Thomas Kinkade dead at age 54

[Monkeyleg]

Michael Kinkade is not art.

This is art:



I know it's art because an original oil is about $24,000.

[BryanP]

Do you like it?  It's art to you.  You don't like it?  It's not art to you.  Enjoy something for what it is. 

In reference to an earlier part of this thread, I devoured the Doc Savage books as a kid and loved them.  It doesn't really matter that Kenneth Robeson was just a pen name for a bunch of people.

[Scout26]

None of that is art.


This is Art:





 

[freakazoid]

Pff, this is art.

[Viking]

I don't think I've ever heard of this guy before, but after looking up some of his pictures, I like them. Don't see how it wouldn't be classified as art.

Because nowadays, "art" means a crucifix in a bucket of crap. If you actually have skills, talent and thinks paintings should look like something and perhaps even be beautiful, well, you're just pandering to the unwashed masses or something.

[Perd Hapley]

Loves me some dogs playing poker:

http://www.dogsplayingpoker.org/gallery/coolidge/

[230RN]

Or beisbol

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/153/817588.jpg

Actually, Coolidge had a strong sense of composition.  Almost too strong.

[seeker_two]

No.....this is Art.....



.....the rest is just paint on canvas....  

[Harold Tuttle]

[brimic]

^THAT^ is art.

[freakazoid]

And there's more where that came from.

[280plus]

No.....this is Art.....



.....the rest is just paint on canvas....  

Seeker gets it!

[Harold Tuttle]

I'm thinking a whole series of Kinkade's with cars up on blocks, rebel troopers sniping atats, and mayhem would be lulzy.

[brimic]

I'm thinking a whole series of Kinkade's with cars up on blocks, rebel troopers sniping atats, and mayhem would be lulzy.

Colonial Marines fighting Xenomorphs.

[K Frame]

Nope.

This is art. Highly allegorical, and unfortunately deteoriating (sp?) badly.

If anyone knows what this painting is, and who painted it, I'll be suitably surprised, and will give you a cookie.

[RevDisk]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Pinkham_Ryder

The Race Track (Death on a Pale Horse) (1895 - 1910)

Ryder was known for being slovenly. Toss up that his poor painting techniques were intentional, or that he was too scatterbrained to use durable painting techniques. He basically threw paint and varnish on in layers.  

That painting is about a dude who bet everything on a horse race, lost and offed himself.  Basically "highly allegorical" for "gambling is a tax for folks that can't do math."


Art is about talent. ANYTHING can be made deep through "interpretation". Poorly made art is about a lack of talent or skill. Yes, I do consider modern scribbling to be art. Just very poor, often pathetic art made by "artists" who care more about the scene than they do the end product. Good art is well made. No more, no less. You can toss in something deep and moving, or just make a portrait of some hawt nekkid chick. Deep meaning is a secondary concern. I like it, personally, but it's not necessary to qualify.     

[Harold Tuttle]

I happen to love outsider art

The New Orleans House of Blues has a fine collection

Kinkade was insider of the shopping mall art.
Little pink houses, for you and me.

[Harold Tuttle]

[K Frame]

I'll give you props on identifying the artist, but you are sadly offbase on the rest.

Art is not simply good technique and choice of proper materials. 

If that were the case, Adolph Hitler and his drawings would be held the same regard as Picasso, Durer, or a host of others.

"That painting is about a dude who bet everything on a horse race, lost and offed himself.  Basically "highly allegorical" for "gambling is a tax for folks that can't do math.""

Wow. Clinically correct, conceptually not quite sure what to say to that, other than

Here, you'll probably be more comfortable with this...

[lee n. field]

I liked looking at his prints in the mall store and watching the subtle changes as you dimmed or raised the light.

His works often seemed slightly surreal, like they were from an idyllic place out of a fantasy novel or the memory of a place that was fonder and more exaggerated than the reality.

I tend to mentally edit in ninjas, or Nazis, or both. 

[Pharmacology]

Picasso,

Funny enough,  when I was in the Picasso museum  in Barcelona,  I didn't care for the majority of his work.

There were a bunch that really, really  struck me.  Among them, a series of paintings of four sisters.  Can't remember the names.

[lee n. field]

Nope.

This is art. Highly allegorical, and unfortunately deteoriating (sp?) badly.

If anyone knows what this painting is, and who painted it, I'll be suitably surprised, and will give you a cookie.

[K Frame]

There are many artists whose work I generally don't care for, but who have a small number of works that just reach out and grab me.

About the only artists whose work I tend to like as a whole are de Chirco, Degas, Vlaminck, O'Keeffe, Ryder, Rothko, and oddly enough, Francis Bacon (which worries me to no end).

[Harold Tuttle]

everyone loves bacon

[RevDisk]

I'll give you props on identifying the artist, but you are sadly offbase on the rest.

Art is not simply good technique and choice of proper materials. 

If that were the case, Adolph Hitler and his drawings would be held the same regard as Picasso, Durer, or a host of others.

Actually, Hitler was famously not a great painter. A poor example of Reductio ad Hitlerum.

If his paintings were as good as Picasso, Durer, etc, then yes, his paintings would be as good as the paintings by Picasso, Durer. And we would have likely known him for being a painter, not the genocidal madman of the Third Reich.

I specifically said art was about talent and skill.  Not just good technique and proper materials.

"That painting is about a dude who bet everything on a horse race, lost and offed himself.  Basically "highly allegorical" for "gambling is a tax for folks that can't do math.""

Wow. Clinically correct, conceptually not quite sure what to say to that, other than

Here, you'll probably be more comfortable with this...

Because I'm sick of poor art being held up as awesome because it has "deep meaning".  Lancaster has a First Friday, which is when all the galleries stay open late and whatnot. The majority of the work is absolute crap. But "has deep meaning", "it's all about interpretation, man", "all judgment is relative", blah blah blah. The piece should speak for itself. When it comes to the quality of a painting, it should not matter whether there is a famous name attached to a painting, or a 7 year old's. The quality of a painting shouldn't require a ten page artist's interpretation for it to be judged as excellent.

And yes, I DO subtract points when the artist has a poor understanding of the materials in which he is working.