Thomas Kinkade dies. And art critics everywhere rejoice that finally the supply of kitsch that his assembly line operation turned out is going to dry up.
Kinkade was a millionaire who made his millions the old fashioned way -- by scamming rich investors who were required to buy half a million dollars in inventory to open one of "his" Kinkade Galleries, money that they'd never get back when the works didn't sell and eventually were liquidated at Costco for pennies on the dollar, and by running an assembly-line operation to create "originals" that his brush never touched other than at the end of the assembly line to sign "his" originals, then convincing hundreds of thousands of Americans with more money than taste to spend hundreds of dollars on one of his "originals". He claimed this was legit because he "directed" the brush strokes of the low-paid art students who really painted the kitschy landscapes, but in the art world it was a minor scandal. There was a sense, in the art world, that if you were to declare that something was an "original", it should be something that your brush touched for more than your signature.
And now the scam is finished. Or is it? If you think his heirs are going to stop the scam simply because the originator of the scam is dead… hah! They’re going to be discovering "unknown works” for *years*! Watch and see.
- Badtux the Bad Art Penguin
I didn't know who this was. wtf can I say. Now I know the real story.
ReplyDeleteWe have some buddies who think the sun rises behind this dude's left ear. They have two or three of his schlocky pieces on their walls and think they are a great investment. It's all I can do to muzzle myself.
ReplyDeleteI used to think his stuff looked just like greeting cards...real Hallmark moments; I dont' know how he convinced anyone he was a "master of light"....please??!
One Fly, you've seen his stuff, you just don't know it.
ReplyDeleteLabrys, yes, that was the point, to look like greeting cards. The biggest scam is how he convinced people that paying hundreds of dollars for one of his "originals" was an investment, given that the unsold works were being dumped at Costco for 1/10th the price. That pretty much tells you what the open market value of his works really is -- i.e., if you paid hundreds for a Kinkade "original", you immediately lost 90% of your value the moment you brought it home.
- Badtux the Art Critic Penguin
I wandered into a Kinkade gallery way back when they were first opening, and before I could escape the gallery owner just HAD to demonstrate why he was called "Painter of Light". As she lowered the lights in the room with a dimmer switch, it really made the yellows in the paintings -- the "light" -- stand out. Of course, what he was really doing was being super-careful to keep the palette of the rest of the painting away from the yellows.
ReplyDeleteI did manage to escape before throwing up.
I remember when the first Kinkade gallery opened in the art gallery section of downtown Scottsdale, often known as Snobsdale. Talk about the uproar and outrage! "This gallery does not fit the image of our town!" they cried. I was rather amused to see all the art snobs of Snobsdale throwing fits about this outrage against their sensibilities -- kitsch in a *serious* art district, oh my! Still, when you realize what a scam it was (and the gallery did go bankrupt within a year, the investor who invested half a million dollars in it lost everything), it becomes less amusing...
ReplyDelete- Badtux the Bad Art Penguin
I had never heard of him so I Googled his work when he died. I never realized how good my life had been up until then.
ReplyDeleteI have to admit that I have always reacted with a strong measure of disgust whenever I have seen a Thomas Kinkade image. That is usually followed by me thinking to myself, "That ain't art"
ReplyDeleteBut then I stop and think about what art is. What is it? Isn't one of its primary purposes to convey some idea and maybe provoke an emotional response? And doesn't Kinkade's work do that?
He probably didn't create his work with the intention of provoking that kind of reaction in people in the way I am sure Serrano must have with Piss Christ (although he says he never created the piece with that intention). But there it is. And like those members of Congress were upset that Serrano was given a grant for the work by the National Endowment for the Arts, I would be upset if I learned that a similar grant were given to Kinkade. Still, why not? A lot of people do consider his paintings to be art. Who am I to just assume that my taste is better than anyone else's? (I mean, it totally clearly is better than everyone else's taste, but I am a biased judge of such things).
Kinkade was a douchebag for cheating people. But perhaps a better artist than he gets credit for. I mean, I literally have a physical reaction of disgust whenever I see one of his paintings. I feel a little nauseous. That's art, man.
Kinkade was the New Black. As in "The New Jesus and Elvis on Black Velvet" paintings.
ReplyDeleteAgree. but "art" is worth exactly what one is willing to pay for it.
ReplyDeleteI'm happy just to enjoy my Friedlander's and Curry's.
Personally, if I'm going to buy art, I prefer to buy something striking. Kinkade's stuff is about as innocuous and pleasant as bubblegum. I might as well stick motivational posters on my wall, at least they're obnoxious in a different way.
ReplyDelete