Concluding Thoughts on Thomas Kinkade

Thomas Kinkade has been an easy target for art critics. But my decision to write about his work, with “The Dark Light of Thomas Kinkade” and the “The Final Word on Thomas Kinkade,” was an attempt to explore a different path toward understanding the challenges that it posed to my work as an art critic and as a cultural theologian. I spent last week responding to nearly two hundred comments from my first post, most of them very critical of my approach and my conclusions. I posted a lengthy summary in the comments section, but upon further consideration it seems appropriate to devote an entire post to my assessment of my critics, in large part because they will be of crucial importance to my approach to theology, art, and culture here at CULTIVARE.

Most critics of my approach to Kinkade do not believe that art of any kind (Kinkade’s or Edvard Munch’s, popular or high art) should be anything but pleasant decoration, a nice but not necessary addition to the comforts of one’s life, and a kind of visual propaganda of the soul. Art is assumed to be an extension of leisure, the equivalent of taking off one’s shoes, loosening one’s tie, and pouring a martini after a tough day of work. Nothing more, nothing less. Many of my commentators don’t like Kinkade’s work. But they disliked my heavy analytical focus even more. Investing Kinkade’s work  (or the work of any artist) with strong theological or philosophical content was to their mind the manifestation of an academic disease, or, according to some of my more nuanced observers, evidence that I need to “get a life” and “climb out from under my rock.” Most of my critics resented that I treated art and visual imagery as worthy of philosophical, theological, and aesthetic scrutiny.

But I do not see art as an extension of leisure or commerce, conspicuous consumption or entertainment, a practice that lies outside the reach of theology. In fact, I follow Tolstoy that art is one of life’s necessities, and thus requires theological attention and philosophical scrutiny, primarily because it emerges from a theological and philosophical understanding of life. Art is the result of human intentionality, and thus infused with theological content because human action is itself infused with theological content. And this work “works” on the human intentionality of the viewer, activating his or her theological commitments. It is my conviction that art is made to be taken seriously. A critic’s responsibility is to determine what taking art seriously means, for that work of art, or that artist. (What makes writing art criticism compelling is that critics are offering many different ways to take that work of art or that artist seriously.)

My alternative to Kinkade’s work, contra my critics, is not art that is disgusting and gross, which gives adults and children nightmares, but art that is real, honest, and begins with our fallen sinful condition and works with it, within it, through it, not in denial of it. But Kinkade’s work masquerades as art, comforting consumers with the (false) reality that you can enjoy art without effort, without it changing you in some way. Art is an intensely personal experience, but it is not whatever you say it is.Yet most of my critics are resentful of anyone, much less an art professional, telling them what art is, or complicating what art is, especially if what most people understand by art was learned in 5th grade art class. (For an essay on this subject, see my “Art After Fifth Grade.”)  However, it is my conviction that art, like any cultural practice worth participating in and taking seriously, needs to be learned, including its history and tradition, which is the context within which both artists and critics work. The responsibility of the critic is to make distinctions, offering the reader opportunities to see art, and the scope of human action, differently. Art and cultural critics write to understand, and they presuppose a reader eager to experience the wonderful, infuriating, and inexhaustible complexities and implications of culture making.

Many of my critics disapproved of my theological approach to Kinkade’s paintings, wincing at my constant focus on human frailty, sinfulness, brokenness as the starting point for thinking about art and the Christian faith. In the process, they actually proved my theological point that Kinkade’s work was successful precisely because it denied the power of God’s two words, law and gospel. In fact, many of my critics thought it was un-Christian to critique Kinkade’s work, going so far as to question my own faith commitments, or at least presuming that my criticism of Kinkade’s work meant that I was impugning his faith. Although North American evangelical Christianity is obsessed with “transforming” and “redeeming” culture, but that often results in cheap and inferior knock offs of the real thing. It offers “Christian alternatives” to secular culture without doing the hard work of actually moving into the Babylonian neighborhood of art and culture, learning it, and seeking its good (Jer 29). Kinkade built his empire on precisely that transformational and redemptive logic that insulated Christians from dwelling deeply in the world of art and culture.

Most of my critics not only wanted visual images that didn’t cause them to think too much or feel too much, but a theology that didn’t dwell too much on brokenness, sin, and all that depressing stuff that can really get one down. We North American evangelicals like our Christian religion useful and preferably, of the do-it-yourself variety. Christ, if he is named, is my fixer, my life coach. But as I observed in my first post, where can grace be present if things are really not so bad? If things aren’t desperate, grace doesn’t have a chance. Great artists, poets, musicians produce work that acknowledges our brokenness and the world’s injustice and in spite of that they produce work that seems otherworldly, that is saturated by grace and mercy. I was also criticized for not extending to Kinkade and his work the grace I was writing about. Yet I doubt that criticism, judgment, discernment, and the willingness to provoke, question, and query, all aspects of the critical spirit, is antithetical to grace.

But in the minds of many of my critics, grace is akin to cutting someone some slack, lightening up, backing off, or easing the standards. But that is not at all what grace is. It is the last hope at the end of our rope; it presupposes that we have been crushed by the legal, transactional schema of the world, suffocated by the stifling narrowness of a life consumed with achieving justification and recognition. Grace doesn’t say, “we’ll let it slide this time,” with a wink. It actually comes to us and frees us because of the active work of Christ. Grace allows us to cling to the promises of God that he will save us, even if everything points against it. It is the feeling–a feeling that there is still hope in a dark and desperate world. Because grace is also disruptive, radical, uncomfortable, it can hurt, as it kills our pride and self-justication. And so art, literature, film, and music can often produce that whiff of something alien, or slap in the face that knocks your glasses off and messes up your hair, which comes from beyond the hills (Ps 121), invading the hostility and narrowness of this world with what Lutheran theologian Oswald Bayer calls “breadth, breath, and liberation.”



"What do you folks think of this one?-- Quoted from News4JAX -- 11/25/16 --"JACKSONVILLE, Fla. ..."

Divine Intervention vs Divine Involvement
"So Melville traveled to Jerusalem in an effort to recover his Christian faith...hmmm, interesting, but ..."

Melville’s Epilogue
"I fail to see how Holbein's work 'deprives the Christian of hope' any more than ..."

The Dark Light of Thomas Kinkade
"You’ve written nice post, I am gonna bookmark this page, thanks for info. I actually ..."

The Dark Light of Thomas Kinkade

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • I understand how you feel about the reception of art by people in the church community. I am an abstract artist, a retired pastor, without educational credentials as an artist, and a woman over 65 with a limp. It is tough to persevere without power and authority in a way that participates in God’s self emptying graciousness. It is also tough to be gracious from a position of power and authority which you have, and do it self emptying graciously. This theological principle of self-emptying as Jesus’s prime act of grace is not easy for humans, but it is what we are called to I believe. We all continue learning how. Me included.

  • Dan, I have really appreciated this series. Too often the criticisms of Kinkade’s art are as shallow as the art itself. But, you have been able to thoughtfully probe the theological implications of his work. For me, the theology of his work has been the most troubling thing over the years. My functional definition of art is “philosophy thought visually.” To ignore the philosophical and theological implications of art is to ignore the very power and purpose of art. Thank you for your thoughtfulness.

  • Thank you for being willing to enter the public arena on this topic and open yourself up to such vitriol. Even if it doesn’t speak to everyone, it speaks to me mightily. As a practicing poet, I need to hear this wisdom in order to allow myself the challenge of creating incarnationally and in the muck and mire of this world both in despair but not despairing.

  • Dear Dan, Have you looked at the painting in the center of Thomas Kinkade’s work?
    “The Prince of Peace” with Jesus Christ in prayer for you and I with the crown of thorns sounds serious to me.
    “Via Dolorosa” the path of sorrows is one you will take seriously. My prayer room has both paintings.
    “Garden of Gethsemane” where Jesus Christ sweat drops of blood and “Tower of David” are also
    wonderful plein air paintings. Yes i have studied art “beyond 5th grade” surprise!
    Have you enjoyed “Radiant Surf” “Windermere Ranch” “Seaside Village” “Portifino” “Chartres”
    “Mysteries of Creation” “Dawson” “Rock of Salvation” “Prayer for Peace’ “Winter’s Light” “Perseverance”
    “The Cross” “Bridge of Faith” or “Sunrise”?
    Since you took all this time to try and put an American Master artist’s work down I would appreciate
    you taking a look at these and other paintings. “Heading Home” “Homecoming Hero” and
    “Selfless Service” are also serious.
    I Also recommend his Robert Girard french Impressionism.
    You will enjoy many of the over 1000 paintings completed by Thomas Kinkade in his short
    54 years in this “fallen world”.
    May God bless you and all art lovers and thank the artists whose passion to share a vision inspire
    so many. May Jesus Christ bring you His Living Hope.
    Now please write about the art of Ozzy Osborne, Andy Warhol, Brian Eno and Picasso.
    We all still love Thomas Kinkade’s paintings and sculpture better than any other.
    In Christ’s Holy Name, Steven

    • I recently ran across these “Garden of Gethsemane” paintings.

      All three are titled “Agony in the Garden” by Duccio de Buoninsegna, William Blake and Paul Gaugin. They are truly transformative, charged with what Dan keeps centering on in his Kinkade series–the necessary presence of both Law & Grace, each in their own way. By comparison Kinkade’s “Garden” is flat and sterile, even devoid of the human. Augustine tells us that Christ came as a man not to make us more like God, but that we might become more fully human. Kinkade’s “Garden”, sans Christ presents a theological quandary and an affront to that Augustinian wisdom. For it is an escape of what it means to be fully human, disdaining man and man in the image of Christ; in so much I find Kinkade’s representation despairing even as the emotional weight of all three artists mentioned above and their “Gardens” engage my despair even while preserving me in it. As a whole, Kinkade fails to work in this space. As a whole, Kinkade’s works all demonstrate this sterility, which is my take away from Dan’s analysis proffered here.

  • Daniel, Please reply, Steven god bless!

  • Dear Daniel, Have you viewed these paintings yet?
    You don’t have a right to criticize Thomas Kinkade’s
    amazing paintings and sculpture if you have not.
    Can you show some of your art and what you have
    done for World Vision ministries? God bless, Steven

    • Daniel A. Siedell

      Dear Steven,

      I’m happy that you find Thomas Kinkade’s works amazing, and the fact that you sell them for a living, that is completely understandable. However, I don’t find them in the least amazing. How about this, why don’t you read my book, God in the Gallery (Baker Academic, 2008) and the handful of other books I’ve written on artists whose work I do find amazing, read the other blog posts I’ve written here at Patheos, like “The Scream,” “The Ear and the Eye,” and “Art and Grace,” and then find my other blog, on which I wrote about art and Christianity, and then perhaps you might have a better context for judging and condemning my work, about which you know absolutely nothing.

      Best, Dan

  • Thank you for this work Dan! I enjoy all three of these writings and look forward to continuing to hear your insight!