Kinkade also is alleged by former colleagues, employees, and even collectors of his work to have a long history of cursing and heckling other artists and performers, and is alleged to have openly groped a woman’s breasts at a South Bend, Indiana sales event. He also is rumored to have a proclivity for “ritual territory marking” through urination.[13] Kinkade responded to the Times’ allegations with an apology[14], attributing his misconduct to a period of stress in his life.

And almost equally as bizarre:

In 2006 John Dandois, Media Arts Group executive, recounted a story that on one occasion (”about six years ago”) Kinkade became drunk at a ” Siegfried and Roy” magic show in Las Vegas and began shouting “Codpiece! Codpiece!” at the performers. Eventually he was calmed by his mother[15].

I do not like Thomas Kinkade or his product. I think that he mass-markets bland, uninspired pap as art (with a super-saccharine coating of supposed religious inspiration to boot). I will not argue, though, that he does not have the right to do it - if it works for him that’s fine, I still don’t like it. I do have to admit finding great amusement in how un-christian this supposed christian “painter of light” behaves in business. I think it peels back that saccharine layer to reveal his true nature.

“A Kinkade painting was typically rendered in slightly surreal pastels. It typically featured a cottage or a house of such insistent coziness as to seem actually sinister, suggestive of a trap designed to attract Hansel and Gretel. Every window was lit, to lurid effect, as if the interior of the structure might be on fire.”

Source: Wikipedia: Thomas Kinkade

As you seem bent on attacking what I’ve created here (and my subsequent, unrelated post), according to your logic I should draw the conclusion that you’re jealous of my abilities, no?

And to say Brittney Spears is a peer of KinKade’s is ridicuals!!!

It is interesting that “Kim Christensen, Times Staff Writer” seems to be responsible for the vast majority of articles that tell of Kinkade’s troubles (even those prior to this), as far as I’ve been able to find. And all other articles seem to be piggybacking on the same content through AP or UPI news wires.

Market demand dictates what amount the company prices the paintings to sell. Marketing strategy determines what sells the best, and if marketing these paintings as collectable original arts works, then that is their selling strategy. Seems to me that you do not prefer the art and the company’s methods as do the buyers who purchase it. That’s fine, for I do not think every singer who has won a Grammy deserves it, and therefore, I do not purchase their albums.

As far as the article, I was searching to see if other papers had an article on the subject, but came up empty. I do not trust the slant of the LA Times and would like to read further.

Vince — You may have hit the nail on the head… ;)

Anonymous — I’m glad I held back a little! I’m not sure which among us you were addressing, but for the record I thought his work was kitsch before I had any idea what he did with his Sundays. What I take issue with is his company marketing his product as if it were actually collectable original art. If I wanted to celebrate God’s creation with my paintings, Anonymous, I wouldn’t charge hundreds of dollars for what is essentially a print.

As for our alleged jealousy, who wouldn’t like to be able to paint like Kinkade? As I stated in my post, he’s very talented, but he’s not exactly pushing the envelope! I took the time to write this post not because I’m jealous, but because it disappoints me that so many people seem to have no interest in challenging themselves with art.

We can speculate that he is a true artist and he secretly loathes constructing these saccharine-soaked scenes, but does it to pay for his kids’ schooling. As pure speculation, however, it’s meaningless. It’s my opinion that his current work is the equivalent of a sanitized Britney Spears album: it’s designed to sell.

Thanks for reading.