinkade. His paintings are beautiful. I cant believe anyone would say anything nasty about them. I didnt know they had hidden mickeys in them. That is an awesome idea.

 

[David Roberts]

Yes it was the Moorestown Mall!

Very cool. I live very close to there.

McDonald's may sell a Billion burgers, but nobody is calling Ronald a fine chef.

If people like Kinkade, then thats all well and good, I like a Big Mac every now and then myself. But his paintings really do nothing for me. Too simple, too 'picture like'. Very pretty, but no real substance.

I just bought a giclee of Tim Rogerson's "Cheers for 15 years" (the 2011 Food and Wine official art). That appeals to me, it has movement, it has life, it draws the eye in a constant range of motion. He is also an interesting person to talk to, and his route to his position as a Disney Fine Artist and how he met his wife and was "discovered" is pretty interesting.

I also cannot stand Thomas Kinkade's religious fanaticism and blantant hypocrisy, but that is person feelings towards the man, not to his art.

-dave

Well, the creator of McDonalds was Ray Kroc, and he flipped the burgers not Ronald. Now as we can clearly see Ray Kroc may have been one of the greatest business men in history along with the likes of...Walt Disney? They both came from humble roots and established huge empires. So, if your comparing Thomas Kinkade to these men, I'd say he's in pretty good shape.

 

[Tigger1988]

Well, the creator of McDonalds was Ray Kroc, and he flipped the burgers not Ronald. Now as we can clearly see Ray Kroc may have been one of the greatest business men in history along with the likes of...Walt Disney? They both came from humble roots and established huge empires. So, if your comparing Thomas Kinkade to these men, I'd say he's in pretty good shape.

Pretty sure Ray Kroc never flipped the burgers, he didn't even come up with the McDonalds concept. He bought the restaurant from the brothers who created it, the McDonald brothers.

And comparing Kinkade to Walt Disney is an insult, given his DUI arrest, fraud charges and public urination escapades.

 

[CP_alum08]

Well, many of you would be shocked that artists such as Michaelangelo (you don't really believe that he painted the Sistine all by himself, do you), Jacques Louis David, and other Masters ALL employed apprentices who did much of the painting on some of their masterpieces (in some cases the artist himself barely touched it). It isn't uncommon, and certainly nothing knew.

As for the definition of art, however, it's description as needing to have a profound meaning to have worth is a fairly recent construct by contemporary artists. Most of the classic art hanging on museum walls served a function. Most of it was commissioned. Leonardo did not simply paint the Mona Lisa because he thought she had an enigmatic smile...her husband paid him to paint her portrait (then for whatever reason he brought it with him to France). Michelangelo was forced to paint the Sistine (he was dragged to the Vatican by the Pope's soldiers). Art, having a deeper meaning is simply a modern construct by selfish artists attempting to validate their work.

As for Kinkaide, I see nothing special about it, but to denigrate it simply because it doesn't espouse the meaning of life doesn't invalidate it as art.

Apprentices, right, not factory line workers.

As for artwork having a meaning being a modern idea, yes it is. Because back when Van Gogh, Michelangelo, etc. were painting there were creating something new. Their 'meaning' was about creating a new way to paint and a new way to look at painting. If everyone was still painting photo-realistic portraits the world would be a pretty dull place. It's the same with music. There are only so many ways you can play a guitar, after that you need to start adding electronics to get a new and unique sound. And after the depths of electronic audio are explored something new will take its place. This is what makes art of all kinds great, it's ever changing.

This argument of 'what is art' can go on forever. At the end of the day it really just depends on if you buy the Kinkade or not!

 

[David Roberts]

Pretty sure Ray Kroc never flipped the burgers, he didn't even come up with the McDonalds concept. He bought the restaurant from the brothers who created it, the McDonald brothers.

And comparing Kinkade to Walt Disney is an insult, given his DUI arrest, fraud charges and public urination escapades.

I think arguments could be made that Walt Disney himself had his share of controversy. I could care less about art work besides the way it looks, and Kinkade has some beautiful art work. The fact that you guys get all bent outa shape about it says more about you guys than anything. I don't know if "artists" think its cliche to like Kinkade because he's so mainstream or what. Just appreciate the fact that people do like his work and he's had alot of success.

 

[Tigger1988]

I think arguments could be made that Walt Disney himself had his share of controversy. I could care less about art work besides the way it looks, and Kinkade has some beautiful art work. The fact that you guys get all bent outa shape about it says more about you guys than anything. I don't know if "artists" think its cliche to like Kinkade because he's so mainstream or what. Just appreciate the fact that people do like his work and he's had alot of success.

I can't tell if you're purposely ignoring the explicit reasons numerous people have given in this post or if you haven't bothered to read them. Several people have answered this question, several times.

Many of the "controversies" linked to Walt centered around urban legends and myths. (many of which are found here: http://www.snopes.com/disney/waltdisn/walt.asp ) I don't seem to remember ever hearing about him driving drunk or anything of the sort.

 

[David Roberts]

I can't tell if you're purposely ignoring the explicit reasons numerous people have given in this post or if you haven't bothered to read them. Several people have answered this question, several times.

Many of the "controversies" linked to Walt centered around urban legends and myths. (many of which are found here: http://www.snopes.com/disney/waltdisn/walt.asp ) I don't seem to remember ever hearing about him driving drunk or anything of the sort.

I understand why YOU don't appreciate Kinkade.. What I wondered is why you continue to push these views on us other peons who clearly don't know as much about art but simply like his work. And really? Drunk driving makes him a horrible person? I'm well aware that most of the things about Disney are myths, simply making a point but I wouldn't say he's a better person than Kinkade simply because he drove drunk.

 

[Tigger1988]

I understand why YOU don't appreciate Kinkade.. What I wondered is why you continue to push these views on us other peons who clearly don't know as much about art but simply like his work. And really? Drunk driving makes him a horrible person? I'm well aware that most of the things about Disney are myths, simply making a point but I wouldn't say he's a better person than Kinkade simply because he drove drunk.

At this point you're putting words into my mouth, no where did I ever say the words "horrible person". Point is, there's zero basis for comparing Walt with Kinkade. They both have mustaches but that's pretty much where the comparisons end.

But I'll say this, Kinkade's entire "image" is based around being a good Christian and doing God's work and things like that. DUIs, peeing outside the Disneyland hotel, swindling Gallery owners out of thousands and thousands of dollars and various other things pretty much make him a hypocrite.

 

[David Roberts]

I will just stop right here cause clearly there is no end to this. I don't know how you can turn a post about someone appreciating a piece of art into a judgement on the character of the artist..but okay.

I myself plan on buying a piece of the Disney collection. Most likely the Peter Pan and co. flying over London

 

[Uncle Lupe]

I like his paintings but just don't understand the justification of price. He makes a master print and uses a super fancy printer to make copies. Then himself and his apprentices dab paint to give texture. So if you get copy #1 or copy # 5000 it is still just a copy.

 

[Phonedave]

Very cool. I live very close to there.



Well, the creator of McDonalds was Ray Kroc, and he flipped the burgers not Ronald. Now as we can clearly see Ray Kroc may have been one of the greatest business men in history along with the likes of...Walt Disney? They both came from humble roots and established huge empires. So, if your comparing Thomas Kinkade to these men, I'd say he's in pretty good shape.

No, the comment I made was in response to the person that said something along the likes of "Kinkade has sold loads of paintings, that must make them good" (I am paraphrasing)

My comment about Ronald being the chef was tongue in cheek, I thought most would have understood that, as it was pretty blatant.

The point is, volume of sales does not a good product indicate - necessarily.

Just because McDonalds sells a billion burgers does not make them fine food

and

Just because Thomas Kinkade has sold thousands of his work does not make him a fine artist.

-dave

 

[Phonedave]

I like his paintings but just don't understand the justification of price. He makes a master print and uses a super fancy printer to make copies. Then himself and his apprentices dab paint to give texture. So if you get copy #1 or copy # 5000 it is still just a copy.

I have nothing wrong with that process.

Giclee printing has come a long way and is a recognized fine art medium. It also makes art affordable.

An 18 x 20 Giclee (framed) may be $400 - $500 depending on if it's a limited edition, the framing, the popularity, etc.

The comparable original, from an established but not yet "famous" artist - $4,000 to $5,000 or more. And if the artist is popular, keep going higher.

 

[David Roberts]

No, the comment I made was in response to the person that said something along the likes of "Kinkade has sold loads of paintings, that must make them good" (I am paraphrasing)

My comment about Ronald being the chef was tongue in cheek, I thought most would have understood that, as it was pretty blatant.

The point is, volume of sales does not a good product indicate - necessarily.

Just because McDonalds sells a billion burgers does not make them fine food

and

Just because Thomas Kinkade has sold thousands of his work does not make him a fine artist.

-dave

Is this comment serious? Your right I was mistaken cause I thought you actually were under the impression that a clown flipped burgers at McDonalds. As I said before I'm just somebody with no artistic IQ I guess who appreciates his artwork.. I don't understand why people keep bashing him when I am no longer putting up defense. Unbelievable:ROFLOL: