dagblog - Comments for "Extinguishing Kinkade"

Some people say Kinkade's art

Doctor Cleveland — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 14:06:28 +0000

Some people say Kinkade's art was unoriginal and hacky. But at least unoriginal hacks can't be blamed for coming up with the bad ideas.

It's a poisonous way to get

jollyroger — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 03:38:24 +0000

In reply to but his brother blamed

It's a poisonous way to get high.

but his brother blamed

Elusive Trope — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 01:25:53 +0000

In reply to Extinguishing Kinkade

but his brother blamed mean-spirited critics for the painter's personal decline.

As someone who is currently in intensive out-patient treatment for alcoholism, and has been struggling with recovery for a decade now, I would say his brother is deep denial. Family members of alcoholics and all other addicts can fall into making excuses like blaming others. Kinkade has a medical disease with pyscho-emotional and physiological facets. He unfortunately did not embrace the treatment options available to those who suffer from this affliction.

Of course it is possible the critics held him down and made him consume the alcohol.

I don't think you can compare

MrSmith1 — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:46:00 +0000

In reply to I don't build my own

I don't think you can compare Duchamp's concept of Readymades with hiring a staff to do your painting for you. With Duchamp, the whole point was that he, as the artist, was taking something that already existed and changing the context in which it is held, and that is what made it art. It forced people to step outside their pre-conceived notions and look at an object from a different perspective.. By turning the urinal upside down and calling it "Fountain", he got people to see the beauty of the form of an everyday object. That was a radical idea in 1917. Duchamp's conceptual vision is what resonates, not the fact that he didn't make the urinal, but bought it in a plumbing supply store. It's what he did with the Readymade that made it art. Kinkade's vision was not in the idea or concept but in the craft, a craft which he farmed out to assistants. In my opinion, there's a very big difference between the two.

Let's put in some dark clouds

jollyroger — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:21:44 +0000

In reply to I think someone needs to go

Let's put in some dark clouds over here, just push your brush down, oh look...they're dumping rain all over unverified anonymous...

Vincent: I've had to make

Donal — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 21:24:26 +0000

In reply to Van Gogh's Ear Guy was one of

Vincent: I've had to make some cuts.

Ear Guy: Can't hear you ...

Van Gogh's Ear Guy was one of

Michael Maiello — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 20:10:51 +0000

In reply to I don't build my own

Van Gogh's Ear Guy was one of the toughest jobs in the art world for awhile.

I don't build my own

Donal — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 20:07:10 +0000

In reply to Damian Hirst doesn't do all

I don't build my own buildings, either. Not lately anyway. And as I mentioned before Marcel Duchamp once signed a commercial urinal and presented it as a work of art. And even the great painters used to have helpers doing the ears, and so on. But I think Kinkade removed himself to a far greater extent. And I think the vision was shallow. We'll see in a few decades if Kinkade art is still worth anything.

It's true, I want to be

tmccarthy0 — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 19:41:31 +0000

In reply to Unfortunately, it is only the

It's true, I want to be Dorian Grey. Dorien Grey on a bicycle of course.

Damian Hirst doesn't do all

Michael Maiello — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 19:36:04 +0000

In reply to Extinguishing Kinkade

Damian Hirst doesn't do all of his own work either. It's his vision, for what it's worth (not a fan) but he has people for the production of many of his artifacts. And that's not so unusual in art, apparently.