Thomas Kinkade's DUI Snuffs Light

June 16, 2010 By


Cottage By the Sea

I’ve never been a fan of Thomas Kinkade’s work. His idealistic fantasy cottages please many–my niece has them all over her house–but they’ve always left me feeling cold, and I think it’s because they are so idealistic as to be completely unattainable except in imagination. Kinkade’s heavily-marketed themes of light and snug sentimentalism create a longing for something that never was.

Fantasy is all well-and-good, but the “painter of light’s” saccharine little cottages on exclusive little coves in perfect little worlds are tantalizing teases that have less relationship to reality than an episode of Star Trek. I’m a bit of a loner, but even I think it’s weird that Kinkade’s ideal worlds contain no human beings. It is as though he is saying that ideals cannot co-exist with humanity, and may not even be worth striving for, once people enter the picture and muck it all up.

Kinkade’s faux-cozy worlds gleam warmth on the surface, but beneath there is an absence of complexity that almost seems like a rejection of created creatures, which is a rejection of the world. And all of that seems bleak, rather than comforting, to me.

The artist was arrested yesterday on suspicion of driving while intoxicated. That is a stupid, dangerous thing to do, but sometimes people who have had a drink believe they’re in better shape than they really are, only to learn differently once they get behind a wheel. But I couldn’t help wondering, when I read of his arrest, whether Kinkade is not finding all of that fake light just a little too sterile and unconsoling, after all.

His arrest has inspired Joe Carter to blow the dust off of last year’s excellent look at Kinkade’s lesser-known (and surprisingly good) paintings, and while I could have sworn that I’d linked to the piece last year, it seems I did not. So here is your chance. Carter, too, notes the absence of people in Kinkade’s most recent work:

‘Kinkade justifies the absence of people in his picturesque scenarios because he doesn’t want to exclude any viewers from being able to step into the fantasy. “When you paint people, you limit people,” Kinkade once explained, offering the example of a hypothetical Vietnamese-American family. “Why would they want to look at a picture of a dozen white people sitting around a Thanksgiving table?”

What the artist fails to understand is that Vietnamese-Americans (as well as African-, Mexican-, Chinese-, and other hyphenated Americans) probably do not share the Anglo-American cottage fantasy. And his cottage scenes are precisely that: fantasies. Adults hang paintings of Kinkade’s paintings of cottages in their living room for the same reason that little girls put posters of unicorns and rainbows on their bedroom walls. It is a pseudo-referential nostalgia, a longing for what does not exist in reality but exists in the fantasy realm of possibility.

If Carter is cruel, it is only to be kind. I suspect however, that Kinkade’s high-minded concerns about “inclusion” may well rest more on a broad marketing strategy than on a sensitivity to the sensibilities of other cultures. And perhaps that is why, ultimately, his work feels so empty and cold; it stopped being about capturing moments in favor of capturing millions. And millions are cold comfort on a lonely night, even if you live in Carmel-by-the-Sea.

Filed Under: American Genius
About Elizabeth Scalia
  • Ellen

    Most artists I know hate Kinkaide’s work – just hate it. I don’t care for it myself, it’s as though he’s working in frosting, rather than paint. And yet, some of his early plein aire paintings are very nice indeed.

  • http://sisu.typepad.com Sissy Willis

    I took a gander at your link of his “real” stuff vs this dross. Obviously sold out. Proved what I already knew in my heart, not to mention my art-educated eye. The popular stuff has no soul, no sense of space, none of the mystery of the early-morning or late-afternoon light. No contrast of values. Totally made me think of the bland dumbing down of statism, where everyone gives up one’s individuality for the “good of the whole.” By contrast, the individualism and yearning and Chekhovian/Bergmanesque aloneness of, for example, John Singer Sargent’s portrait of the Daughters of Edward Darley Boit:

    link

  • Pingback: Joe Carter | Little Miss Attila

  • http://sisu.typepad.com Sissy Willis

    Darn. Where’d my comment go? Sigh. I was going to use in a new post. Will not have to reconstruct.

  • http://sisu.typepad.com Sissy Willis

    Oh. There it is. (Washes paw)

  • http://vita-nostra-in-ecclesia.blogspot.com Bender

    his cottage scenes are precisely that: fantasies. . . . It is a pseudo-referential nostalgia, a longing for what does not exist in reality but exists in the fantasy realm of possibility

    THAT’S WHAT ART IS — it transcends and goes beyond the mere real. If you want what exists in reality, take a picture with your camera.

    Now, his cottage scenes may very well be sterile and cold, but criticizing them for existing “in the fantasy realm” seems awfully silly and misinformed.

  • Jenny

    My mother loves Thomas Kinkade and has his stuff all over her house. My father (the structural engineer) hates it. His main complaint is why would there be such large buildings in the middle of nowhere with no roads anywhere near them. The scale of the buildings is completely unrelated to the scenery and, thus, ridiculous.

  • Roz Smith

    I never thought of it that way but they do look like they were done in that awful frosting found on supermarket birthday cakes.

    If I want studies of light unpopulated by humans I’ll take the sparse works of Andrew Wyeth.

  • saveliberty

    Thank you for your post and thank you also for linking to Joe Carter’s review of his art.

  • Aimee

    For fantasy or any kind of fiction to work it must be real, even when it isn’t true. It has to have emotional resonance, and it has to be consistent within the parameters it has set up for itself. Kinkade’s work does none of those things. The only emotions it appeals to are our worst ones, and they violate the very expectations they invite visually. Nasty stuff–definitely like supermarket frosting! His earlier work is much better, and looking at it makes me think “sell-out”, as well.

  • http://sisu.typepad.com Sissy Willis

    Without the darkness there can be no light:

    without the darkness there can be no light

  • http://www.withouthavingseen.com Ryan Haber

    Bender,

    Tolkien and O’Connor both write about constructing a “fantasy” or alternate reality in their writing; much of what they say applies to visual art as well.

    The fact that a thing isn’t real doesn’t mean that it cannot have an internally consistently logic that it obeys. Having something is what makes a story “believable” even though nobody would actually believe the story had really happened if someobe tried to pawn it off as real. When stories – or visual arts – lack this internal coherence, we tend to find ourselves saying, “But wait, you said…” or else, “No way…”

    Art’s isn’t to present a fantasy disconnect with truth, with meaning. The artist’s job is to present reality in a way that draws attention to aspects that might otherwise be neglected. Some photography does a real whizbang job of doing so, simply by focusing on the intended details and blurring out the others. Photography doesn’t just reproduce reality – it presents it as the artist wishes it to be seen: at the angle, in the lighting, with shadows falling as the artist sets them up. Darkroom effects can further rearrange the reality contained in a picture. In the age of photoshop, this is all the more true; it was always true though. Writers, sculptors, etc., all have tools at their disposal for doing this. Artists may do this very badly or very well. A statue of St. Martin of Tours removing his cloak that stands in the back of my church uses a softly colored wood; the saint is only 4′ or so tall; the gesture of his hands in the removing of the cloak; his facial expression – none of them fit a soldier, none of them seem strong. The artist presented reality poorly. In fact, they make him seem overwhelmingly effeminate. Nobody stops there to pray, though our other statues are well frequented.

    Kinkade is being criticized for producing fantasy in the worst sense of the word – delusions disconnected from even mere logic. We’re not talking painting the sky in “weird” colors – that doesn’t break the integrity of the work. What does are the mismatched themes. His cottages, for instance, are both homely and yet bereft of homesteaders. They seem neighborly, but have no neighbors to invite over. In reality, homely and neighborly cottages have residents and neighbors – human life in a human habitat. Kinkade’s lack those. That’s inconsistent within itself. It’s weird.

    His work is very consistent with a contraceptive culture, though. We want love without risk, sex without babies, old age without infirmity or even wrinkles, a jackpot instead of hard work and discipline, a war without casualties, security without sacrifice, liberty without self-control. Our culture craves fantasy and lives in a range of delusions from cheap soap operas to exotic getaway vacation escapes. Thomas Kinkade’s work fits right in.

    [Good comment. Fantasy can have nothing at all to do with reality and still speak to us. I recently watched a very fantastic anime called Howl's Moving Castle; it had no basis at all in reality or even linear thought, but it moved me very much -admin]

  • Joe

    Ars Artium’s comment on the linked Joe Carter story cracked me up.

    I always thought of Kinkade as behing a hack sell out. Now I think of him a little more tragically, as a hack sell out who actually may have had some technical talent (a Peter Keating figure). In the business of art, Kinkade has been tremendously successful–if measured in raking in the dough (although in a sad sort of way, like a professional porn star in the area of sexuality). His mass production of this stuff is arguably art in itself (although I think it too cynical to be treated as such). Kinkade also lacks the warmth of this guy, whose paintings were more about process and having fun than end result.

    Anyway, thank you for the insight Joe Carter. Thanks Anchoress for posting it.

  • Joe

    Ars Artium’s comment cracked me up.

    I always thought of Kinkade as behing a hack sell out. Now I think of it a little more tragically, as a hack sell out who actually may have had some technical talent (a Peter Keating figure). As some in the business of art, Kinkade has been tremendously successful–if measured in raking in the dough (although in a sad sort of way, like measuring a porn stars success in sexuality by the amount of money received). His mass production of this stuff is arguably art in itself (although I think it too cynical to be treated as such). Kinkade also lacks the warmth of this guy, whose paintings were more about process and having fun than end result.

    Anyway, thank you for the insight Joe Carter. Thank you Anchoress for posting this.

  • Jennifer

    Wow, some harsh critics here!

    I agree that too many of his paintings seem too perfect and too artificially colorful, but I do enjoy his lighthouse paintings in particular. Probably because I have an affection for lighthouses. But my most favorite is a painting of the Cross on a hill. I can’t recall the name of the painting now, but I think it’s beautiful.

    Interesting, Anchoress, that most of the paintings at the link your provided include — people! :)

  • Piano Girl88

    OK ~ opening myself up to ridicule here, but I love his paintings of the Victorian homes with the beautiful English-style gardens. One of my former piano students (an adult) is a first cousin to Kinkaide’s wife and she said Nanette was the brains behind the marketing of his paintings…she didn’t much care for the man himself. In many of his paintings, there are people ~ he’d put in small portraits of his kids or his wife, and occasionally he’d appear in one. That said, I would much rather gaze at a Kinkade painting than any number of modern paintings that hang in the galleries of the Smithsonian…Mark Rothko? Yikes!

    [I would rather look at almost anything but a Rothko -admin]

  • archangel

    I’ll take TK over Lady GooGoo anyday.

  • NanB

    I like Kinkade’s earlier works. My guess is that he found a “style” that appealed to the masses and got stuck in it. Although the cottages are bathed in light they still seem lonely and isolated. Kind of says a lot about our culture in a way.

  • B. Durbin

    Kinkade grew up in Placerville— California foothills, gold territory, dusty grain and dusty oaks. Okay, maybe not quite that dry, but definitely very different from quaint English cottage.

    I’ve always wondered if that were wish-fulfillment.

  • archangel

    BTW- TK went full into kitsch mode around 2003. It was around then he was beginning to piss off shareholders of what used to be a publicly traded company called Media Arts… MDA was the trading symbol.

    TK avoided painting people because it wasn’t really his forte. His earlier work is indeed better than the later stuff. If you want people, look for his earlier work of Flags Over the Capitol… that would be Sacramento. His work was always religiously tinged and has the little “find Waldo” quality to it where he hid (not sure if he still does) “N”‘s within the painting in honor of his wife.

    “Garden of Prayer”, IMO, probably one of his better works (its the one with a gazebo) has running water in a stream and a figure obstensibly Jesus walking toward the viewer. He did a portrait of Christ which actually is very well done, IMO.

    It is true that the more refined artistes revile him. Part out of content and part out of jealousy. There’s nothing worse to a starving artist than one that’s not starving. The bottom line here is that art is and always has been in the eye of the beholder and TK struck a chord with many buyers. I personally have 4 early works… 2 mentioned already. My wife likes “New Day Dawning”. Its a “pretty” picture and probably is the one I criticize the most. And it does have a cottage on a ocean cliff. My problem with it has always been positionof the elements in relation to the time of day. Ticky tack stuff. I also have the Plein Aire he did of Anaheim Stadium while at Game 1 of the 2002 World Series, to which I went. Being a life long Angel fan (be nice Anchoress, there truly is no love loss between our teams), I had to have it with the rest of my memorabilia.

    So, I really don’t understand the animosity toward him. He has his flaws and he paints to make a buck. Its better than stripping down and eating rosary beads, don’t you think?

  • Candace

    I have a few watercolors by a professional artist (now, sadly, dead). She confided to me that one of the paintings I bought represented her “real stuff”. She was known locally mostly for intricate pen & ink renderings of St. Nicholas and angels. Not my kind of stuff but popular enough to put food on the table. I don’t like Kincaid’s work -early or late but especially late. Still, lot’s of folks do and it puts food on his table. I wonder what he paints just for his own enjoyment or to challenge himself as an artist?

  • http://fkclinic.blogspot.com Nancy Reyes

    Personally I hate Kincaid’s paintings.

    but Carter is wrong on two points.

    One: he states:What the artist fails to understand is that Vietnamese-Americans (as well as African-, Mexican-, Chinese-, and other hyphenated Americans) probably do not share the Anglo-American cottage fantasy.

    How does he know this? My experience is the opposite, although we might prefer Amorsolo’s sentimental paintings here in the Philippines.

    Two: Tolkien once dismissed those who despised escapist literature with the comment: They are mistaking the desertion of the soldier with the escape of the prisoner.

    Kincaid’s paintings give hope to many that there is peace and comfort beyond this vale of tears.

    As for a DUI: big deal. We don’t know the details, and if we condemned every artist for his drinking/drug use/homosexuality the church walls would be empty.

    [If you read condemnation of his DUI by me, I am not sure how. I think I made a point of saying that sometimes people mistake the state they're in -admin]

  • Piano Girl88

    And if you think starving artists hate artists who have raked in the money, head into the world of 20th/21st century composers and listen to the animosity from those whose “music” sounds like crap and those who write music that is listenable and very enjoyable.

  • http://www.protocatholic.blogspot.com Gretchen

    To each his own.

    Not sure why the DUI bit came into it, ‘cept to ‘strengthen’ the argument against TK or provide some type of segue to the red meat of the post.

    His earlier work is better, but he’s painting and selling what is saleable in this day and age. The man should not be condemned for making a buck. This is America, durn it, and most of us have immature art tastes. But blame the schools and not TK. There are enough starving artists out there already.

    Let’s hope and pray that he moves into a new phase and gets back to his earlier style. If his personal life is in chaos, and I’ve heard a few stories, then he is in need of our prayers for him, a fellow brother in Christ.

  • Joe P

    By no means do I qualify as an art critic, but I think some of the criticism aimed at his art is a little nitpicky. I understand the the emptiness of the lack of people in many of his paintings, but it doesn’t make the picture any less beautuful. I would like to live in one of those cottages. I have a postcard copy of one of his paintings, New York 1959, that does include people.

  • http://victor-undergo.blogspot.com/ Victor

    In spiritual reality, his cottage looks a lot better than mine does in reality.

    I hear ya! That’s probably cause he uses a lot more DREAM wip frosting than you do Victor!

    Really? :)

  • Steve

    THANK YOU for posting this! Keep up the great work!!

    Steve
    Common Cents
    link

    ps. Link Exchange???

  • Francesca

    I much prefer Star Trek.

  • Mitzi

    What a bunch of snarky snobs you all seem to be. Firstly, the arrest for suspicion of DUI isn’t the same as conviction of a DUI. The whole article, and most of the comments, seemed to be hateful, and so gossipy that I had to wonder where the love and humility of Christ was? Would you want someone to write a whole article about you with this same tone and feel? I suspect not. I never thought I would read something like this from you. I would love to live in a little cottage somewhere, like the one’s that this man creates. Fantasy? For me, you bet. But I can always dream when I see one of his pieces. Nothing is impossible with God.

    [I am sorry you dislike the piece. I never judged him on the dui, which I think I made very clear. And my goodness, are we free to say we don't like a sort of "art" without being called "hateful" now, or have we all lost our right even to our opinions? You like his work; that's your right. I find it cold and desolate. That's my right, too. Art is one of those places where relativism "works." Neither of us is wrong. -admin]

  • Mary

    I am not a fan of TK, but I do confess to buying a copy of Cross on a Hill (on clearance at TJ Maxx) to hang in my laundry room. And, to amplify the author’s point about the absence of people in his paintings, I’ve found that a cross without Jesus just doesn’t have the same effect on me.

    Obviously, TK was churning out formulaic paintings to make money. But is that the worst thing in the world? If I had an ounce of artistic talent, I’m sure I would do the same thing. Everyone has to make a living, and I don’t think that painting cheerful–if overly bright–landscapes is the worst thing in the world.

    Sorry to hear about his troubles as well. It’s a tough world, so let’s all try to be a little more charitable.

  • http://vita-nostra-in-ecclesia.blogspot.com Bender

    I wonder what he paints just for his own enjoyment or to challenge himself as an artist?

    This stuff does have the aroma of commercial mass production art. But even the great artists of history churned out that kind of stuff now and then to pay the bills. And, I suppose, if it makes some people happy to buy his stuff, it’s not that terrible a thing that he should continue to make them happy. And it is a million times better than any “modern” art.

  • http://sailorette.blogspot.com Foxfier

    I like Kinkade’s stuff– except for the first picture that is supposed to be “technically superior.”

    It is pretty. That is something greatly lacking in my world these days.

  • http://sailorette.blogspot.com Foxfier

    Correction, the “San Francisco, Late Afternoon at Union Square” is pretty ugly, too.

    Since when is vibrant color more horrible than yet another round of gritty, dirty, dark art?

  • http://sailorette.blogspot.com Foxfier

    BTW, the title “Thomas Kinkade’s DUI Snuffs Light” does kind of sound like “he had a DUI! His art is horrible!”

  • tomg51

    The post and the comments are both fascinating.

    I see a ‘light” Kinkade and can see how someone would imagine the cottage interior as a haven of warm and comfort they wish they could go to. But I think that is sad for them and wonder if it is actually harmful to their lives.

    My office has one print – a rather stormy and dark coast with rocky and treacherous cliffs and coast. The breakers look ready to knock down the gulls. Getting to the next out-cropping of the coast would risk death by falling or hypothermia. I want to go there.

    We all have problems.

  • Aimee

    ” He has his flaws and he paints to make a buck. Its better than stripping down and eating rosary beads, don’t you think?”

    OK, fair enough. But surely these aren’t our only two options? And I don’t see anyone saying that artists shouldn’t make money–there have been many great commercial artists, including Shakespeare. I’m seeing people say that he opted out of being a better artist than he could be to make money. And that’s sad–and a rejection of God’s gift. It would be as if Shakespeare decided to mimic Petrachan sonnets, instead of taking them and changing them in entirely new ways. Kinkade isn’t Shakespeare, but he’s a better artist than he allows himself to be. So yes, one wonders if the DUI is indicative of some kind of soul-sickness.

  • archangel

    ” I’m seeing people say that he opted out of being a better artist than he could be to make money. And that’s sad–and a rejection of God’s gift. ”

    Uh… he provided for his family with a talent God gave him. Parenthood is a vocation. Being able to paint pretty pictures is a talent. Who the heck is anyone to say someone hasn’t used their talent sufficiently because it wasn’t to their liking? Is is work kitschy. Yes… most of it. If you want to go that route… so is Norman Rockwell’s. He simply chose a different subject matter.

    And yes, people are coming off as a bit snobby anchoress. Even you. There two things that bring out the inner snob… “Art” and “Wine”.

    Its all subjective. TK never considered himself a “master”. The “Painter of Light” title is simply a reference to the way the picture illuminates when hit with a museum light in a dimly lit room. That was the “hook” that got people into the galleries.

    Several of you guys need to get over yourselves. I’m quite certain 99.999999% of have made little use of the true talents God has given us. Myself included. All this became was another “my way is better than your way”, “tit for tat” dialogue. The guy paints pictures and makes a buck. He got pinched for a DUI. Some people hate is pictures. Others like them. He has a Christian outlook within his piictures. He falls short of the standard. We all do.

    Next…

  • archangel

    ” I’m seeing people say that he opted out of being a better artist than he could be to make money. And that’s sad- and a rejection of God’s gift”

    Uh… he provided for his family with a talent God gave him. Parenthood is a vocation. Being able to paint pretty pictures is a talent. Who the heck is anyone to say someone hasn’t used their talent sufficiently because it wasn’t to their liking? Is is work kitschy. Yes… most of it. If you want to go that route… so is Norman Rockwell’s. He simply chose a different subject matter.

    And yes, people are coming off as a bit snobby anchoress. Even you. There two things that bring out the inner snob… “Art” and “Wine”.

    Its all subjective. TK never considered himself a “master”. The “Painter of Light” title is simply a reference to the way the picture illuminates when hit with a museum light in a dimly lit room. That was the “hook” that got people into the galleries.

    Several of you guys need to get over yourselves. I’m quite certain 99.999999% of have made little use of the true talents God has given us. Myself included. All this became was another “my way is better than your way”, “tit for tat” dialogue. The guy paints pictures and makes a buck. He got pinched for a DUI. Some people hate is pictures. Others like them. He has a Christian outlook within his piictures. He falls short of the standard. We all do.

    Next…

  • archangel

    sorry for the double punch.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    I would add Andy Warhol, and Picasso, to the Kitsch list, too. (And, yes, both those guys used their art to make money, and gain fame.)

    Pretentious, arty/Avant garde kitcsh is still kitch, and might be worse than the Thomas Kincaide variety.

  • Joe

    There is some funny stuff here at Althouse. Actually it is pretty scathing.

    And Little Miss Attila found some great (if not the greatest) parody sites of Kinkade’s “work.”

  • Joe

    Andy Warhol was who I was thinking about who made art into a media business, but Warhol (without going out of character) let you in on the joke. Although Picasso was ahead of his time doing this (before the media was even ready for it).

    Picasso was a giant, who occasionally did kitch. While Warhol is no Picasso, he was a darn good artist (even if he did a lot of kitch). Kinkade…even his kitch is not that good..

  • Simon Oliver Lockwood

    Don’t understand the hate for Kincade. OK, his style isn’t my cup of tea either. My tastes run to another niche art market — aviation and military art prints, e.g. Robert Taylor, Nicholas Trudgian, James Dietz, & Don Troiani.

    But Kincade neither goes out of his way to be offensive, nor does he take his income from the public fisc. If people enjoy his work enough to pay for it, that’s their concern and his benefit.

  • archangel

    Frankly I think several people here need to watch the Pixar movie, “Ratatouille”.

    I am reminded of the food critic, Ego. He has a stunning monologue at the climax of the movie where he is to give a review of the eatery he despised. The critique becomes an idictment of the whole critical world.

    Feel free to search for “Ratatouille Anton Ego Speech” and you will find Peter O’Tool’s voice idicting many…

    “In the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so.”

    Think about it. I detest snobs.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    No, Simon, I don’t understand the hate either. I suspect it’s like being required to hate Wal-mart, or declare one’s contempt for MacDonald’s, or Disneyland. It shows you’re au courant, and, what’s more, really with it!

    And while I’m not crazy about Kincaide’s cottages, I’d much rather look at them, than at one of Picasso’s weird, dismembered women, or another piece of Warhol pop art.

    As for whether or not Kincaide posses any inner light, that’s not up to me, or any other human being, to decide.

  • Mimsy

    I’m sure that my opinion here is not needed, but…
    I’ve always considered TK’s work (the fluffy stuff) about as appealing (not) as a Precious Moments piece, although I realize that much more skill went into the paintings–but perhaps more feeling went into the PM stuff. The point is that each of us is entitled to our opinion, and the free market will take care of sales and production of paintings (as well as hits and posts on blogs!). For now, we still have the protection of the First Amendment.

  • bt

    I like Kinkade’s paintings. While Cottage By the Sea does not have people in it, it evokes a feeling that if one were to knock on the door of the cottage, they would be welcomed in by kind people, and probably be invited to stay for supper. The cottage has a sense of safety, a calm abode sheltered from the waves, and perhaps even expresses an eternal value–that final security of Heaven. Is it great art? Not on the level of Raphael or Michelangelo, but it has its place (on the living room wall), and people enjoy it. My brother and his wife have a Kinkaid print. Maybe I’m biased! ;)

  • Katie

    Really unbelievable!!!!!!!! First of all, Thomas Kinkade does paint pictures with people in them. I am looking at one right now on my wall. It is a wonderful Christmas scene where people are coming to gather for a celebration. I just wonder who all of you “uppety” people think you are to judge a man you don’t know, to belittle a talent that God gave him, and to even bring up his DUI as if it has any significance here. I can not stand people whose religious intellectualism makes them incapable of relating to the masses. Obviously, people find inspiration in his pieces. In many I feel God’s presence in the beauty. The light beckons me and I wonder of the people who live inside. I find his patriotic pieces especially moving. To compare his works to a lazy and irresponsible culture, and even more so to a contraceptive mentality is quite the stretch. I have read things he has written and I believe he strives to be a man of God. Get off your pious soapboxes and hypocritical high horses and let’s talk about something that really matters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!