Coming Soon š At the beginning of April, youāll be
introduced to a brand-new GoComics! See more information here. Subscribers, check your
email for more details.
Surely you know, celecca, that the second āear is superfluousā¦
I could have told you, Vincent,The world was never meantFor one as beautiful as youā¦
The way Clyde phrased the question, Iād honestly have to say Iād rather be Kinkade. By specifying that Van Gogh was unhappy in his lifetime, that outweighs whatever reputation he leaves behind him. Does being considered a genius make him happy now that heās dead? Kinkade, on the other hand, is probably VERY happy with his body of work.
If the question were āWould you rather be rich, even if it meant doing work youāre ashamed of, or do work that satisfies you, even if it never makes you a penny?ā, then Iād definitely go for the latter (of course, it would mean Iād always need a day job).
Of course, in light of the old joke āIf you could be anyone in the world, living or dead, who would you want to be? The living oneā, thatās another point in Kinkadeās column.
āTis better to be a live hack than a dead maestro.
Or, as Woody Allen said, āI donāt want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it by not dying.ā
True, Eldo, but I was using āday jobā in its colloquial sense of āDonāt quit your day job.ā As an artist (or actor, or writer, or musician, or what-have-you) you can (and many do) call yourself a professional artist (or actor, etc.) as soon as somebody pays you some money to do it, but the first step to really āmaking itā is when you donāt need some other job (waiting tables, pulling espresso, etc.) to pay the bills. Thatās still a long way from being rich and famous, but itās a significant benchmark.
Van Gogh (so the story goes) sold only one painting in his lifetime, and to keep body and soul together he had to borrow from friends and family. If he ever had a day job, I donāt know about it (that doesnāt mean he didnāt, it just means I donāt know that part of his story).
Kinkade can paint pretty pictures, and that certainly takes skill, and probably some native talent. He no doubt puts a lot of work into his paintings.
But thereās a lot more to Art than prettiness (often, prettiness is entirely beside the point). One thing about many famous abstract artists is that they were skilled figurative artists before they moved into abstraction. Mondrian (whose paintings inspired the Partridge Family bus) painted impressionistic landscapes before he moved into geometric compositions; looking at his early works, you can even see where his later pieces came from. These guys knew the rules before they chose to break them.
Kinkade painted the same themes over and over again. He may have been talented but he created mediocre saleable art for the American masses, and they in turn gobbled it up. Thatās the problem with art in America: itās not art unless itās famous and monetizable.
bergamot almost 14 years ago
I like Kinkade to be fair I mostly like his jigsaw puzzlesā¦
lewisbower almost 14 years ago
I wish someone would paint, āNo Loiteringā on that bench.
celeconecca almost 14 years ago
āear, āear!
Constantinepaleologos almost 14 years ago
Thomas Kinkade is a great artistāVan Gough was a wackjob.
fritzoid Premium Member almost 14 years ago
Surely you know, celecca, that the second āear is superfluousā¦
I could have told you, Vincent, The world was never meant For one as beautiful as youā¦
The way Clyde phrased the question, Iād honestly have to say Iād rather be Kinkade. By specifying that Van Gogh was unhappy in his lifetime, that outweighs whatever reputation he leaves behind him. Does being considered a genius make him happy now that heās dead? Kinkade, on the other hand, is probably VERY happy with his body of work.
If the question were āWould you rather be rich, even if it meant doing work youāre ashamed of, or do work that satisfies you, even if it never makes you a penny?ā, then Iād definitely go for the latter (of course, it would mean Iād always need a day job).
Dirty Dragon almost 14 years ago
āWants to have his cake and eat it too.ā
This applies to 95%+ of billionaires.
fritzoid Premium Member almost 14 years ago
Of course, in light of the old joke āIf you could be anyone in the world, living or dead, who would you want to be? The living oneā, thatās another point in Kinkadeās column.
āTis better to be a live hack than a dead maestro.
Or, as Woody Allen said, āI donāt want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it by not dying.ā
fritzoid Premium Member almost 14 years ago
True, Eldo, but I was using āday jobā in its colloquial sense of āDonāt quit your day job.ā As an artist (or actor, or writer, or musician, or what-have-you) you can (and many do) call yourself a professional artist (or actor, etc.) as soon as somebody pays you some money to do it, but the first step to really āmaking itā is when you donāt need some other job (waiting tables, pulling espresso, etc.) to pay the bills. Thatās still a long way from being rich and famous, but itās a significant benchmark.
Van Gogh (so the story goes) sold only one painting in his lifetime, and to keep body and soul together he had to borrow from friends and family. If he ever had a day job, I donāt know about it (that doesnāt mean he didnāt, it just means I donāt know that part of his story).
fritzoid Premium Member almost 14 years ago
Kinkade can paint pretty pictures, and that certainly takes skill, and probably some native talent. He no doubt puts a lot of work into his paintings.
But thereās a lot more to Art than prettiness (often, prettiness is entirely beside the point). One thing about many famous abstract artists is that they were skilled figurative artists before they moved into abstraction. Mondrian (whose paintings inspired the Partridge Family bus) painted impressionistic landscapes before he moved into geometric compositions; looking at his early works, you can even see where his later pieces came from. These guys knew the rules before they chose to break them.
wordsmeet over 3 years ago
Kinkade painted the same themes over and over again. He may have been talented but he created mediocre saleable art for the American masses, and they in turn gobbled it up. Thatās the problem with art in America: itās not art unless itās famous and monetizable.