Andrée Seu Peterson on the "Time" cover 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Painter of light (rather than art)
It’s easy to pick on Thomas Kinkade, Painter of Light. When you think art should rise above sheer sentimentality, it can be a family drama to see pictures like this adorning the walls and desks and calendars of your loved ones.
Yet, Kinkade is a painter of soft, warm feelings, and people buy his stuff. It is the two-dimensional rendering of the Lifetime Channel movie. But now, it’s actually a movie! Enter Thomas Kinkade’s Christmas Cottage:
There you have it, on the poster, Oscar-lauded Peter O’Toole, Lawrence of Arabia himself. Impressive, Mr. Kinkade. Most impressive. Vanity Fair lampoons poor, successful Kinkade by describing him as “a postmodern Norman Rockwell for the evangelist set.” At least he didn’t say evangelical, although I’m sure that’s what he means.
In the article, they mock a list of “16 guidelines” created by Kinkade on creating “The Thomas Kinkade Look” for the actual movie. Read the memo in its entirety. My favorites are #1, #15, and especially #16.
-
“1) Dodge corners or create darkening towards edge of image for ‘cozy’ look. This may only apply to still imagery, but is useful where applicable.”
-
“15) Nostalgia. My paintings routinely blend timeframes. This is not only okay, but tends to create a more timeless look. Vintage cars (30’s, 40’s, 50’s, 60’s etc) can be featured along with 70’s era cars. Older buildings are favorable. Avoid anything that looks contemporary — shopping centers, contemporary storefronts, etc. Also, I prefer to avoid anything that is shiny.”
-
“16) Most important concept of all — THE CONCEPT OF LOVE. Perhaps we could make large posters that simply say ‘Love this movie’ and post them about.”
I can’t wait to see the movie!
back to top39 Comments to “Painter of light (rather than art)”
That’s very nice.
Report comment to moderator
what would flannery o’connor say?!?!
Report comment to moderator
The house in the painting isn’t the same house as the one on tape box. Other than that I like the painting. But I am proudly shallow. I used to think my depth would kick in with age. It the mean time I went to work for cable TV where I didn’t need any.
Report comment to moderator
Peter O’Toole may be an old gay fellow but he remains one of the best of the old-style film actors. Hard to believe he’s outlasted Richard Harris!
As for Kincade. Folks for whatever reason embraced his work and he has sensibly sought to maximize and cash-in on the trend. Would I buy his kitsch? Only to put it up beside my Elvis painted on black crushed velvet or the pic of the various dog breeds playing poker.
Given the opp to do so, I’m certain any Bohemian struggling artist would gladly go the Kincade route if demand was strong enough.
Report comment to moderator
My personal fave:
6) Hidden details whenever possible, References to my children (from youngest to oldest as follows): Evie, Winsor, Chandler and Merritt. References to my anniversary date, the number 52, the number 82, and the number 5282 (for fun, notice how many times this appears in my major published works)…
Self-important, much?
Report comment to moderator
I gather from Wikipedia that the self-produced film is loosely autobiographical, explaining the 58 (Kinkade’s birth year) and perhaps the 82 (wedding anniversary?). I haven’t seen it, of course, but I’m having trouble envisioning even such a great as Peter O’Toole (appearing as young Thomas’ mentor) delivering this line believably:
“Paint the light, Thomas! PAINT THE LIGHT!”
Report comment to moderator
Why do people resent the commercial success of Christian artists? I’d much rather see Thomas Kinkade get rich than Andres Serrano.
Report comment to moderator
I liked his work a lot better before it became commonplace.
Report comment to moderator
#5, RR- I’m not certain if it self importance, but he continues in a tradition of Norman Rockwell, who frequently included family in his picture. Editorial cartoonist Herb Block use to work his wife Lois’ name into his cartoons. Probably his way of marking his work and making it distinct.
Having said that, his work does not excite me.
Report comment to moderator
KBELLS (#7),
I don’t resent commercial success – that is one of several goals of most artists. I do, however, resent bad art. It hurts my eyes. But most importantly, it hurts my feelings.
Report comment to moderator
I agree that fine art should attempt to rise above “sheer sentimentality.” But I also think there is a huge war against ’sentiment’ itself in this current cold culture in the West.
I’m not a fan of Kincade but at least his work is moderately decent and skillful. I think his work tends to delve into “sentimentality” too much for my taste. That said, I am most critical, however, of those who defy most any sentiment at all and over-react in the cynical, shock and anger direction in the name of art. That nonsense gets tons of praise from the art intelligentsia as if it is “courageous,” “avant guard” and “daring.” Truth be told, it is the Kincades out there who get most of the criticism and disrespect from the self-appointed guardians of culture today. Why doesn’t he get credit for courage?
I don’t think I should draw legal or academic lines to establish the distinction between ’sheer sentimentality’ and ‘legitimate sentiment.’ I am for letting the art marketplace sort it out. Academics will continue to bash sentiment and the people will continue to like it and buy it. I tend to be with the people.
Report comment to moderator
I agree with Kbells at #7.
Report comment to moderator
I bet Harrison Scott Key would probably even turn up his nose at my pink plastic flamingo artwork that I have proudly exhibited since 1974 in my front yard.
Except for the single flamingo missing its head (from an errant shot from a Winchester 30-30 by a neighbor who was trying to hit one of my dogs from a boundary line), it looks almost as good as the day I erected it.
Talking about a sudden creative burst of artistic passion. My Muse must have totally expended herself and expired right on the spot – for sadly I have never again had the faintest rumbling of any artistic stirrings deep down in my gut.
Which I am sure you all would agree is a rotten shame.
Well, maybe everybody except Harrison Scott Key, anyway.
Report comment to moderator
I’ll grant that it may not be, ITH. In my ears, though, the invitation to locate all the instances of “52″ (the year Thomas Kinkade was born! Think of it!) in his pictures, and the trademarking of “Painter of Light,” and the commissioning of a film about himself, come off as rather pretentious.
To be clear, I do not resent Mr. Kinkade’s commercial success. There is nothing wrong with finding your talents, perfecting them, and making a lot of money off them. He paints pictures that many, many fans consider lovely and inspiring, and I will not begrudge them their inspiration. We live amidst a creation, that while affected by the curse, remains breathtakingly beautiful and marvelous in uncountable ways. The glory of the Lord is proclaimed everywhere we look. It is OK to acknowledge this in printed words or paint.
I believe it is for reasons of creation, fall, and redemption, however, that I have no desire to own one of Kinkade’s paintings. He’s on record as explaining his body of work as portraying the world as if there had been no fall (in his CT interview a few years ago, IIRC). His idyllic and idealized cottages and streams, then, are supposed to be something like the garden of Eden. This is so far removed from our experience, however, that I for one have difficulty seeing much value in his approach.
Faced with a glorious-but-fallen world, I take my comfort from the Redemption, not from imagining what everything would have been like had there been no Fall! (Curiously, Kinkade also paints a lot of idealized, cottage-y churches — with crosses on top — which seems to go against his erstwhile no-Fall aesthetic.)
Some may respond that God’s intention in redemption is to restore the cosmos to what it was before sin came into the world, but this is not quite true. In bringing all things under one Head which is Jesus Christ, God is making the cosmos better than it was before. Adam was created in righteousness, yet with the possibility of rebellion and sin. In Christ, the people of God will be perfected and preserved in righteousness. Never again will the beauty of Eden have the potential to be spoiled. Another way, perhaps, of saying all this: the Bible begins with a garden, but ends with a city.
Other believers derive much enjoyment from seeing Kinkade’s gardens on their walls. I, however, trip over his no-Fall theme, and am just not taken to the same place when I see his work.
Report comment to moderator
DRILL,
The difference between your flamingo and one of Kinkade’s snowy cottages is that you seem to be aware that your flamingo is bad art, thus making it ironic art, rather than bad art. Birds are good. Plastic birds, also, are good.
Report comment to moderator
10. That’s your opinion. I thinks it’s pretty. My five-year-old thinks it’s pretty. Then again see post #3.
Report comment to moderator
Here’s someone’s blog post and comments that probably make my point in 14 better than I made it, while also enraging Jan Karon fans.
Report comment to moderator
Many people find joy in Thomas Kinkade’s work simply because the focus is directed solely in ‘peaceful’ settings which bring back memories of times past, or wishful thinking of those things which have never existed in ones life.
Having studied art, enjoyed painting since childhood, using oils, water color, and many other mediums, I find those who thumb their nose at an artist who has brought so much joy to millions to be nothing short of jealousy. There’s nothing more intellectually dishonest, than to believe you have arrived by praising the works of those who throw anything together, and then call it art. Then there are those who have never studied art, standing on the sidelines trying to understand what they observe – It all amounts to contemptuous outbursts clearly demonstrating pseudo-intellectualism directed at the art world –
Kinkade’s beautiful art is sought after, therefore making it saleable. I’m sure he never dreamed that his work would bring so much joy to a hurting world, but that’s exactly what its done, GOD gave him an incredible talent for softening the heart of many. The shades of color, the depth of his thoughtful use of homes, creeks, tree’s, rain on street with lights shinning through store windows brings more joy to the soul than all the trumped up slaps of paint issued to canvass with no meaning, just your imagination to make something of it, whether that was what the intention was or not. Take a look at the sculpture with all its lines, and then compare it to the sculpture of King David, or other works which are truly real art – then look back at many of the oils of two, three hundred years ago, that is real art, its not the joke’s we look at today -
Report comment to moderator
RR,
In view of your comments about the fall and redemption, I am surprised at your apparent comparison of Jan Karon’s writing to Thomas Kinkade’s painting. Mitford certainly is more pleasant than some towns and a lot of cities, but it’s hardly “as if there had been no fall.” One thing that appealed to me about the series was that it was the realism of people dealing with mental illness, guilt for past sins, abusive parents, alcoholism, etc., as well as the everyday struggles in relationships with friends and family. The last book in the series did fall into sentimentality, wrapping loose ends up too neatly, but on the whole I did not consider the series particularly guilty of that tendency.
Report comment to moderator
Forgot to edit. Third sentence in #19 should not have “that it was” before “the realism”
Report comment to moderator
Well, with Kinkade, the first piece or two I saw, I thought were rather nice. But with him, by the time you’ve seen two, you’ve seen them all. I can’t even imagine wading through a book or a gallery of his work. Now, I could spend days with Rembrandt or some other artists, including Carl Brenders (my favorite wildlife artist).
Victoria, there can be legitimate reasons to dislike an artist other than “jealousy.” I have a niece who’s a much better artist than Kinkade, for instance. Now, she’s not as successful commercially, but her dislike of Kinkade isn’t “jealousy,” because she has far surpassed him in skill before she’s thirty. I have some of my own art in my house, which I’d never think of offering to a gallery–they’re successful in being the best I can do, but quality art they are not. With artistic talent (and training) in abundance in my family, I may not be an artist myself, but I’m at least a wannabe, and I am related to some “genuine” artists whose works hang in galleries. (My oldest brother once did a one-man show in the Phoenix Art Musueum, and his work has been featured in art magazines, though these days he sells art rather than creating it. Still, that gives me at least an uncle, a brother, and a niece–and probably additional nieces and nephews behind them–who are “genuine artists” and make a living from their art.)
Report comment to moderator
I agree with Cheryl. If you’ve seen one Kincaid, you’ve seen them all….
Report comment to moderator
The same is true of pink flamingos, but they still make me laugh when I see them outside in my backyard–currently missing their legs, where is my hunting dog?
Report comment to moderator
Kincade seems to be more portraying an inner reality. In that sense he is very much in the Romantic if not the modernist, or abstract school. The lack of technical observation is what separates him from a Rockwell (the different sources of light so bug me).
Fwiw, Joe Carter at the Evangelical Outpost took on this subject about two years ago. HSK was too kind.
Report comment to moderator
HSK says, “It hurts my eyes. But most importantly, it hurts my feelings.”
Well, if Kincade’s art is pretty like cheap velvet blacklight posters what is wrong with that? He exaggerates light and soft tones for effect. But how is that less worthy than the insanity of Picasso and modern art?
The point is that art is art. To pooh pooh Kincade says more about the snobbery of the viewer than Kincade himself.
Report comment to moderator
Xion,
If I splash red paint and black paint on a canvas, can I call it art? If I label a urinal “Fountain,” can I sell it as art? It’s a legitimate debate (not necessarily snobbery) whether something qualifies as art, and further whether it qualifies as good art.
Report comment to moderator
“When you think art should rise above sheer sentimentality…”
Why?
Why cannot an artist create for whatever reasons that appeal to him? Suppose the art, sorry…obviously some don’t consider it art…how about, the paintings satisfy the sentimental longings of the viewer? Is that not enough reason to deem this creation worthy to have merit?
So, what are you saying about all those people who enjoy his paintings?
Report comment to moderator
Xion – 25
Yes it does Xion, but very few want to admit it. I smiled when I read your post, and again I smile
I can’t imagine GOD finding fault with Kincade – everything the man has painted has been ‘wholesome’ for that the world who believes themselves brilliant or more importantly intellectual finds his work beneath them, as if he hasn’t lived up to the standards of the so called ‘art community’ – Lets face it, the WORLD wants PROVOCATIVE, they don’t want a painting that depicts the calm and peaceful tranquility we cherish as Believers.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Actually, quite a number of us on this site have admitted to not really liking him much–and it certainly doesn’t mean we want “provocative,” just that we find him boring or repetitive. The world God made is simply far more interesting.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl
You post: “The world God made is simply far more interesting.”
Yes the world GOD made is far more important, not just “intersting” – however, to find someone boring who is ‘gifted’ by GOD Almighty is sad, but somehow expected, when the few who believe they are intellectually superior begin to complain.
One of my cousins who died a very early death due to diabetes, was an artist known by almost anyone in the art world, especially in the eastern part of the US. He often remarked at the attitudes of those who believed they had arrived, believing themselves to be wise regarding the world of art, as they spoke and muttered about regarding the art they observed on display.
Pseudo-intellectualism directed at the art world, has become to many of us a nauseous display of pretentious understanding – when I listen to anyone making comments against a man who has brought wholesome joy (such as Kinkade) to the masses I have only to look at the envious man who cannot fathom life without finding fault with a pure talent which gives so much joy – what a sad commentary -
Report comment to moderator
It does seem that popularity with the masses is a sure fire way to offend the elite.
Report comment to moderator
HSK, frankly, I’m shocked. You’re supposed to be a Christian, yet your comments drip with the un-saved, liberal sneer of the art critic.
Show me anywhere a set of objective rules om what constitutes art. Some of the most obscene drivel and schlock ever seen has been portrayed as art by liberal, un-saved “artists”.
For you to turn your nose up at Kinkade’s work strikes me as un-Christian, and frankly, un-biblical.
Report comment to moderator
Cherly #26. I don’t disagree with you. I think the debate about beauty is an important one. I agree with Franky Schaefer in Addicted to Mediocrity that compared to the glory days of the Renaissance, Christian art has become shallow kitsch appropriate for bumper stickers and snow globes.
Christians should be the best artists in the world, appreciating the beauty of God more than anyone. However, the Protest against Catholic excess led to a severe austerity that has carried even to this day. Things are improving a little, but we have a long way to go.
As for Kincade, he is very predictable. But I would not say his art is not beautiful. He paints a wholesomeness that is quite fascinating in his use of light. It is almost cartoonish, like a Disney production. But why can we not simply appreciate it for what it is? Why can we not allow diversity that make room for exaggerated wholesomeness?
What Christian doesn’t like Rockwell? I put Kincade in a similar category. However, that is not to say it is representative of the potential that Christian artists could strive for.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Hmm,
Some of us aren’t attacking him, being elitist, or anything else bad–merely saying we don’t like his work very much and he isn’t the best artist around. Those who are attacking this opinion, calling it sinful, in some cases might be the ones doing the unbiblical “judging.” To avoid being judged “elitist” or accused of attacking a brother, are we required to like all art (or all art painted by Christians)?
Report comment to moderator
Xion, that was my point in saying that when you’ve seen two Kinkades you’ve seen them all. The first one or two I saw, my thought was, How pretty. But then I saw two or three more and saw that his work is as predictable as romance novels. Norman Rockwell at least varied what he showed; he showed real life (even the slightly ugly sides, at times–longing for what one couldn’t have, skinned knees, boys scaring girls, etc.). With Kinkade, I’m actually a little puzzled how a painter can show a cottage in the snow and a spring hill, and make them look so much “the same.” That’s part of what kills it for me. There’s endless variety in God’s creation, and in His seasons. With Kinkade, the same “feeling” pervades all seasons and all scenes. Summer isn’t the same as winter. A wild lion isn’t the same as a puppy. We serve a God who created almost endless variety, much of it shockingly beautiful.
I love color. My favorite natural creations (aside from living creatures–gentle-eyed deer, mischievous raccoons) are the things in which God imbued color. Actually, His songbirds have color and life, which is probably one reason I love them so much. But sunsets, rainbows, fall leaves, spring blossoms, and butterflies are among my favorite things, because of the color, each one beautifully different. Fall is as colorful as spring–but in a vastly different way. I think that’s what fails to come through in Kinkade.
Report comment to moderator
Hah, I enjoyed that Cheryl D. I love that you called raccoons mischievous. I hesitate to call God mischievous, but he certainly created a lot of mischievous things which I believe he delights in. Rockwell certainly captured that.
I am reading the book “The Shack” only because a colleague at work is reading it too and it sparks interesting discussions about God. The book is annoying and theologically suspect, but it highlights a mischievous side of God. I’m not buying it, but it is at least something to ponder and delight in.
Jesus rejoiced (I imagine) when he said, “I thank you father that you have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them unto babes” There is something a little mischievous about that isn’t there? I mean doing things in such a way that would embarrass intellectuals. How delightful!
Report comment to moderator
I think this thread has reached its stale date, but I just checked back. Pauline (in 19), I wasn’t criticizing Karon (whom I’ve never read) but referring to a comment about her writing in the blog I linked to.
Report comment to moderator
Dav cracks me up. Applying a critical eye to art is “unbiblical?” Best laugh I’ve had today.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!