Maybe too many people over-think the matter?
Critics who negatively criticize Kinkade remind me of those who talk about Tolkien. "Oh, his writing uses WAY too much imagery, he describes it all too vivid, leaves nothing to the imagination. It's too basic in form."
Unless one is creating art for the purpose of pleasing those who have studied for years and know what is said *should* be contained, then it's very difficult to not have the creator's own ideas, thoughts, and self pour into the work, whether the artist is aware of it or not.
I love both Tolkien and Kinkade. Both manage to vividly portray what they are seeing and feeling in their mind in a way one can almost feel, but both take you to a place that doesn't exactly exist, both leave you room for some of your own interpretation and thought as to the particulars.
I might look a Kinkade painting and think "I've seen a road like that before and it was so pretty. Wouldn't it be nice to go back there, but have it be like it was portrayed in this painting, so peaceful, without others about yelling and no fear that on this quiet road with leaves crunching under my feet, that I could walk alone and enjoy it without interruption, without any hesitation or concern for what may happen as I go down it?
Or I might look and wonder what is beyond that garden. The light fades out. Is it simply because of distance or is there something horrid lurking beyond those gates? Will I walk through and continue on to an even deeper level of paradise or do demons wait beyond the gate for those who leave the safety and tranquility of that garden?
For someone to say the artist MUST include this or that to be considered true are is quite pretentious. Who is one person to say that the painting will be interpreted the same way as you do? One can have a strong opinion that totally opposes the next person's strong opinion.
His work obviously struck a chord with many people. It may not have won him glory in the higher ranks of art critics, but it sure managed to get him heard with a much larger group, and that group was willing to line his pockets with cash in return for his way of sharing himself.
I'd say he was definitely a success. Like a good writer, a good artist knows the rules and can. A great writer/artists knows the rules and is comfortable enough with them to break free of them and become his/her own person as an artist. I honestly believe Kinkade managed to do that, as evidenced by his earlier, less popular (yet according to higher art authorities, better) work compared to his later success.
His work makes me think. It makes me dream. It evokes different emotions at different times, even if it is the same piece. What else would I want from a piece of art?
Nothing, except...perhaps, for people to stop thinking I'm a dull person for setting him up along Van Gogh who, IMO, wasn't as talented at painting things with more form or detail than a child, but from a more scientific point of view, I appreciate the attention to how and where he placed things, how me made his paints, etc.. However, without knowing his history and the story behind him, I'd probably only like his work half as much because who he was and how he lived is half the interest and half of understanding the work. IN MY OPINION. Someone else's may differ drastically, and that's okay!
