Thomas Kincade: Longlasting Prints?

[chris jordan]

I presume everyone knows of the Thomas Kincade phenomenon (there's a great artic le about his marketing scheme in a recent edition of Harpers). One thing I'm cu rious about is the longevity of his prints. He's selling printed "paintings" fo r several thousand dollars apiece, that as far as I know are merely lithographs, i.e., posters, printed with dye-based inks that are guaranteed to fade within a very small number of years. He's holding these prints out as investment-quality art, selling to the Reader's Digest set; so far he's sold more than ten million of these prints. Nowhere have I seen any mention by him of the longevity of hi s prints (or lack thereof). Is this a gargantuan act of artistic fraud? Does a nyone know any details about his printing process?

[Wayne_6692]

What has this got to do with "art". People would be better-off investing in cereal boxes. As far as I know they are just "prints" with daubs of paint splattered on by one of his (many) employees. There was something on a news show over the weekend about him (60 Minutes?), in it there was a couple who had >150 of his prints! Beenie Babies anyone?

[Scott Hamming]

60 Min. stated that they are actually developing Kincaid SUBDIVISIONS, furniture, etc... This seems to be a greatly marketed "industry". As for art, I suppose it started out that way, and could technically be called so, but is much too stereotypical for my taste.

[Paul Mongillo]

I know nothing about this person or his art. I do have a comment on the subject of longevity. There is nothing that I can think of that requires art to be permanent or long-lasting. Color prints are far from permanent. Look at the beautiful mandelas (spelling) done by Buddist monks in sand grains. Weeks can be spent on creating them. They simply let them blow away when complete. I don't think cost has anything to do with it either. People regularly pay around $75,000 (a guess) for a Porche. I don't think they expect it to last forever if they drive it. Whether the stuff this fellow is selling is art or not, I don't know, but unless he is making false claims about any aspect of it, then its just free enterprise. I'm impressed that he is making gobbs of money. I would be happy to break even selling my fine art photographs.

[Robert A. Zeichner]

I'm going to stick my neck way out here and perhaps offend a few people, but if I ever were to own a Kincade anything (and someone would have to sneak it into my house without my knowing), I could only hope the inks used in printing it were as fugitive as possible! His work is overpriced dreck that is one more compelling reason this country needs to invest heavily in providing a good liberal arts education to every single child. If schools did a better job of teaching appreciation for art, music and literature, perhaps such crap would fade away. G_d, I feel better!

[mark lindsey]

Yes Robert, I am offended!! You were way too kind.....

[Matt_1193]

Amen to that!!

[Lyle Aldridge]

Sorry folks, but this sorta sounds like jealousy to me. What's mostly "wrong" with Kinkade's works is that "too many" people liked them, so "too many" prints got made and sold, so someone made "too much" money, and we're all jealous because it wasn't us, (and our work is just as "good"). I have some of the same reaction, but the reason the stuff sells is that it somehow evokes feelings in millions of people who buy it. You don't have to like it to realize that means it falls right in the bullseye of the core definition of "ART."

So, now that I've got that off my chest, does anyone know the answer to Chris's original question about the printing process?

[Natha Congdon]

Thought the group would appreciate this biographical info on the renowned artist, downloaded from one of about a thousand web hits with his name: As America's foremost living artist, Thomas Kinkade's reputation continues to grow, and so does the demand for his artwork. Even people who have never had much of an interest in art before find themselves captivated by Thomas Kinkade's wonderfully warm and inviting visions of quaint, cozy cottages and sophisticated, impressionistic cityscapes that are among the artist's signature subjects.

Thomas Kinkade was born in 1958 and grew up in Northern California in the small town of Placerville. Though the family did not have wealth, Kinkade often says they were "rich in the greatest form of wealth: a nurturing and affirming love." His first collector was his mother who would frame his childhood drawings and use them to decorate the family home.

Kinkade studied art at the University of California at Berkeley, where his roommate was the now-renowned artist James Gurney. Kinkade furthered his art education at the Art Center College of Design in Pasadena. Thomas Kinkade has won numerous awards, including the 1995 Artist of the Year and the 1996, 1997 and 1998 Graphic Artist of the Year from the National Association of Limited Edition Dealers (NALED.) Additionally, he has won the 1995 Collector Editions Award of Excellence and was a charter inductee to the Bradford International Hall of Fame. In August of 1997, Kinkade was presented with the Distinguished Service Award from the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the first time this award was presented to an artist.In 1982 he got married Nanette, and has 4 daughters from her.

Sounds like quite a guy! Who needs to hack off their ears to be a great artist, eh?

Nathan

[Geoffrey Swenson]

In relation to the Thomas Kinkade controversy...unmitigated horror!! When I saw the 60 minutes piece it felt like watching a mass-murder taking place. How can anyone even discuss trash like that is beyond me!

I am sure anyone who considering his (art's) merit are the same who are crying foul that LaserJet prints are not photography. Some B&W and also some Ciba printers are doing much more "manipulations" to their prints.

Sorry, Geoffrey