The self-proclaimed "painter of light," Thomas Kinkade,
died recently, which incited a great deal of attention on the painter, his art and his legacy.
For people who work in museums, like me, he is extremely controversial. He is popular among the masses, yet he is ostracized by the art world. His work is often publicly criticized by authorities on art and art history, and those same authorities - critics, curators and collectors - were asked to comment on his work upon his death. The criticisms came hard and fast. For a number of
articles that appeared about him online, I read
many responses ranging from complete agreement that his work is kitsch or un-noteworthy to disdain toward the interviewee for being such a snob.
There were few articles that shed light on why the art world has targeted him so vehemently. I'd like to share my own personal viewpoint on this artist and why his work creates great problems for me.
It's not because his work has underlying religious themes
Some people speculate that the art world doesn't like Kinkade because his work has underlying Christian themes. Nope. I can assure you, that's not it. I think anyone who uses religious ideas in a sincere way, who is able to express them in an interesting and non-defensive manner and attempt to be taken seriously, has every right to be part of the art world. Contemporary Jewish and Islamic artists are part of many contemporary art collections. Artists who incorporate Christian themes are too:
Howard Finster,
Albert Herbert and
Sister Gertrude Morgan, for example.
It's not because his art is kitsch
There are many artists whose work could be defined as kitsch. There are many good artists whose work is not kitsch, but will never be collected by museums or sold by reputable galleries. The divisions proscribed by the art world have absolutely nothing to do with each individual person's response to a work of art. Those divisions have simply developed over time as art markets evolved and art dealers and art historians exerted their expertise. Kitsch, low art, and even manufactured art can certainly be pleasant, interesting and popular. And the art world typically doesn't feel compelled to speak out about it.
Heck, I have tons of stuff like this in my own house. For example, I collect
Godey Victorian Ladies plates made by Salem China. I am under no illusion that the plates are hand-painted by some master china painter and are worth enough to someday ensure that I'll never have to work again. I didn't buy them for their monetary value; I bought them because they're weird and interesting and I like them. Along the line somewhere, some illustrator did make the original images [and were converted to lithographs in this case], but I know hand-painted images are not on my plates. And, importantly, Salem China never created the illusion that purchasing these plates was a sure-fire way to set yourself up for life. The plates aren't worth much and that's okay.
Museums typically don't collect kitsch, although there are
notable exceptions. It's what exists outside of the museum and is allowed to peaceably co-exist. No art historian rails on about Godey Victorian Ladies plates.
It's the "shyster" factor
It's the "shyster" factor that, for me, makes Kinkade extremely problematic. If he had just been a painter, no problem. If he had made paintings, then had some company reproduce them as posters and sell them in art reproduction stores, no problem. It's that he created his own galleries, was fuzzy about what was really original art and had a longstanding tradition of duping the public.
Kinkade, or his company, exploited people's beliefs in the following:
- Works bought in galleries must be worth a lot of money
- If it's sold in a gallery, it must be an original piece of art
- I can see brushstrokes on the canvas, it must be an original
- If I have an original work of art, I'm gonna get paid!
Kinkade created his own galleries to sell his own work. There was no vetting, no dealers deciding this work was good and would have a market with collectors. Most of the work that is sold in his galleries is
not original art work. As this
really great article points out, "most of what he did was in multiples; there are very few originals. Most were serigraphs or lithographs, and then sometimes he
or somebody else would maybe hand color them, he would occasionally add a stroke or two, or he might sign them, but they were limited editions." Even his own web site states "Thomas Kinkade limited edition artwork has been
reproduced with the highest standards in the limited edition art industry...The Standard Number edition, Artist Proofs, Publisher Proofs, and Examination Proofs are
manufactured exactly the same way and include equal amounts of highlighting across each edition. The Gallery Proof and International Proofs are manufactured and highlighted equal to the editions above, but include a dime-size gold foil embossed remarque above Thomas Kinkade's painted signature." There is a lot of manufacturing happening. People who think they have paintings hand-painted by Kinkade likely have machine reproductions that Kinkade was not even present for.
Deborah Solon, who holds a Ph.D. in Art History and is an American art expert for Heritage Auction House, states "It's certainly possible that the market for some of his actual paintings could go up," Solon acknowledged. But the possibility, even the likelihood, remains that these buyers are making a long-term mistake if they view their purchases as investments. Shyster.
So why am I getting all riled up about this?
I [and my art librarian colleagues too] am the one who has to deal with people who have his work and are under the misconception that they are sitting on a gold mine. I've only gotten one call so far, but I know they'll be more.
By the way, my friend and I were speculating on who would play Kinkade in the full-length motion picture. I said Gary Oldman initially, but I'm changing it to Philip Seymour Hoffman after reading
this!
