Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;silverthwait, post: 12235, member: 103&quot;]Every generation seems to have its ARTifacts.&nbsp; Back in the day, everyone had a Charles Dana Gibson print (or one from the easel of one of his imitators). In the 20&#039;s and 30&#039;s, no household was without some tenderly colorized Wallace Nutting. The 30&#039;s and 40&#039;s had troodles of enchanting baby pictures from Maude Humphrey up to Jesse Wilcox Smith and Charlotte Becker.&nbsp; The 40&#039;s and 50&#039;s were all about Norman Rockwell and his cohorts.&nbsp; Then came the Andy Warhol era, followed by Peter Max -- and after that, I guess I stopped keeping track. </p><p><br /></p><p>Kinkade actually had a direct ancestor in those English artists of the 20&#039;s who painted thatched cottages, at the end of country lanes, loaded with roses and larkspur and daisies and vines and vaguely perceived ladies in big hats, presumably carrying a basket and secateurs.&nbsp; Variations of this scene were imposed on EVERYTHING Milady&#039;s sewing box, her glove box, one&#039;s card table, the tops of calendars, etc.&nbsp; Kinkade&#039;s other ancestor is, of course, Maxfield Parish.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>All these artists started out with a good idea, but some stretched the concept into a caricature of the original.&nbsp; It is unfortunate, because it diminishes their work as a whole.&nbsp; Most of the above-named artists survived their years of omnipresence, and have enjoyed a resurgence of popularity several decades later.&nbsp; This will probably happen to Kinkade -- but I do earnestly hope that all the ones that look as if they have been made out of the foil wrappers chocolates come in will have disintegrated.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in