Why I Love Thomas Kinkade (and some people don’t)
July 11th, 2010 § Leave a Comment
Sometimes I get tired of hearing people say negative things about Thomas Kinkade. It’s so cliche. Would so many people hate his art if that wasn’t the only accepted opinion to have in the art world? People can be persuaded to dislike anything by deeming it kitsch, trite, or cheesy. I may have bad taste, but at least I have my own tastes and I’m not embarrassed to say I enjoy Thomas Kinkade’s art.
Just looking at his paintings it’s obvious in spite of the stylistic distortions that he’s competent and put in time honing his technique, but the main thing going for him is the fact that he created a brand around a recognizable style and theme that appeals to a large segment of the population, which is why he has been so successful. That’s why some people have a problem with him, and it drips with jealousy and hypocrisy. If most of the people who criticize Kinkade were in his situation and had talent and business sense, they would do the same thing and profit from it. So what if he makes a lot of money? That happens in a free market when something is popular. If anyone has a problem with that, it’s with the whole economic system, which has nothing to do with one artist.
It may be bothersome that there are better artists who are undiscovered, but people need to either accept that marketing is a big part of things in the real world, or drop out of the game. Most artists sell (or at least try to sell) prints. The bottom line is that people are getting the final products they want, and what they’re willing to pay for them is their business. Just like if some want to pay 50,000$ for a dab of paint a canvas, which I think is more scandalous than a talented artist like Kinkade selling high quality prints.
To say Kinkade isn’t a real artist or deserving of success is ridiculous. Thomas Kinkade is the painter of light. His paintings have inspired millions of people who see in them an ideal that transcends our state of existence, whether for some that’s a spiritual awareness or a vision of a way of life that’s in harmony with the natural world. That’s the role art was originally meant to play in society, and remains in spite of the largely destructive impact of modernism. The root of much Kinkade criticism is resentment of the fact that representational art will always remain more widely appreciated, regardless of what’s in style with the self anointed art cognoscenti. Art does not have to be subversive, shocking, or impossible to understand to be meaningful. One of the reasons I like Kinkade’s art is because it represents that to me. To other people it has different meanings. Meaning is personal and subjective. Everything has meaning to someone because finding and creating meaning is what humans do. That’s the beauty of it and what makes it art.
