ONTD Political

Painter Kinkade died of drug and alcohol overdose - report

4:42 pm - 05/08/2012

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.
rex_dart 8th-May-2012 11:13 pm (UTC)
I don't really think it's elitist to rag on mass-produced pictures with dabs of paint smeared on made by an assembly line that people try to pass off as legit paintings. If you wanna make a shitload of real art, it's called printmaking, and it requires actual time and talent.

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.
maclyn 8th-May-2012 11:33 pm (UTC)
Oh dear god
etherealtsuki 8th-May-2012 11:38 pm (UTC)
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.
chaya 9th-May-2012 01:30 am (UTC)
The fact that the art was used in a manufacturing-line style swindling scheme to mooch off naive old folks and art galleries is what makes it so much worse than just "kitsch I don't like". If the art he made was completely divorced from the context of how he sold it and tricked people I'd probably be a lot more ambivalent about it.
etherealtsuki 9th-May-2012 01:40 am (UTC)
Except that issue is divorced of this conversation is talking about. No one is debating the guy was a complete shitbag of the lowest order but don't get all elitist over his art by saying it could be the same thing as sending a child's painting when the Lourve do showcase abstract art that can easily qualify as child's painting.

Art elitism in comtemporary art irritates me to no end.
chaya 9th-May-2012 01:42 am (UTC)
Out of honest curiosity: art elitism in non-contemporary art isn't irritating to you?
etherealtsuki 9th-May-2012 02:03 am (UTC)
Not as much. My issue with comtemporary arthead when they criticize other forms of art when they have branches that they support that kinda makes a mockery of the fine art industry in itself. There are too many pieces that doesn't really show and too reliant on tell. For example, there was a spot painting that sold for millions. Of a singular dot.

It often feel the industry isn't that more innocent than Kindade. Only that they do it legally.
rex_dart 9th-May-2012 09:31 am (UTC)
It's not really fair of you to portray everyone who thinks Thomas Kinkade was a shithead hack as a contemporary art elitist. A lot of us hate contemporary art.
vanillakokakola 9th-May-2012 02:55 am (UTC)
his art isn't bad like twilight is quality contemporary fiction

Edited at 2012-05-09 02:55 am (UTC)
sarahbeez 12th-May-2012 05:26 pm (UTC)
lol do you have any idea what 'abstract art' actually is

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.
etherealtsuki 12th-May-2012 05:36 pm (UTC)
I do and a lot of it is bullshit. I have issues with art that one can easily explain away than actually show. For example, a lot of abstract expressionism.

And yes, the Lourve DO showcase modern art, JSYK.
sarahbeez 12th-May-2012 06:02 pm (UTC)
"bullshit" wow what a nuanced critique
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.
etherealtsuki 12th-May-2012 06:13 pm (UTC)
I didn't know I have to write an essay. Look, I had to study modern art for school, so you can take I DON'T KNOW ART crap with you. It's not like I have saw one and declared all abstract art is shit.

It doesn't matter how much the Louvre has, I damn well know it's a Classical Art Museum but like a lot of museums, they do show modern art as well to draw in more customers. This not disapprove anything I've said, btw.

Plus it's not like Kindade deserves to be there, just that it's laughable when there has been worse in prestigious museums that do have modern art in some form. Even his fine art critics admit the guy's talented, just that he wasted with bland shit, which I actually with.
sarahbeez 12th-May-2012 10:16 pm (UTC)
lol you apparently know nothing

many of us had to study modern art for school and many of us a) don't confuse "modern art" with "abstract art". I really doubt you truly have any idea what either term means contextually. the impressionists are "modern art" ffs. or do you think picasso is an 'abstract artist'? you haven't shown the slightest bit of competence with how you're talking about any of this, you should get a refund for that course, srsly.

you're also still really embarrassingly wrong about the lourve. it is the largest museum in the world, the most visited museum in the world. they do not need to show 'modern art' to 'draw in more customers' as the reason people go is to see some of the most famous OLD art pieces of all time.

kinkaide isn't talented and any major modern artist is far more talented than he is. you can take your anti-intellectual faux-populist deeply ignorant 'modern/abstract art is bullshit' elsewhere until you can actually create a real argument to support it and stop being wrong about everything.
bmh4d0k3n 9th-May-2012 12:28 am (UTC)
Sweet Grandma Moses. Someone with a working knowledge of perspective should really know better.

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

astridmyrna 9th-May-2012 05:43 am (UTC)
It's like watching a Claritin ad.
alierakieron 9th-May-2012 12:53 am (UTC)
I don't think it's elitist to criticize his art as art. I do think it's elitist to say really shitty things about his fans because they like his art, and there's been a lot of that going around.
sankaku_atama 9th-May-2012 01:26 am (UTC)
Of COURSE that painting is beyond criticism! AMURRIKA NASCAR FUCK YEAH!



[/sarcasm, just in case]
beokitty 9th-May-2012 03:09 am (UTC)
It's telling that the piece you chose to represent his work isn't representative of his typically pastoral themes. The piece you chose does, however, depict things that are generally associated with a lower SES. That is why some people consider this type of criticism of Kincaid elitist - he paints for the common man & the common man likes his work.

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.
rex_dart 9th-May-2012 09:28 am (UTC)
Look, I'm from a blue collar, lower middle class, paycheck to paycheck background, and there is nothing that is okay about:

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.
beokitty 9th-May-2012 04:28 pm (UTC)
I don't automatically associate low SES with being unable to think critically about art. There are many brilliant well educated artistically inclined individuals in a lower SES for one reason or another. But just as you presuppose all NASCAR fans to be misogynistic, intolerant, hyprnationlistic they probably consider people who enjoy degrading popular artists as snobby and elitist.
meran_flash 9th-May-2012 07:16 pm (UTC)
This right here is what we call a false equivalency.
beokitty 9th-May-2012 10:13 pm (UTC)
Are they not both generalizations about a class of people? Are they both not equally correct, and equally incorrect?
meran_flash 9th-May-2012 10:22 pm (UTC)
Nope, they're not.
beokitty 9th-May-2012 10:33 pm (UTC)
Explain why.
This page was loaded Jul 25th 2014, 11:22 am GMT.