By now, most of you know that Christian painter Thomas Kinkade died Friday, April 6th in his California home at the age of 54.
The “Painter of Light” was mostly know for his prints of idyllic cottages and gardens scenes, and are said to hang in 1 out of every 20 homes in the U.S.
But for a man whose images mostly reflected peace and tranquility, his worked often stirred an uproar and received much criticism from the art community.
Having seen his cottages, landscapes, churches and garden scenes for years in the marketplace, I personally perceived him as a success. His work had huge commercial appeal (which most artists long for) while remaining true to Christian concepts of peace, comfort and serenity.
But, I have personally witnessed bitter debates that ranged from calling Kinkade’s commercial success 
“selling out”, to challenging his very skill as an artist. While some honor the man for giving the masses warm, positive images; many in the art community find it fashionable to call his work “tacky”.
So what’s your take on the “Painter of Light”?
(Be honest…you’re safe here.)
As someone who used to work in Christian retail and sold Kindkaids’ work I’ve had and heard many thoughts on Kinkaid and his selling methods. My opinion was that the man obviously had talent and he obviously had a market as well as buyers. All these, the talent the market and the buyers were/are blessings from God. 1 Timothy 5:18 says that a worker deserves his wages. If there are people out there that want to buy a $3,000.00 print, and have the money to do so, then there is a market and he should, and did , sell. Mr. Kinkade was a talented painter and Christians who think he should have been selling his art for change or giving it away for free, as I’ve often run into myself,are kidding themselves.
Per the subjects he painted? That was his thing those houses and the light. Everyone has different taste and style. I myself didn’t like his work as it reminded me of sappy romantic images from the 80′s and that the art was stuff you see at your grandmother’s house. I will say though that the work did what it intended and I couldn’t look at a Kinkade piece without feeling peaceful. Still I’d never buy one or put one up in my home.
I saw a small print of his work priced at $3,000 in one of his “stores”…To serve the god of money and say you’re a Christian? And then proclaim yourself the “Painter of Light”? (The first time I saw this, I imagined there were a few Impressionists rolling over in their graves.) I feel sorry for him, and hope he receives the same Forgiveness which we all need.
DJ-
Thanks for chiming in.
So, if I’m hearing you correctly, you see Kincaid as having served the god of money because he had an asking price of $3,000 for one of his works? And that also casts doubt on his Christianity because of that price tag?
Just trying to clarify.
Yes, Tony. That, and some other indicators. And I say this not with maliciousness, but with sadness.
it’s unfortunate that he changed his style into a formula in order to sell idealized images to the public.
In Joe Carter’s blog article posted on “First Things” referenced in techne’s comment, I saw quality artwork done by a young Kinkade. In my opinion (which, granted, is not worth much
Sign of Commercialism: To have a chain of stores with your name on them. (Sam Walton knew how to make a buck – okay, lots of bucks.) As I passed by A THOMAS KINKADE store in a mall in South Carolina, I noticed it was rather empty of customers, and so entered the store to find out why.
There was one representation of his work on each dark blue wall of the sparse, dimly-lit gallery. I got closer to an approximately 12×14″ framed work and was disappointed to find it was a print. Then when I saw the price tag, I gasped and stepped back.
Why would an artist who is dedicated to growing in their craft and motivated to bring beauty into the world, feel the need to get tied into the tremendous overhead of opening a chain of mall stores with overpriced prints?
Possible Answer: It’s not about loving people as Jesus loved them; it’s about giving them what a mass producer thinks they like to get their money. Okay, Coke and McDonald’s do this. The WORLD does this. And apparently, some Christian businesses do this, as well. As I said, we all need His Forgiveness…
I do wonder what he actually thought about as he painted those perfect, lit-up, unpopulated scenes. Did he actually believe in his style? When the commercial demands were all fulfilled, did he ever take a break from it and paint something different? Something with passion? Was this all the result of bad business advice? How did his strong, wreckless personality play into his decisions? Was he fulfilled?
And my REAL heart-question: What was his prayer-life like?
So many claim jealousy amongst artists who criticized him; there are those of us who sincerely enjoy seeing others succeed. But each to his own definition of “Success”…
Thanks for the reply, DJ.
I guess that’s what I don’t get: An illustrator finds a demand in the marketplace for selling illustrated work to Christian consumers…with some of those consumers willing to pay top dollar for his illustrations because they agree with the value. The illustrator discovers that there is even enough of a demand where he can launch retail outlets around the country.
Why does discovering a want in the Christian marketplace and fulfilling that want make the illustrator a villain? Why does this not apply to Christian singers and musicians who also “sell” their artistic gift and earn top dollar for appearances, publishing rights, etc. Why are they still loving Christians bringing beauty to the world…but the illustrator is a sell-out?
Good question, Tony. I put both over-priced musicians and over-priced visual artists in the same category, myself.
In Luke 10, Christ told his disciples to accept what hosts offered, but to carry nothing with them as they traveled to do His work.
This chapter and other scriptures tell me to price work responsibly and ethically, if a price list is involved at all. And what I receive, I am to freely share with others. It’s not mine, anyway; it’s all His!
So I did admire his awesome talent and ability,Kinkade that is , I was not at all attracted to his work. It seemed overly sentimental and unreal and highly superficial,I could not find a true touch of spirituality, that he was trying to appeal to. So, taste in art is very individual very diverse! Never begrudged him his success! Sorry he had to go so soon!
Thank you Eva, for sharing your thoughts on Kinkade’s work. Please continue share with us!
yikes! daniel sidell weighs in on kinkade: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/cultivare/2012/05/the-dark-light-of-thomas-kinkade/
I thought his paintings were absolutely beautiful.I went to a gallery in Florida showing only his work and I was amazed at the beauty. Jelousy,jelousy, too bad every one couldn’t just enjoy.
so when you write “beauty”, what exactly do you mean? aesthetic beauty? personal subjectivity? fittingness?
and do you mean to imply that anyone who doesn’t think his paintings are “beautiful” is jealous (of either his skill or his success, presumably)?
then again, philippians 4:8 has this: finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things.
while “beauty” can be one aspect we ponder, thereare other ideas and effetcs as well.
some articles/ comments online.
by some who knew him “way back when”: http://verheiden.blogspot.ca/2012/04/when-i-was-thomas-kinkade.html and http://concrete.blogs.com/paul_chadwicks_weblog/2012/04/thomas-kinkade-1958-2012.html
by christian cultural critics: http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/06/thomas-kinkadersquos-cottage-fantasy and http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303425504577353743803849150.html
by contemporary art critics: http://blog.art21.org/2012/04/12/looking-at-los-angeles-the-painter-of-light-is-radically-not-me/#more-61234
while i have huge issues with his work – primarily because of its sentimentality and kinkade’s stated (and unbiblical) desire to “depict the world without a fall” – his death is regrettable.
Personally, I enjoyed his paintings. If his paintings gave others joy, why are others complaining. After all, art is in the eye of the beholder.
or not. are you saying that the definition of what makes something “art” is completely subjective?
God wanted us to experience joy, and He created us to be creative and give others love, joy, hope, and encouragement. Regardless of whether other artists like Thomas Kinkade’s art, he brought a lot of love and joy and comfort to many many people. The first time I saw a Kinkade painting it reminded of me what Heaven might be like, or what our world could be if we were good, and living like we were intented. It gave me hope. He was doing what he was created to do. He was able to do what he loved, bring so much joy to others, AND make a great living doing it. We are all creative, therefore artist, made in the image of our creative artistic Father. Who are we to judge what people should do with their God given creativity (unless it is hurting someone). What do you think God was thinking of Thomas as he was creating? Nothing less than love and joy. I might get some flak for this but I also think that some artist are just a little jealous of his success. Is there a rule that you can’t be successful and an artist? We need to embrace, love and encourage other artist….even if they are successful and even if we don’t understand it/them.
to be honest, i’m not sure most of the criticisms levelled at kinkade’s work has anything to do with success (unless it’s about his commodifiction of sentimentality). besides, when did success become the measure for anything’s worth? there are a lot of things that are popular and sucessful that do nothing for us positively (by which i do not mean to say that the opposite is important either – the inaccessibility of much art is equally problematic).
and whether God was looking down on us with love is, i would argue, irrelevant, he loves everyone, regardless of what they do.
lastly, kinkade’s intention was to “depict a world in which the fall never happened” which is patently unbiblical. besides, this vision of heaven (depsite its being filled with light – oi) is devoid of people.
He really had some backbone to stay true to himself in light of being considered a cultural joke. Hey, even the “haters” can’t deny that Kinkade’s art brings you to a place of peace and light-and uplifts. Now, some of my art is considered shocking… I work raw, honest (I say what I WANT/NEED to say) sometimes melancholy, sexually explicit, dark . . . Kinkade wasn’t my taste per se, but a coworker gave me one of his cards and I kept it on my desk – I grew to value his work as I would meditatively gaze at it when the going got tuff — it was a little slice of peace, hope and grounding. WHAT is tacky about that? Besides that, art is in the eye of the beholder and should only be critiqued or judged by your instructor during your art school daze. Art is neither good nor bad – art just “is.” The man knew who he was and what he was (rare) and you gotta give him kudos for that alone. God bless ‘im.
i disagree. there is such a thing as bad art. really.
Personally I’m not a fan of this style of work. But 1 in 20 homes is what it boils down to. His work makes millions of people smile and feel at peace. I’d hope for nothing less as an artist myself.
I like Kinkade’s paintings. They make me feel peace when I look at them. It angers me that other artists throw rocks at him because he was successful in his chosen style. It is really ugly to call a fellow artist a sellout, in my opinion. To what is he selling out to? From what has he turned away? Who has the right to make that sort of judgment?
I have heard this said by my Kung Fu instructor, and I wholeheartedly agree: you should not work to please your colleagues. Work to please those whom you are serving. If he had a painting in 1 out of every 20 homes, I should like to think that he served his audience.
All of that said… Haters gonna hate.
Correction: “To what is he selling out?”
I think that the real spite towards his work is because of his faith. Back when I was in art school, the only person who ranted about disliking him was the same violent atheist teacher who eventually drove me to just drop out to avoid him…
I’ve followed online news for quite some time, and the types of spiteful comments he’s getting on news articles following his death simply aren’t left on the obits of people who were far worse, but not religious… People wrap it in all sorts of excuses, but the core problem most commenters have with him is his belief system- and among the artistic “elites”, the fact that he was able to succeed without doing the sorts of “enlightened” (read: trashy) work that they did. Kinkade had real skill: most modern art is something I could churn out half-asleep in a few hours or even minutes, but I could not replicate his work. On at least a visceral level, I think that the snobbier artists are aware of the fact that his work took more effort…
I think that he made some bad decisions- and in particular, his coworkers did- but I can’t comprehend the sort of spite people are leaving on articles which are, in effect, online memorials for a deceased person… If he was truly as bad as they say, I doubt that they would hate him so much.
Kinkade had his faults, as we all must, but his work appealed to “commoners” like me, instead of the “enlightened” art critics who rave over globs of toilet paper or violent, badly-executed obscenities. Kinkade proved that someone can be a success in the art business by portraying beautiful, happy, uplifting things instead of gross or violent ones- and I’ll always be grateful to him for that.
really?
(sigh)
I totally agree with you! Thomas Kinkade was an incredible artist whose work I love. People who hate him are simply jealous of his success and will use any excuse to tear him down. There hatred of him and his work is a reflection says more about their sad, pathetic and miserable existence than it says about him.
Thanks for your feedback, Toria.
I’ve just seen so much criticism over how an illustrator (Kinkade) figured out how to create a marketing machine for his work. To me it’s why so many artists struggle financially.
Tony-
On the one hand I love the visual narrative of Kincaid’s work. In response to my English & Irish heritage, I’m an Anglophile. I love cottages, villages, and romantic Currier & Ives scenes. As an artist, I agree with David Weiss, it’s not my first choice of visual art.
Lastly, being a Christian; being an artist; having to deal with groundless criticism from both the secular (“You’re too religious!”) and the Christian worlds (“You’re too worldly!”), I’ve experienced the wrath of jealousy, covetousness, envy and anger. First hand, I have have seen it drive people to make the most absurd comments about my work.
For me, Kincaid’s work has a mass appeal, and I believe that was always his intention – to bring the theme and beauty of light in this dark world into the lives of the masses.
Thanks for listening.
His stuff isn’t among my favorites, but I have to admit the luminescence of his work is technically pretty cool. I gave up trying to grade art a long time ago. If I could get to that level of success I could fund many ministries.
I begrudge no one their pleasure or tastes. Kinkade the artist struck me as a technically masterful stylist, but one who took the easy surface level approach to his work. Compare Kinkade’s art with that of Jean Beraud (whose rainy day style seems to have heavily influenced Kinkade) & ask yourself which was the better painter.
Kinkade’s art was often criticized for lacking human beings, centering instead on landscapes or idealized buildings where no human marred the perfection. That probably is one reason why his work didn’t appeal to me as much as that of others (noticeably Beraud, who’s rainy day street scenes were filled with Parisians interacting with both the weather and the city).
On the other hand, that approach served him well during his brief tenure as a background artist in animation; it would not be unfair to say his backgrounds are one of the best things about Ralph Bakshi’s movie, FIRE & ICE. (Bakshi getting decked in the parking lot by Frank Frazetta over “artistic differences” is THE best thing…)
If there is a serious criticism to be raised over Kinkade personally, it is as Kinkade the businessman, not Kinkade the artist. While he was never personally held responsible for the accusations of fraud against his company, nonetheless it was his name on the company; he bears responsibility at least insofar as he did not select more scrupulous people to run the company (and if he was involved on the fraud, shame on him). There are numerous accounts of the accusations & subsequent lawsuit online; suffice it to say it is neither smart nor ethical to undercut your own franchisers and run them out of business.
Having read his writings and listened to him speak, I see a man with a big and good heart and a tremendous talent from God. He did good with the gift and gave glory to God using it as his platform. Like everyone I know, he struggled with weaknesses. That doesn’t negate the fact that he leaves a good legacy.