![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
What is art?
Jan. 8th, 2008 12:40 pmMy arts salon met over the weekend and the subject of Thomas Kinkade came up, why I can't remember. There are many visual artists in this group: cartoonist, painters, many sketchers, some one who does computer graphics for big name films. One of the visual artists had never heard of Kinkade before. We all groaned, wondering how that was possible when his art is sold in licensed stores in malls everywhere. Over the last few days we've been posting articles about Kinkade back and forth to each other. We all agree that we loathe his work. Below is a slightly expanded version of what I wrote to the group.
Yet, his paintings *are* pretty. Nice colors, bucolic scenes, technically proficient.... they're peaceful. But they lack that "je ne sais quois" of something with soul; they're flat. It's an interesting argument: is art always something that is provocative (I would say no)? Can it be something merely aesthetically pleasing? Is it the blatant marketing of his work that is so distasteful? Don't all artists wish for the success that he has?
Kinkade's work is all about marketing. It is merely the selling of a fantasy, a momentary distraction from reality. And he basically says as much in interviews. He says he's selling hope, but really he's selling "Art"- trademarked, copyrighted, all rights reserved.
My only entry point into these questions is to think in terms of music. Kinkade is the pop music of art. I will say that Britney Spears is no Lorraine Hunt Lieberson (amazing, and sadly dead, opera singer) and her music isn't even as musically interesting as Beck (or, insert your own band here). But sometimes it's nice to just groove out to something well produced, that I don't have to work to listen to, or doesn't ask me to bring my own thoughts and experiences to.
Maybe that it's it: art asks us to engage with it, to think and feel and interact, we have to meet the artist some where along the way. Even if we are not moved emotionally or challenged intellectually, we get caught up in the beauty or the experience. It's not just a 100% passive experience. And that's what I find so boring about Kinkade's work: it asks nothing of me.
Yet, his paintings *are* pretty. Nice colors, bucolic scenes, technically proficient.... they're peaceful. But they lack that "je ne sais quois" of something with soul; they're flat. It's an interesting argument: is art always something that is provocative (I would say no)? Can it be something merely aesthetically pleasing? Is it the blatant marketing of his work that is so distasteful? Don't all artists wish for the success that he has?
Kinkade's work is all about marketing. It is merely the selling of a fantasy, a momentary distraction from reality. And he basically says as much in interviews. He says he's selling hope, but really he's selling "Art"- trademarked, copyrighted, all rights reserved.
My only entry point into these questions is to think in terms of music. Kinkade is the pop music of art. I will say that Britney Spears is no Lorraine Hunt Lieberson (amazing, and sadly dead, opera singer) and her music isn't even as musically interesting as Beck (or, insert your own band here). But sometimes it's nice to just groove out to something well produced, that I don't have to work to listen to, or doesn't ask me to bring my own thoughts and experiences to.
Maybe that it's it: art asks us to engage with it, to think and feel and interact, we have to meet the artist some where along the way. Even if we are not moved emotionally or challenged intellectually, we get caught up in the beauty or the experience. It's not just a 100% passive experience. And that's what I find so boring about Kinkade's work: it asks nothing of me.