Re: "The Reformation and Images"

Okay I have to weigh in. This is in response to a post on Wes’s blog on The Reformation and Images. I have a lot more to say, but for now I’ll keep it brief. I do not personally like Kinkade’s paintings. But does this mean it’s not good art? What makes good art? Here are some highlights from the series of comments on this particular post (I encourage you to read the post and related comments before reading my response):

1. “But bad art harms the whole world because it lies to everyone who comes across it.”

Who are we to presume what the artist intends to portray? How do we know he/she is lying? Art can be considered “bad” in someone’s opinion for various reasons (sloppy brush strokes, poor choice of medium for a canvas). But even then, it is no more than an opinion. For all we know, the artist’s intent was for his painting/drawing/whatever to look sloppy. My point is, art is completely subjective, so we can’t make black-and-white statements like “this is good”, “this is bad”….art can and should be critiqued, but spiritualized to the point of saying it’s good or bad? Very dangerous.

2. “Kinkade produces art to sell, and he does so by painting a world that is all light and no sin.”

All light and no sin…..does this matter? Sunrises make me happy. What if I paint a sunrise over a beautiful landscape with a beautiful bird carrying a beautiful rose? Does this portray sin? No. Is it bad? No. Does it matter if it has all the elements of the gospel message? No, it’s just your typical impressionistic painting that’s supposed to make me happy.

3. “I think art is important enough that we demand excellence from the work itself, not merely from its author.”

As an artist (I do consider myself an artist), I can tell you that an artist paints what he wants to paint, and draws what he wants to draw, and sculpts what he wants to sculpt, regardless of what others demand of him or his work.

4. “I define art by its vast potentiality for actualization by its audience. In other words, we release what was already present within a work of art when we perceive it well.”

Actualize: to make actual; to realize. So you would define art by how well its audience can realize it. By how well it can be perceived. Is this correct? If so, is art bad if I am unable to determine the meaning behind it and/or its realistic nature?

5. “The artist’s task has always been to gaze keenly at reality, to achieve a wisdom born from inspiration, and to then give it form in a particular medium. Conversely, Kinkade’s compositions indicate either a skewed vision of reality, or a dearth of courage to express that reality.”

This seems to portray a very narrow view of art in general. Since when did art have to portray a realistic view of reality to be good art? Check this out:

How is this….

(Kinkade)

different from this?

(Monet)

How is this….

(Kinkade)

different from this?

(Monet)

Like I’ve said, I’m not a huge Kinkade fan, but I’m also not going to claim to be the authority on what is and what isn’t good art.

 what is art