Forbes and Associated Press on Evangelicals and the Arts (like real art)

Not a bad piece of work here. I love how diplomatic he is about Kincade, but it's nice to see the "painter of lite" barely gets a mention. I count that as a hopeful sign for my artist friends who are Christian.

Comments

[Dallas Tim]

I need to vent... here goes...

Why does everyone seem so bent on criticizing Kincade? I am NOT an artist. I am asking in all seriousness? I'm not a critic, but the one thing I've always thought that makes many "artists" so ignorantly out of touch with the masses is that they have to tell us what "art" is or what we should like. Why do I need someone to tell me "that's bad (or good) art." I can tell a freakin' good painting all by myself.

Some, like Kincaide's works, just make me want to jump in and "be there." I don't froth at the mouth and worship him, but his works have always fostered a sense of peace for me.

Art is, so often, simply the decision made by the "in" crowd. They don't even know what's "good" themselves, they just want to make sure THEY'VE picked it because God forbid that the other 95% of our population might actually be able to do that for themselves.

The proof of this is that so much of art history isn't appreciated until long after the artist has died. It's not so much about the work, as it is about the screwed-up, misunderstood, ear-chomping guy who painted it.

I see some stuff today and it's pure crap. It may be in a gallery, but it's crap. Some millionaire will tell be, "isn't it beautiful" and I'm thinking someone took a dump on a canvas... and got paid for it. Or they tied a paint-brush to an elephants trunk and let fly. "Wow, a painting by an elephant... I bid $25,000."

Please.

I'm sure someone has an explanation for me. Thanks for letting me vent in the meantime.

[cheek]

What's wrong with people who have studied the technique and history of the various fine arts helping the rest of us along. I'm not trying to say that the appreciation of art is not largely subjective, but there is also a tradition that all art fits into. Works that seem to continue, expound upon, and innovate within that tradition are the ones that experts tend to be most interested in. There is nothing wrong with looking at a Thomas Kincaide and thinking, "Well that's pretty." Many people, however, think that art can be more than nice, that it can inspire new thought and new understandings of beauty. I won't argue that there is not an excess of pretense within the fine arts community, but there is also a lot to learn from the so called experts if you will sift through it.

[Dallas Tim]

Cheek,

Studying the history of art or looking at the various styles and their chronology and development is, as far as I can tell, pretty concrete. "Leonardo painted these and used these techniques..." or "Michaelangelo lived during this time and was a contemporary of these other artists..." These facts are, typically, not in dispute.

When I think of great art, I think of portraits of great people doing great things. Men in battle, religious figures/scenes, etc... Even Rockwell's snapshots of everyday America life remind me of a simpler time and place.

Let me be clear, I have a hard time tracing the outline of my own damn hand with a pencil, let alone painting something else out of the imagination of my own mind. My beef comes when someone creates something (random drawing, painting, sculpture) that means nothing to me or is of no value to the general public in terms of representing ANYTHING that we can identify with in a tangible way, but then dismiss some other artist because their work is not "up to par."

I realize that I am painting with a somewhat broad brush (tee-hee) and that not every artist looks down their nose at others. I just have heard some dismiss artists like Kincade as if they're work is somehow better.

Again, I'll state that it's typically the artist that inspires, more than the art. I am more inspired by my 5 year old daughter's drawing that says "I love dad" that ANYTHING Kincade or anyone else creates. I am also blown away by anything that reminds me of something great (person, place, even horses).

I just crack up when people seemingly have to be told what to like or that they should be inspired by it. I'll guarantee you that if you lined up 100 various pieces of art by well-known artists and those who are not well known and who have no experience, all judged by the everyday guy/gal, the results would not be what the art world thinks it would.

[Leighton]

I don't like Kincaid's paintings for the same reason I can't stand a lot of the cutesy, kitschy angel-figurine stuff that Hallmark sells. It's mostly because of what I look for in art and stories; I hope to find something I can "use" in my everyday life, something that can both inspire me (whether to better behavior or greater insight into the way things are), but also let me identify with parts of the world the work evokes. It has to be something sufficiently unreal to provoke reflection, but sufficiently real to say, "This is how things are, or could be," letting the viewer construct a bridge from the world we live in to the world imagined in the art.

Kincaid's paintings are peaceful, but there's nothing in them that I can experience an emotional connection with, nothing about them that I can say, "Yes, this portion of my experience resonates with this aspect of the painting." The only parts of me that they can touch are the parts that quietly wish for the world to conform itself to my wishes, the quiet, passive-aggressive parts that want me to stop being myself and live instead in the world of my imagination. I tend to think everyone needs to withdraw into that from time to time, but doing it through the medium of someone else's art isn't something that appeals to me at all; when I need creative release, I can build worlds well enough on my own.

There isn't much by Norman Rockwell that I like either, because they try to evoke "simpler" times that weren't nearly so simple as people would like to think.

I don't know that I would go so far as to say that people shouldn't like Kincaid's paintings or Rockwell's drawings; most of my family does. Probably there are better things to be inspired by, but part of my understanding of art is that you have to build your relationship with it on your own and on your own terms, which means other people's interference usually isn't helpful.

[cheek]

Of course there are people who choose to like what is fashionable in all areas of art for the purpose of appearing 'with it.' That should not discount the value of having people who know much more about art than I do saying you might want to give this piece a closer look. I personally don't have time to give even a modest fraction of what is out there a serious look. So it is legitimate and useful for me to use the experts as a filter. Of course, there are many experts with differing opinions; so it's a good idea to listen to more than one.

It's a lot like me asking my friend Micah about a new band I'm interested in. I'm not supplanting his opinion for mine. But he spends much more time listening to new music than I do, and I've learned to trust his judgement. I may not like what he says is good, but it is a good starting place.

[Dallas Tim]

Cheek,

I think your reference to the relational aspect of it, i.e. having someone you trust or who knows you, recommending something because they know you'll like it, makes good sense.

And I agree with Leighton that everyone is inspired by different things. What does it for me may not for another.

I don't think my preferences, where are is concerned, are any more valid than anyone else's.

Thanks for the feedback.

[ninjanun]

It's funny you should mention Thomas Kinkade, Greg, as several people in my Color Theory class (including the teacher) were discussing his artwork and whether or not it was...well, art. Here's a few links on Thomas Kinkade, and why he's not such a great artist:

The Thomas Kinkade dilemma. Namely, that his artwork has no connection with reality (many artists and critics agree that good art should contain truth and not present a false image).

The Evangelical Outpost has a nice compare-and-contrast of Thomas Kinkade's work, and why the "painter of light's" work is fit to grace a hallmark card, but not a museum wall.

Tim, I get what you're saying about art being subjective, but I can only agree up to a point. There's plenty of art that I think is awesome, inspiring, challenging, etc., but honestly, it's just too ugly, brutal, or disturbing to display in my home. But it reflects the real world and challenges us to reconsider how we view the world. Just because I don't like it, doesn't mean it's not art. And just because I like something doesn't mean it IS art. Britney Spears' music is entertaining, and certainly has its place in our culture (such as dance clubs and aerobics classes) but it's not meant for serious reflection, and not something one would want to uphold as a fine example of 21st century music, or even pop music. It's just lacking the kind of depth required to be considered a great work of art.

I have some prints in my home by Jack Vettriano, another artist who has gotten flack for being a hack. But I like his stuff and it graces my walls because I think it's pretty and it evokes pleasant images and contributes to the decor. But is it art? I don't know. For me, it serves more as decoration, not art.

Certainly, both Thomas Kinkade and Jack Vettriano can paint better than I can. They are technically talented individuals. I think critics and other artists get their knickers in a twist because they are not producing works that challenge, inspire, or present us with truth, and therefore the work does not necessarily belong in an art museum.

What's more, Thomas Kinkade's paintings, which are reproduced by art interns working for him, and then he comes in and adds a few "touches" and signs his name, are sold for upwards of $10,000 a pop. That's quite an investment for your typical Middle class family to pay in light of the fact that they're not even getting an original piece of artwork out of the deal. This strikes me as dishonest, somehow.

[Kevin]

I'm reminded of something Flannery O' Connor said in a speech once. I wish I could remember the exact quote, but she basically said that if you can't trust an artist to make good art, you certainly can't trust that same artist in matters of religion. Good advice, that.

[Dallas Tim]

When has Kincade demanded that his work be dispalyed in the Louvre? My point is that he decided to paint quaint paintings because that's what he wanted to paint. So what? Many people liked his work and he became famous as an artist who painted these types of images. Suddenly, he's being criticized because he's not some great artist.

Here's a quote from Jackson Pollock...

"When I am in my painting, I'm not aware of what I'm doing. It is only after a sort of 'get acquainted' period that I see what I have been about. I have no fear of making changes, destroying the image, etc., because the painting has a life of its own. I try to let it come through. It is only when I lose contact with the painting that the result is a mess. Otherwise there is pure harmony, an easy give and take, and the painting comes out well."

Ok... so this "great" artist" says he doesn't even know what he's doing half-way through the painting and when I look at it, I'm told I should be "inspired."

How uninspired does one have to be, in order to be "inspired" by the work of an admitted alcoholic who himself claims he doesn't even really know what he's doing and whose work has "harmony" as long as he doens't "lose contact" with it. WTF?

Pollock's "One" (in N.Y.'s Museum of Modern Art) might inspire some, but why? Why does a big mess of color painted by someone who was possibly drunk and confused as to his work, become touted as some "inspiring" work of art?

Are we really that dull that we need this guy to push us to greater heights of inspiration with what amounts to a jumbled array of haphazard colors that only he can explain? What skill does it take to throw paint all over the floor while nursing a gin and tonic?

When I see a Rembrandt or a Michelangelo, I am inspired by the skill and talent of someone who can take clay, canvas, paint, etc... and literally make it look real. When it comes to Pollock, I ask myself, "How much whiskey went into that thing?" Any yet there are those out there who will tell me that I need to be inspired by Pollock, but that the works of Kincade (which remind me of family, home, roots, community, all of which have had the greatest inspirational effect of me) are just drivel.

I have a feeling that if DaVinci took a look at "One" and was then told that the artist was once considered America's greatest painter, he's be very embarrased for America.

I don't hate Pollock, I'm just using him as an example of what I see as a big wad of disingenuious hypocrisy foisted on the masses by the modern art world.

I guess I'm not alone though - well-known critic Craig Brown called Pollock's work "...decorative wallpaper, essentially brainless..." Others will, no doubt laud him as a fantastic artist who was brillitant in his use of style and method.

It's all in the eye of the beholder. Or, as in Pollock's case, the beer-holder.

[greg]

Tim,

Reminds you of home? Really? You lived in a cottage surrounded by millions of flowers? There was the faint glow of candlelight through the window? Seriously, I'm no JP fan either, but Kincade's "realism" is the literary equivalent of fantasy fiction. And, as someone pointed out, he doesn't even paint the damn things himself. I'm weary of Christians apologizing for the hack. Sounds to me like he needs a little alcohol to inspire some real creativity, as opposed to this idealized white fantasyland pseudo-Americana he's been doing.

[Zossima]

Kinkade is to art as Lahaye and Jenkins are to fiction. He is to art what Las Vegas and Disney World are to the mountains of Colorado. He is Budweiser compared to Westvleteren. His work is at best a sugar-bomb that distracts from what real art and real beauty are.

[Dallas Tim]

Greg,

I didn't say it was reality. Most of the greats have included beautiful flowing portraits of people involved in "dressed up" versions of actual events. It's like a music video. No one does the things those videos imply with catchy music playing in the background, but we like to imagine ourselves living life with the soundtrack of (insert your favorite artist here) playing while we do it.

Kincade makes me think of the family gathered at Christmas. Kids playing near the water. The beauty of nature and the warmth of friendship.

No one has to apologize for him - that's the point. He paints what he paints - Hell, even the best artists make copies of their works and they sell for thousands of dollars - don't pretend that he's the only one that does that.

Here you have and artist (Kincade). He starts painting a certian style. A few people say "Man, that's cool, I'd like one for my living room." More people want one... he becomes well-known. He gets rich. Then, as if somewhere along the way he likened himself to Picasso, people start decrying his work. Why?

And what's "real" creativity? Why can't happiness inspire people instead of always having to be somehow roused by the the unstable, dark, misery of others and their vices?

Again, I own zero pieces of anything Kincade has ever produced. I've seen his stuff here and there and think it's nice. Nothing insanely complex, or stupendously deep, just nice, peaceful and warm. He isn't an addict who is at war with himself and whose complexities are evident by the overly sized, twisted themes that seem to impress those who think that not being able to understand the work makes it inspiring.

I don't recall Kincade asking for us to take it as anything more that what it is and you can't criticize him for just doing what he likes to do any more than you would want to be criticized for your thoughts about the subject.

Peace.

[Dallas Tim]

Zoss,

Colorado? You mean a little cottage in the mountains with a wisp of smoke coming out of the chimney? A nearby forest? A little stream running nearby? The refreshing warmth of going inside after being out in the cold all day?

Sounds like a Kincade painting.

Maybe not completely realistic, but it reminds me of the greater reality that is the beauty and majesty of what the real thing is.

Three cheers for Colorado.

[greg]

Tim,

Do you actually read the posts? Kincade doesn't make copies; he adds a few strokes to what employees have painted and then signs the paintings as if he did them. That's fine and dandy, I suppose, but if he's going to do shitty paintings, he ought to at least do them if he's going to sign them and charge stupid money for them.

[Dallas Tim]

Greg,

Check his websight. I saw a couple of paintings for $2000. I'm assuming those might be the ones he highlighted (although since those were the most expensive, I'm guessing they were all him) but some artists charge that much for a pure copy. If someone wants to pay $2000 for something he had just a little input on, who cares? It's a common practice in the art world to make copies. At least he actually puts a little into them. Kincade has also started two projects that equaled 1.5 million dollars for the Salvation Army. He has also helped raise $150,000 for the make a wish foundation. How many artists have done that?

The liberal "art" world is too busy bowing at the feet of people like Robert Maplethorp who think a Crucifix with urine all over it is art.

You can't pay $100 for a bottle of wine that's gone in an evening and then say someone is stupid for paying $2000 for something that will be around a lot longer. Not trying to be harsh here, I'm just saying if someone wants to spend a little more to get what many would consider an investment, then then should be able to.

It also doesn't mean Kincade is Picasso, or Monet. It just means that some like his work and some people like other stuff.

BTW, I just heard a radio spot for an exhibit here in Dallas at a local gallery. It's put on by Kenny Goss (George Michael's partner). One of the paintings is called "All the people I've slept with since 1969."

Of course that artist and Mr. Goss aren't evangelical Christians so, lousy as their work may be, they are excluded from any criticism here.

[greg]

Actually "Piss Christ" was Serrano, not Mapplethorpe, although the latter's b&w photography was beautiful despite the discomfort it wrought in the homophobic crowd. As you well know, Christian or not, if the art, film, or book is bad, it is not above criticism. I have this strange notion though that art ought to be "true" in some sense of the word. There is nothing truthful about Kincade's work: it's idealized nonsense. It depicts a world that never was and never will be, and while that may be okay as long as the fantasy realm is used as a locus for telling a different story that has some truth to it, Kincade's use of the fantasy is pure escapism. That's not art; it's kitsch, but not art.

[Jzzbassman]

As an aside, you don't have to like Pollack, but I really think those who criticize have never seen anything of his in an exhibit.

The depth and texture just cannot be properly appreciated in 2 dimensions.

I'm not that big of a Pollack fan (I enjoy Paul Klee a lot more), but he is often characterized as someone who had no skill by people who don't understand the style.

Oh and Kincade is pure dreck. He is not art just as Britney Spears is not art. Both are in the arts, but skill does not equal art.

[dr dobson]

DT

"I see as a big wad of disingenuious hypocrisy foisted on the masses by the modern art world."

Art of which era do you intend to criticize? Botticelli, Angelico, Brunelleschi, di Montezemolo, Todt et al had nearly the verbatim criticism thrown at them--luckily, these late thirteenth/early fourteenth century artists stayed their course which we now refer to as the Renaissance.

My point is this: just because the popular view of something may be shaken does not and should not detract from any importance a piece may bring to the conversation; conversely, just because an artist secures multiple "studios" in malls across God's favored nation does not necessarily mean that anything produced therein is actually art. It's a ticket to Disney World or the highest-viewed sermon website or similar.

Genius of any ilk certainly carries with it the trait of being an outsider--one that does not flow with the norm.

Architecture's use of the arch, the column, the vaulted roofline, perspective, Palladian windows, glass, stone, etc., was pretty much standard fare (Kincade) until the likes of Brunelleschi, Jones and Wren did things with them that no one prior to them had done--they literally inspired awe at those who saw their works. They pissed alot of people off, too.

That's what art does--it inspires, upsets, causes us to pause and, yes, sometimes makes us feel good.

I think everyone on this thread is correct, you included--art truly is in the eye of the beholder. Art becomes beauty whenever it is deemed as such by its holder.

I hate to admit it, but there are millions of "Footprints" needlepoints that have been removed from above millions of grandmothers' toilets only to be replaced with the Successories masterpiece, "INSPIRE" or one of the many Kincaid copies (or Mardel-inspired copycats). Either way, we have Pollock and Thomas the Train Kincaid to thank for what each of us deem as beautiful.

I just realized that Pollock, the Piss Christ and Thomas the Train Kincaid would make for a great tripartite WWE Smackdown if I even knew what that was.

Oh, how I digress . . .

[Dallas Tim]

Dr. Dob,

Thanks for your comments.

"...They pissed alot of people off, too."

If upsetting people is part of art, then the angst directed at Kincade here in this thread certainly guarantees him a place with the greats.

[bobstevens]

Hm, I really don't understand how people judge paintings.

Films? Books? Music? Even photographs? It's easy to tell if those things are good art or not. Though there are disagreements, there is usually a broad consensus.

But paintings... I've got no clue on. Perhaps it's just a lack of familiarity.

So that said... I'm not opposed to the notion that Kinkade makes bad art. It would certainly fit into the pattern of Christian consumerism. I just don't understand how one arrives there. "His art has no grounding in reality" doesn't really work for me when artists like Warhol and Pollock are held in such high esteem.

[ninjanun]

Hey Bob,

I get what you're saying about Warhol and Pollock being held in such high esteem (even tho' many critics do not, in fact, hold them in such high esteem). Until I took several Art History classes, I had no clue why their work was considered "art." Now I do. Pollock is known as an "action painter," meaning the actual movement and energy used to create the painting is somehow preserved in the canvas...it captures a moment in time that can never be reproduced (unlike a Monet or da Vinci, which someone with enough skill can reproduce). Warhol took everyday popular objects (Campbell's soup can, for instance) and used them as subjects for his paintings, believing the images and objects of current society were just as worthy of display as some duchess of York. He pioneered the silk-screening technique, and used its multiple-image capabilites to make people like Marilyn Monroe into an icon, dehumanizing her image with lurid colors to show how our mass-produced and marketing-driven society cheapens people and situations and trivializes their importance.

I guess the reason these artists are held in high esteem is because they pioneered new techniques, they attempted to say something about Art and its place in society, and challenged people's ideas about truth, beauty, and how society deals with these things. Even the Renaissance artists started moving to Mannerism, in which they attempted to NOT paint what could only be seen in real life, but paint something that could only be imagined. Their reasoning was that anyone with enough time and patience could learn to make an exact representation of say, a person or a meadow. A real artist could paint something that could only be imagined, or that spoke to deeper truths that went beyond the visual experience. This is what eventually led the art world to turn to surrealism, modernism, and abstract expressionism. Again, while I wouldn't necessarily hang some of these abstract art pieces in my house, I can appreciate their place in society (and in a museum) because they represent the artist's attempt to reveal hidden truths or challenge our perceptions.

If anyone had bothered to read my link to the Evangelical Outpost earlier, they would see that Kinkade is capable of painting art that draws the observer in, but he'd rather paint things that do not speak to deeper truths, do not represent reality, and do not challenge our paradigms or pioneer new methods. His schlock is purely for making a quick buck, and that's why it will not stand the test of time (so that $2,000 is not really an investment in artwork--it will likely not appreciate in value past two generations). What's more, he's peddled is his supposed "faith" in order to popularize his paintings, rather than allowing his artwork to speak for itself and reveal deeper Truths about his faith.

[Dallas Tim]

Ninja,

While I do understand most of your argument, I find it odd that you used the "test of time" to reference a type of standard by which to judge art.

Many of the artists who we, today, laud as "great" were viewed, in their own day, as nothing more that poor, ridiculed, failures.

It was only after they died, that critics hailed their accomplishments. Most of the time the artists were more the reason for their popularity than their art. Pollock was a drunk who liked to dance around throwing paint everywhere... my kids do that too (they're usually sober though).

You say Kincade's works "do not represent reality." Does Pollock's? Is that the reality of him being to drunk to paint anything that would represent something we could identify so he just staggered around dropping paint on the floor? That's a "new" technique? C'mon.

Past greats drew Biblical scenes. Scenes that potrayed people doing various common and uncommon things. They used different lighting and styles to bring out the various features of those people/scenes they painted (whether real or imagined). They, for the most part, painted things (whether Biblical or not) that we could identify with. A mountain, a horse, a man, an ocean, an army, an arm, a leg, woman, vase, etc...

Pollock (and others like him) didn't seem to be able to do that, so he just created something so confusing that we just have to call it... "great."

As I stated earlier, I own nothing that Kincade has ever done. I'm just curious about those who would extoll the virtues of Pollock (who was killed while drunk and behind the wheel) over a sober, family man, who's work evidently pleases alot of people because it sells like crazy.

It seems that where much of the modern art world is concerned, the emporer still has no clothes.

[greg]

Tim,

Nice to see you listened to what she said and weighed it fairly...You sound a bit like a synopsis of Schaeffer's Modern Art and the Death of Culture.

[Leighton]

Tim, I don't know if you meant to or not, but you really came across as an asshole in your post.

I don't have enough invested in producing or talking about art to really have a dog in this fight, but I do have at least a small interest in civil, on-topic discussions on this site. Nobody is talking about whether Kincade the man is better than Pollock the man, or vice versa. Ninja's point is that Kincade has purposely chosen not to pursue the kind of things that professional artists tend to aim for, and as a result he isn't considered as contributing to our understanding of what constitutes art.

Nobody is defending "the modern art world" as though there were such a thing presenting a unified front.

[Jzzbassman]

Good Lord, would you take an art appreciation class?!?

You remind me of all the nimrods I meet who don't get why I would want to drink something better than Budweiser without taking the time to find out if there is anything better. After all, how many people can appreciate an Imperial IPA if they have nothing to serve as a gateway?

To say that Pollack couldn't do conventional shows that you didn't have an art history class.

Then again, some people are happy with white bread and velveeta.