Talk:Thomas Kinkade

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] older comments

I'm not sure the edit by Intimaralem85 was:

  • In the appropriate location of the article
  • From a non-copyrighted text (it sounds like something straight off one of Kinkade's products)
  • NPOV

But again, I'm not sure, so I'm not going to make any edits. I'm am sure, though, it's in the wrong location of the article; one normally does not add more to an article's main content below the "External Links" section. --66.120.156.159 07:45, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Most of this text is pulled straight from Kinkade's personal website. I do not see the point in simply republishing his autobiography in Wikipedia. — Riobranden 15:51, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree. this article is in desperate need of a cleanup. — 205.206.139.41 01:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've cleaned up the article so that it is at least better-organized and has less POV, but I am leaving the attention stub; his bio still sounds suspiciously like a press release, and someone should compare this to articles on other painters and see what other improvements can be made. — mjb 00:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Siegfried and Roy

There is a reference to their show of March 2006. Didn't they retire years ago?

Swinterich 02:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. I fixed it and added a link to the Siegfried and Roy page. FYI, the accident (and retirement) was in 2003.
--KNHaw 07:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On fire?

Once I get my hands on the book and find the page number, I'm sticking this in the article. Ha! Melchoir 03:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Got it. Melchoir 07:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LA Times article

This LA Times article (registration required; try BugMeNot if that's a problem) paints a pretty scathing portrait of Kinkade. I don't have time to work it into the Wikipedia article, but if someone else is so inclined, please do! —mjb 19:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow! I had thought it was a simple rehash of the 2/24 piece, but... Wow! I'll take a crack at adding it to the "Criticism - Business Practices" section, although I might change the title to "Criticism - Other" to take into account the personal behavior stuff (does anyone have an opinion on this?). I'll try to get to it this week, but if anyone beats me to it, though, no sweat. --KNHaw 22:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
"Wow" was my reaction too. I agree with changing the title of the criticism section. ... we could just change it to "Criticism". I'm surprised at how solid these allegations seem, including confirmation from the woman who he allegedly fondled. --Allen 22:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
No, I take that back; I agree with your original suggestion. Since he's an artist, the artistic criticism should be separate from the rest. --Allen 23:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Update: Kinkade has made a response, reported here. I haven't been able to read the entire piece nor find the actual response letter on Kinkade's site. It should be included in case someone beats me to it on this. Oh, yeah, I also contacted The Smoking Gun and they say that they don't think they'll be doing a FOIA request for the court transcripts (which I'd been hoping to cite here) because the LA Times already did a good job of picking out the interesting bits. Oh, well. --KNHaw 22:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
FYI, I'm fine with the latest edits and don't plan on any mods of my own. --KNHaw 19:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm adding the links to both the original Times story and Kinkade's response to the section itself. As it was, the section's charges appeared unsubstantiated (I had to come here to the talk page to find them), but the charges are of such a nature that the citations need to be more out in the open. -- Realkyhick 20:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I just love the art

I have a simple question: Where are the originals??? Is there a gallery somewhere with the original pieces? I have never discovered where they are located. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.160.108.190 (talk) 13:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we have a section focusing on his art? They're all so beautiful but perhaps some of the more knowledgeable editors could make some selections to add to this article. Also, please talk about these pieces from an investment point of view. I've always loved his work and if I ever get some money together I plan on starting my own collection. Well, here's hoping! Ewlyahoocom 14:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

We should, absolutely! Do you know of any good published reviews to draw on? Melchoir 19:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Investing in mass produced "art" is about one of the dumbest things you could do with your money. Perhaps you'd like to invest in Beenie Babies or Troll dolls as well? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 15:44, 1 June 2006 (talk • contribs) 12.180.165.2.

Was that really necessary? Personally, I don't know about it's investment value, but I think the art itself is very nice. Also, don't forget that people with the right timing probably made a killing on Beenie Babies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shador5529 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me respond to Melchoir on the question of investment value. Simply put, there is none. Art, viewed as an investment, is subject to the law of supply and demand. Paintings by Renoir are expensive because there are few of them relative to the number of people (esp. rich people) and institutions that would like to own them. In the case of an artist like Kinkade, the market is flooded with his product. If demand increases, such an artist will increase supply by making the print runs larger. The best way to measure the market value of art is in the resale market. Search Thomas Kinkade on EBay, and you will find scores of his things for about $10 to $30. The official website sells the equivalent for $800 to $1000+.

I am side-stepping a couple of issues here, namely a) whether looking upon art as an investment is a good idea, and b) whether the product sold by the Kinkade outfit is art. (By most definitions, it is not, because it is mass-produced by photo-lithographic processes, not at all like an etching or hand-pulled lithograph.)

In short, if you like his work, then by all means go out and buy it. But do check out EBay, which will be a much much cheaper source. And do not get the idea it has any investment value. Good luck! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fortunatus6 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, but technically you're responding to someone else! I'm adding the necessary tags to point out whom just now. Melchoir 22:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parodies

SomethingAwful. Any comments on adding some talk of the parodies Kinkade has spawned? -- FeldBum 14:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Something Awful may be the funniest site on the Internet, but I don't think it should be a major part of the article. Maybe something like "Kinkade's style easily lends itself to parody" with the SA link. If you can find other, similar parodies, that would be really good. Stilgar135 17:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Absurd

This is an absurdly anti-Kinkade POV article.

Do you have any specific, constructive criticism to offer, or are you just here to complain? Melchoir 18:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Apparently he's done some genuinely foolish things. Not much we can do about that. Gazpacho 02:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with the unsigned parent, the article is obviously NPOV. For example, the only quote about his artistic style is ridiculous and hostile. Also two of the LAT reference links are broken. 75.34.189.201 00:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

And you're here to supply us with more material, then? Melchoir 02:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

User:75.34.189.201 has just done a nice reorg that has added a bit more balance without sacrificing anything essential, I think... Good job. studerby 12:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I did not see that coming. Wikipedia still has ways to surprise me. Yes, good job! Melchoir 14:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LA Times refs

We defintely do need to do something about the LA Times web refs. The Times makes the online pages available for free for 2 weeks or so, then put them in a pay-only archive. I seem to remember that policy is not to web link to pay-for material (although we can certainly cite such material). To be clear, I think it's an issue of citation form, not WP:RS; the LA Times remains a reliable source and is certainly citable even if it's not linkable, we just need to reformulate those cites correctly. I've cited the LA Times web site in this article myself, so if no one points out a Wiki-standard for this in the next week or so, I'll try to find the time to research what's appropriate. However, I'm hoping somebody knows the answer, to save me the work. I'm a lazy git... studerby 18:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I finessed the broken links by linking the first three to their free abstracts in the LA Times archives; if readers want more than what's in the abstract they'll have to pay. Once the 4th (29 August 2006) article ages out of the Times' free availabilty rule, its link will break and have to be changed as well. --CliffC 16:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Numbered instead of bulleted references

I noticed the References section was bulleted rather than numbered, so I put a # ahead of each {{note}} in the section to make references easier to find. That worked fine, but showed that the article already has some in-line references in the Personal Conduct section that generate footnote numbers without corresponding footnotes. I don't quite understand the problem yet, but I'll work to straighten it out today or sometime next week. --CliffC 14:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Numbered or bulleted, it looks to me like the mix of <ref> and {{ref}}/{{note}} templates in the article results in footnote numbers leading to the incorrect citation, and in footnote numbers with no citation. Fixing this is somewhat complicated by some footnote numbers needing to share a citation. I hereby volunteer to fix it by editing the article to use only in-line <ref>s. I know some people don't like these but I don't see another way. I'll try not to make the changes too ugly. Comments? I'll do this next week if there are no objections. --CliffC 19:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Done. All footnotes now lead to the correct citation. --CliffC 01:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FBI Investigations Updates? Coat drive?

I haven't seen anything in the press since August about the status of the FBI investigation. Has anyone seen anything that is worthy of an update?

Also, I saw that Kinkade galleries were involved in a Winter coat drive and was thinking of citing it as an example under the "Popular Culture" section as a way of tying it into the evangelical Christian theme (via good corporate citizenship). I'm concerned, though, that most of the hits about it in Google News are press releases with only a single traditional newspaper cite (here). Unless I see more cites, I won't be posting it on the page, but I want others' opinions on this.

[edit] DNA Matrix Signature

I think it would be useful if someone could cover the DNA Matrix signature that's used on most of his prints. If you attend any galleries or art auctions, you'll notice all of his prints are mentioned as being "signed" using this method. A quick google search will show that few artists tend to use anything of the sort, and, to be honest, it seems sketchy at best. It basically seems like a way in which the gallery/company can claim that the limited print is "signed," although the reality is that it seems to be more of a signature stamp.