FA: Thomas Kinkade ORIGINAL "Home for the Evening"

Tony Cooper wrote:
I can't agree that any art is fundamentally detestable. I can
certainly agree that some art is detestable to me, but that's personal
perspective. As long as there's someone out there who likes it, art
is not fundamentally detestable.


I keep forgeting that this is USENET, where people with too much time
on their hands will argue endlessly about whether making lampshades
from human skin was fundamentally destable, or maybe not, because some
fundamentally destable people actually liked them. Go for it. OTOH I'm
happy with the philosophical practicality of admitting that some things
are just too ****ed to be considered in a positive light.

I can't really follow that bit about "belief systems". It seems that
you are saying that an atheist cannot appreciate religious art because
the atheist thinks the belief system itself is fundamentally flawed.


Well the you would have a very stupid and intolerant atheist on your
hands. He's yours, you deal with him. Saner ones would recognize that
we all have belief systems (whether they include a god or not), and the
inclusion of a god does not invalidate the human value of the work any
more than the exclusion of such.

I remember seeing a canvas that was all white except for one small
square of red in some Manhattan museum. MOMA or the Guggenheim, I
think. I was thinking "This guy's scamming us passing this off as
art", but someone on the museum acquisition committee found artistic
value in it. Who's to say which of us was wrong?

Who cares? If you have chosen to ignore the context of the work then
it's wallpaper. Decorative perhaps, meaningful, not. But pretending
that that context doesn't exist is simply self-delusional.

Cheers;
CB

Kris Baker wrote:

"Angrie.Woman" wrote in message
news
Mani Deli wrote:
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 17:23:43 GMT, "Kris Baker"
wrote:

"Mani Deli" wrote in message
news The people who pay for Kinkade don't give a **** about what you'lld
rather buy.
Ah, but that's where you're wrong. Theyll'd [sic] be caring a LOT
when they try to profit from their "investments"....which is how this
crapmeister has sold his wares fromt he beginning. He's the
silkscreen version of "collector plates".


Never the less, the people who pay for Kinkade don't give a **** about
what you'lld rather buy.

They will when they go to sell it in an effort to pay some retirement
expenses.

A

She doesn't get it. Obviously, she has a large "investment" that's
going to pay for her to retire in luxury.


I can't speak for all buyers. My friend who bought one bought it because
she loved it, which is a good thing. But she certainly expected it to
appreciate, and it is sad to think that she probably won't love it so
much when she finds out that it doesn't.

A

"Angrie.Woman" wrote in message
m...

I can't speak for all buyers. My friend who bought one bought it because
she loved it, which is a good thing. But she certainly expected it to
appreciate, and it is sad to think that she probably won't love it so much
when she finds out that it doesn't.

A

You don't think she knows, by now? Obviously, because she's a friend, you
can't tell her that her "art" is worth a lot less than she paid. Until
there's another class-action suit...then you'll be her best friend.

Kris

Im sorry, I couldnt read all the other posts. The tears from laughing
so hard are still running down my face.

I too spit coffee on my dog AND the neighbors' child.


http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=1918

Great!

"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
...
On 5 Dec 2005 20:23:20 -0800, "chris"
wrote:


artangel wrote:
The problem with Kinkade is not the work but the marketing.

If you like Kinkade fine. If you like paintings of kittens with big
eyes fine. Elvis on velvet fine.


This is only true if you look at decorative wallpaper as the highest
aspiration of art. OTOH, if you accept that art represents the
fundamental beliefs of the artist, and that some belief systems are not
just wrong, but fundamentally destestable, then the "I'm OK, you're OK"
philosophy just doesn't cut it.

I can't agree that any art is fundamentally detestable. I can
certainly agree that some art is detestable to me, but that's personal
perspective. As long as there's someone out there who likes it, art
is not fundamentally detestable.

I can't really follow that bit about "belief systems". It seems that
you are saying that an atheist cannot appreciate religious art because
the atheist thinks the belief system itself is fundamentally flawed.

I remember seeing a canvas that was all white except for one small
square of red in some Manhattan museum. MOMA or the Guggenheim, I
think. I was thinking "This guy's scamming us passing this off as
art", but someone on the museum acquisition committee found artistic
value in it. Who's to say which of us was wrong?

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

This is an old getout.
Why deny for yourself the capability to discern good from
bad or better from worse? We all do this with our own works,
and we all do it throughout life in almost every way.
It's a tiresome argument, but it usually goes :" every judgement
is subjective" versus: no, each judgement carries the weight of
opinion gleaned from study, from current culture, from knowledge
and experience, from the confidence of one's own aesthetic
tuning.

--
Thur

On 6 Dec 2005 09:45:47 -0800, "chris"
wrote:


Tony Cooper wrote:
I can't agree that any art is fundamentally detestable. I can
certainly agree that some art is detestable to me, but that's personal
perspective. As long as there's someone out there who likes it, art
is not fundamentally detestable.


I keep forgeting that this is USENET, where people with too much time
on their hands will argue endlessly about whether making lampshades
from human skin was fundamentally destable, or maybe not, because some
fundamentally destable people actually liked them. Go for it. OTOH I'm
happy with the philosophical practicality of admitting that some things
are just too ****ed to be considered in a positive light.

I know the feeling, Chris. I keep forgetting that this is USENET
where people can't spell and Godwin's Law is the shoe that will drop.

I agree, though, that people who like lampshades made out of skin are
destable. I don't think they ever were stable.

Did Ilse Koch consider the lampshades art, or was she just the Martha
Stewart of the wives of SS officers craft circle?

I remember seeing a canvas that was all white except for one small
square of red in some Manhattan museum. MOMA or the Guggenheim, I
think. I was thinking "This guy's scamming us passing this off as
art", but someone on the museum acquisition committee found artistic
value in it. Who's to say which of us was wrong?

Who cares? If you have chosen to ignore the context of the work then
it's wallpaper. Decorative perhaps, meaningful, not. But pretending
that that context doesn't exist is simply self-delusional.

So you believe there is context to the work in this case, but no
context to tigers on velvet?
--


Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 19:11:12 GMT, "Thur" wrote:


"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
.. .
On 5 Dec 2005 20:23:20 -0800, "chris"
wrote:


artangel wrote:
The problem with Kinkade is not the work but the marketing.

If you like Kinkade fine. If you like paintings of kittens with big
eyes fine. Elvis on velvet fine.


This is only true if you look at decorative wallpaper as the highest
aspiration of art. OTOH, if you accept that art represents the
fundamental beliefs of the artist, and that some belief systems are not
just wrong, but fundamentally destestable, then the "I'm OK, you're OK"
philosophy just doesn't cut it.

I can't agree that any art is fundamentally detestable. I can
certainly agree that some art is detestable to me, but that's personal
perspective. As long as there's someone out there who likes it, art
is not fundamentally detestable.

I can't really follow that bit about "belief systems". It seems that
you are saying that an atheist cannot appreciate religious art because
the atheist thinks the belief system itself is fundamentally flawed.

I remember seeing a canvas that was all white except for one small
square of red in some Manhattan museum. MOMA or the Guggenheim, I
think. I was thinking "This guy's scamming us passing this off as
art", but someone on the museum acquisition committee found artistic
value in it. Who's to say which of us was wrong?

This is an old getout.
Why deny for yourself the capability to discern good from
bad or better from worse?

Oh, we do. And we should. It's when we decide that what *we* discern
as "good" is what is "good" for all and all else is "bad" that is
wrong. I discern Kinkaid as "bad", but I allow that he might be
discerned as "good" by someone else.




--


Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

E. laBrett Ruus wrote:

I'd like some opinions on some of these other Thomas KinKade originals
please. Some of them are a bit startling. He's more versatile than I was
led to believe.

http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=1918


Hey, Brother Bart: is that you in the 'painting' on Page 6? It's the one
done by geno1173.

Love the hat.

Loren

I keep forgeting that this is USENET, where people with too much time
on their hands will argue endlessly...

snip endless argument

Obviously you don't.

"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 19:11:12 GMT, "Thur" wrote:


"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
. ..
On 5 Dec 2005 20:23:20 -0800, "chris"
wrote:


artangel wrote:
The problem with Kinkade is not the work but the marketing.

If you like Kinkade fine. If you like paintings of kittens with big
eyes fine. Elvis on velvet fine.


This is only true if you look at decorative wallpaper as the highest
aspiration of art. OTOH, if you accept that art represents the
fundamental beliefs of the artist, and that some belief systems are not
just wrong, but fundamentally destestable, then the "I'm OK, you're OK"
philosophy just doesn't cut it.

I can't agree that any art is fundamentally detestable. I can
certainly agree that some art is detestable to me, but that's personal
perspective. As long as there's someone out there who likes it, art
is not fundamentally detestable.

I can't really follow that bit about "belief systems". It seems that
you are saying that an atheist cannot appreciate religious art because
the atheist thinks the belief system itself is fundamentally flawed.

I remember seeing a canvas that was all white except for one small
square of red in some Manhattan museum. MOMA or the Guggenheim, I
think. I was thinking "This guy's scamming us passing this off as
art", but someone on the museum acquisition committee found artistic
value in it. Who's to say which of us was wrong?

This is an old getout.
Why deny for yourself the capability to discern good from
bad or better from worse?

Oh, we do. And we should. It's when we decide that what *we* discern
as "good" is what is "good" for all and all else is "bad" that is
wrong. I discern Kinkaid as "bad", but I allow that he might be
discerned as "good" by someone else.

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

Like I said, the argument can be tiresome.
You have clipped it out from my post and restated
yours.
To make the argument stick, each of us has to be on
our separate, remote mountain top, making our individual
judgements without any influence by, or reference to,
others or any shared information. Also each artist has to
produce art which is completely uninfluenced by the
marketplace, or by any other artist.
This has never been the case for the world of art, even
Modern art.
When two people or more have an input or influence on
art, then these subjective judgements start to pick up
something of a set of shared references, and even values.
There, I have got it off my chest.

--
Thur