Skip to main content

guzzler of booze. Booze and bankruptcy for this schlock artist. This is not the first time. This phony has been arrested before for public drunkenness. What a creep. Read more about this rotten character,


http://www.examiner.com/pop-cu...ght-arrested-for-dui

http://www.pierretristam.com/Bobst/library/wf-108.htm
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
guzzler of booze. Booze and bankruptcy for this schlock artist. This is not the first time. This phony has been arrested before for public drunkenness. What a creep. Read more about this rotten character,


http://www.examiner.com/pop-cu...ght-arrested-for-dui

http://www.pierretristam.com/Bobst/library/wf-108.htm


And Van Gogh cut off his ear and ended up committing suicide. What the heck does booze have to do with the guy's artistic ability? I didn't know he was projecting himself to be some super-Christian or whatever and that would be pretty hypocritical I suppose. But his art is what it is, regardless of the artist's character. Would it make the art any less brilliant if we found out that Norman Rockwell was a closet child molester? I understand not wanting to support the artist financially by buying his work in these cases but my point is it doesn't affect the ART itself.
quote:
Originally posted by lawguy07:
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
guzzler of booze. Booze and bankruptcy for this schlock artist. This is not the first time. This phony has been arrested before for public drunkenness. What a creep. Read more about this rotten character,


http://www.examiner.com/pop-cu...ght-arrested-for-dui

http://www.pierretristam.com/Bobst/library/wf-108.htm


And Van Gogh cut off his ear and ended up committing suicide. What the heck does booze have to do with the guy's artistic ability? I didn't know he was projecting himself to be some super-Christian or whatever and that would be pretty hypocritical I suppose. But his art is what it is, regardless of the artist's character. Would it make the art any less brilliant if we found out that Norman Rockwell was a closet child molester? I understand not wanting to support the artist financially by buying his work in these cases but my point is it doesn't affect the ART itself.


Yes, his art IS what it IS and what it is is schlock art. It is mediocre stuff and very overpriced. And, yes, his personal behavior does nothing to make his art any more or less the mass-produced fluff that it is. Greeting card stuff at best.

If you really think Kinkade's stuff has merit as art, then I suggest you stick with the law and not even think about working on the side as an art critic or collector.
quote:
Originally posted by lawguy07:
I certainly don't claim to be qualified as an art critic or collector. I just happen to like the stuff. I wouldn't pay a lot of money for it though. Some of the stuff that fetches millions of dollars I wouldn't feed my dogs off of either. As they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.


I agree that there is stuff out there that brings millions, but that is of dubious artistic value. For example, consider how some of the work of the allegedly great abstract expressonist, Jackson Pollack, was produced! He probably could have drunk Kinkade under the table.

http://www.worth1000.com/entri...way-action-paintings

P.S. Look very closely at this painting before you decide anything about it. But Pollack actually DID produce at least one painting while walking on canvas with bloody feet and smearing blood and paint around. It sold some years ago in Australia I believe, for BIG bucks.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×