A World Without the Fall -- Thomas Kinkade's Take on the World

If you are a fan of the late Thomas Kinkaid's work, there is nothing to see here, so you should move along.

If you are not a fan of Kinkaid (I certainly am not), you might be interested in this essay by Daniel Siedell who lays out a very interesting take on Kinkaid's pre-fallen world and its tie to law without the gospel.  Mike Horton even makes an appearance in the essay.

You can read it here:  Click Here

Comments

[moxie]

Give me a break! I don't care for Kincaid's work either; but, I think it's harmless. Seidell is reading way too much into what, for the most part, are just pretty paintings.

[Mark]

Great article.

[Bagheera]

. . . and this is precisely what the saying "A devil behind every bush" was made for. Next in the series, it will be revealed that the antichrist is secretly embedded in Kinkade's paintings. Oh the horror! Bonfire of the Vanities, I implore you!

[Kevin]

Kim, I appreciate all you do and agree with alot of what you say. But this article reads like conspiracy theory, like some kind of last-days-connect-the-dot conference. I think it's pretty pointless to promote an argument such as this. It's dishonoring and lacking grace. Surely there are more important things to do?

[Keith]

I think Mr. Seidell takes Kinkaid's paintings far too seriously. To me, he was a technically accomplished painter (you have to give him that) whose work was, to my taste, saccharine and boring (you've seen one, you've seen 'em all) -- entirely lacking in the wit and charm of, say, Norman Rockwell. It was the relentless self-promotion as a "Christian family-values man" that irritated me -- plus I was highly offended when I saw the "Lighting the Way Home Family Bible Featuring Thomas Kinkaid Art". Yet I don't look for redemption in paintings (or modern jazz, or the poetry of Dylan Thomas, both of which I happen to enjoy). Let's not turn art into a kind of works-righteousness; that would be just as wrong as identifying Godliness with Kinkaid's mass-produced "light."

[Robin]

This is all so "Dorian Gray"!

Years ago, I worked for and had an interesting convo with John Eagle (who is a fantastic painter, btw) who went to art school with and knew TK well.

Mr. Eagle described to me his disappointment that TK had chosen purposefully to paint in the style he did solely for financial gain. In fact, he possessed a very different talent/style than what made him successful. The concepts, projects, marketing, etc., of his brand was utterly deliberate and planned out carefully. (So, I at least, admire his personal discipline and business savvy.)

Apparently, the products he created (yes, products) were an indulgence to gain fame and money - which, Mr. Eagle said, were very important to Kinkade.

This background, I think makes his descent and demise even more haunting and sad.

I also appreciate the article's point and agree with the concepts. However, I go with what some already knew - TK's painting was a brute business venture.

It is tragic TK violated the "sacred" calling of each artist: to be true and authentic to one's art".

Meanwhile, here is the art of John Eagle:

www.studio7gallery.com/artists/john-eagle

[Brian]

Get a grip. It just kills me when people are critical of others because they didn't stay true to the Art...whatever that means. It reminds me of the Scripture ‘We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not mourn.’

Aw, what's the matter? Did Tommy not paint the way you wanted him to paint? Did Tommy make a million dollars while the "real" artists got nuthin'?

Like the joke says: "How can an artist make a million dollars painting? Start with two million." Somehow TK managed to make money and make a lot of people happy.

I'm just wondering, what kind of man kicks a man when he's dead, then goes on to defame his work? I guess he's entitled to his opinion, but he's definitely not entitled to my respect.