So clearly the post didn't work.. Here is the blog.
There is no doubt that the world of art is extremely controversial. But at least in my mind, the harshest debate comes to the value and sale of art. We have spent much of this semester trying to define what art is and what makes people enjoy it and in that case want to buy it.
When we consider the video that we watched in class on Friday about Thomas Kinkade we must keep in mind a few very important things. There is little doubt that in some sense Kinkade's "paintings" are pretty. Both the interviewer and the art critic in the video both had a very harsh outlook on Kinkade's art. I felt that I needed the set out "painting" with quotations because while Kinkade's painting clearly have a large amount of value, but much of Kinkade's criticism comes from his mass production of his art. The critic looked at Kinkade's art and saw patterns or formulas. Sure, Kinkade uses a formula for creating his works and as Kinkade stated he was using the styles that he did so he could create his works faster. And that brings us the point that I feel is the most important point of consideration. Kinkade is an artist. And that is his job. So if people get frustrated with him for being good at his job that is one thing but when he is put in a negative light because he understands that he has found a niche of art that people will pay for and capitalized on that, he loses artistic value? No. I think not. His art is still art. We know that a print of one of the Old Masters do not have the original, just like Kinkades work, but we don't say that the old works have lost their artistic merit because they are recreated as prints. In the end selling prints of his work is Kinkade's job, and as it turns out he is good at it.
I can see where criticism would come up though. The old masters would not be able to finish a painting in a short amount of time. But Kinkade does that for the sake of he knows that if it looks good it will sell well. And while this seems like a bad thing and in many minds, mine for sure when I saw the video on friday, this intent to create paintings for the sake of money making, I am not sure this is the case of what Kinkade is doing. I would assume that is the feel that the video puts on it. Because it is clear that video creators are only using the words that they want to prove their point. It bothered me in the video where they would play a sound bite of Kindkade and then start talking over top of him while still showing him talking. What is what he is saying not good enough to be played? Or is it just not propagating your point?
All in all, I think that Kinkade has proved himself as an artist. He makes works that look good enough that people feel inclined to spend money on them and hang them on their walls. But at the same time his mass production tactics and rampant appeal to consumerism, such as the flying around and signing prints or adding paint to prints to increase their value by making them more legitimate, has made it hard for art thinkers to support him. But in the end, he is a good artist and an as good if not better businessman.
So clearly the post didn't work.. Here is the blog.
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt that the world of art is extremely controversial. But at least in my mind, the harshest debate comes to the value and sale of art. We have spent much of this semester trying to define what art is and what makes people enjoy it and in that case want to buy it.
When we consider the video that we watched in class on Friday about Thomas Kinkade we must keep in mind a few very important things. There is little doubt that in some sense Kinkade's "paintings" are pretty. Both the interviewer and the art critic in the video both had a very harsh outlook on Kinkade's art. I felt that I needed the set out "painting" with quotations because while Kinkade's painting clearly have a large amount of value, but much of Kinkade's criticism comes from his mass production of his art. The critic looked at Kinkade's art and saw patterns or formulas. Sure, Kinkade uses a formula for creating his works and as Kinkade stated he was using the styles that he did so he could create his works faster. And that brings us the point that I feel is the most important point of consideration. Kinkade is an artist. And that is his job. So if people get frustrated with him for being good at his job that is one thing but when he is put in a negative light because he understands that he has found a niche of art that people will pay for and capitalized on that, he loses artistic value? No. I think not. His art is still art. We know that a print of one of the Old Masters do not have the original, just like Kinkades work, but we don't say that the old works have lost their artistic merit because they are recreated as prints. In the end selling prints of his work is Kinkade's job, and as it turns out he is good at it.
I can see where criticism would come up though. The old masters would not be able to finish a painting in a short amount of time. But Kinkade does that for the sake of he knows that if it looks good it will sell well. And while this seems like a bad thing and in many minds, mine for sure when I saw the video on friday, this intent to create paintings for the sake of money making, I am not sure this is the case of what Kinkade is doing. I would assume that is the feel that the video puts on it. Because it is clear that video creators are only using the words that they want to prove their point. It bothered me in the video where they would play a sound bite of Kindkade and then start talking over top of him while still showing him talking. What is what he is saying not good enough to be played? Or is it just not propagating your point?
All in all, I think that Kinkade has proved himself as an artist. He makes works that look good enough that people feel inclined to spend money on them and hang them on their walls. But at the same time his mass production tactics and rampant appeal to consumerism, such as the flying around and signing prints or adding paint to prints to increase their value by making them more legitimate, has made it hard for art thinkers to support him. But in the end, he is a good artist and an as good if not better businessman.