LOS ANGELES, May 7 (Reuters) - "Painter of Light" Thomas Kinkade died of accidental acute intoxication from alcohol and an anti-anxiety medication, according to autopsy report made
public on Monday by local NBC Bay Area TV.
The Santa Clara County Coroner's Office reported Kinkade's cause of death as "acute ethanol and Diazepam intoxication" and manner of death as "accident," according to the NBC station. Diazepam is the active ingredient in Valium.
A Santa Clara County Coroner's investigator confirmed to Reuters that the autopsy report on Kinkade had been completed but said he could not release it after business hours.
Kinkade, the self-proclaimed "Painter of Light," whose works captivated millions of Americans despite the scorn of many art critics, died in April at his home in Northern California at the
age of 54.
His brother told the San Jose Mercury News newspaper that the painter had battled alcoholism for several years and suffered a relapse before he died.
Patrick Kinkade said his brother had been burdened in recent years by a separation from his wife, financial troubles and the low opinion of his work by critics.
Thomas Kinkade was arrested for drunk driving in 2010, the same year his company filed for bankruptcy. Art galleries reported a surge in sales of Kinkade's paintings following his
death.
Source.
He was a terrible artist, and even worse a schemer taking the money of naive would-be art investors and even honest dealers, so don't feel too bad for him.
lbr, yes there is.
I also don't really think it's elitist to rag on this:
Because holy fucking shit. If that's beyond criticism you might as well hang some kid's refrigerator art in the Louvre.
You mean 80% abstract art that might be already. Art critics really lost credit with me that. Not all abstract art is bad but way too many are too bullshitable.
This man's art is just bland as hell, but it isn't bad.
Art elitism in comtemporary art irritates me to no end.
It often feel the industry isn't that more innocent than Kindade. Only that they do it legally.
Edited at 2012-05-09 02:55 am (UTC)
and no, abstract art is not in the louvre, because the lourve only contains art up until the end of the 18th century, roughly. jfc if you're going to rag on a whole huge genre of art, have some idea wtf you're talking about.
And yes, the Lourve DO showcase modern art, JSYK.
do you think it's bullshit because you believe art has to be representative? or pretty? do you have a problem with conceptual art in general?
the fact that you're defending kinkaide as an "decent but bland" while saying all abstract art is bullshit shows you don't know the first thing about art. which is fine but for god's sake, speaking as an authority about it makes you sound ignorant as hell.
and the lourve occassionally has temporary exhibitions of modern art, but the permanent collection of the largest art musuem in the world actually only spans the beginning of human history until the romantic/neo-classical era. The musee de orsay actually picks up time-wise where the lourve leaves off. seriously, everyone knows this, and i was in the fucking lourve on wednesday for the third time so i have an idea of what i'm talking about JSYK. you're acting as if it has a major modern art component to it's collection. it doesn't.
Then again, things get really dicey when you get into concept art (like Duchamp's Fountain, naturally) and kitsch ... what if it's ironically appealing? That painting is so ridiculous it could be a parody, but then, there's no evidence he was joking.
Fwiw, it's interesting to compare earlier paintings of his with the more famous ones:
or
[/sarcasm, just in case]
It goes back to Formalism and the idea that it's not just the way something makes you *feel* but must also challenge the intellect or uses clever/unique use of the medium. I order to be able to recognize some of those clever techniques you've got to be well educated in the media, which requires specialized education/knowledge: "ew, Kincaid? I totes more sophisticated/knowledgable etc. than to like his work" when in fact his stuff is pretty benign.
1) the racism and misogyny characteristic of NASCAR fans and culture
2) the thinly-disguised hypernationalism that is the subject of this painting
3) this cluttered-ass composition and nonsensical subject matter
4) the artist's nonexistant grasp of perspective
I find it kind of insulting that you automatically associate lower class with inability to think critically about art. The richest people in the world can't think critically about art, either, which is the whole reason Damien Hirst isn't living on the streets. But we're not talking about Damien Hirst here, because he didn't die yet.