Kinkade's Opposition to Modernism

According to this article in Christianity Today, Thomas Kinkade describes himself as a great opponent of Modernism. And while he means that specifically in the sense of Modernism in the arts, one can see that he is anti-modern in a larger sense. His body of artwork is riddled with the nostalgia for a largely imagined past of tranquility, of slow pace, of harmony. I can't say that these are irreconciliable with modernity, but there is clearly atavism in Kinkade's work, what with their horse-and-buggies, lighthouses, and 19th century houses.

Like many anti-moderns before him, Kinkade takes full advantage of Modernity. For example, much of Kinkade's considerable fortune comes from his production of pseudo-originals- mass produced and hand highlighted prints produced to replicate the texture of real oil paintings. If I may be horribly unfair, Kinkade's use of assembly-line technology, sophisticated corporate structure, and mass marketing to undermine modernity is no less ironic than cave dwelling terrorists using satellite phones and internet communication to undermine Western modernism.

Kinkade, in some ways, is as much a Post Modern as Anti-Modern artist. For example, as this USA Today article states, Kinkade sees Warhol as a major influence. This is interesting, because Warhol's art is roughly as cool and sterile as one can get without turning to Minimalism or the sparer Process artists (like LeWitt). My guess is that Kinkade's attraction to Warhol is to his art's utter lack of complexity, its simplism, and to the way it milks the simplism of its audience. Where a more educated art market is going to require a great deal from the art, Kinkade's audience only demands prettiness and easy sentiment, just as Warhol's audience sought only coolness, pop-culture references, and a pinch of neo-dadaist brattiness.

Kinkade

Thomas Kinkade is an astoundingly wealthy man, probably the wealthiest artist in America. After having seen a film of his life story, "An American Artist," I think I have some idea why.

For one thing, Kinkade and his art empire works against certain perceptions of the High Art world. And while many of those perceptions may be inaccurate, they hold great cultural sway. For example, the belief that the art world is angst-ridden, arrogant, not merely secular but atheistic, and intellectual is widespread. Now, this all has a kernel of fact, but it is little more than a caricature, a straw man for Kinkade and the other superstars of Low Art publishing to knock down.

When I say that Kinkade works against these perceptions, I mean that he does this indirectly through his work but also directly through his propaganda. In his work, he accentuates placidity, nostalgia, tradition, and smoothness. His artworks work hard to deny any real conflict- even in the case of his Conquering the Storms print, supposedly threatening waves do not so much as dim his trademark orange lamplights, nor do the waves visually betray any malignancy or threat. His artworks are anesthetic moreso than out-and-out kitsch.

In his propaganda, Kinkade offers us his "world of beauty, peace and hope." In his film as well as his website, he refers frequently to his Christian faith (going so far as to describe himself as an instrument of God), and family values. He is given to using the political buzzwords of the religious right, even indirectly referencing Clinton's infidelity in his film. In general, his artwork, by virtue both of its content and the way that it's sold, appeals to cultural conservatives and reactionaries, a group that is generally poorly served by the art market.

It also doesn't hurt that the man illustrates Bibles.