This article is not directly related to the Holocaust. Although, much of what is happening in today’s world is a direct result of the outcome of WW2, so let’s just go with it.
If you think you haven’t heard of Thomas Kinkade, you probably actually have. He’s the artist who painted the picture below. He’s the happy cottage guy. He is also the guy that the “art world” loves to hate.
Why does the “art world” hate Kinkade? His stuff is kind of sappy, but it’s not like he doesn’t have talent. And what could be more cozy than putting together a 1000-piece jigsaw puzzle featuring an idyllic Kinkade painting? The hatred of Kinkade has little to do with his actual artwork and more to do with who he is and what he represents.
Who is Kinkade? Kinkade is no saint. He did have problems in his private life one of which, alcoholism, led to his untimely death in 2012 when he was only 54. However, Kinkade’s public persona was one of a born-again Christian, a patriotm and a successful artist. Most importantly, Kinkade was a White man.
Who did Kinkade represent? There are millions of Kinkade fans, so there is bound to be all sorts of people who like his art. However, most of his fans were just normal, decent White folks. Read on and you’ll see why an attack on Kinkade is an attack on White people.
Kinkade’s art is often accused of being kitsch. Kinkade’s daughter, Merritt Kinkade, wrote a response to this accusation in an article called The Kitsch Controversy. Instead of denying the label, she embraces it. From her article:
It is your right to stand in the elitist realm of high art, enjoy colorful expressionistic pieces, or collect garden gnomes. There is art for each individual preference. Kitsch art exists not to create an ‘us’ and ‘them’ dynamic, but rather it is inclusive and relatable. Some of the great talents such as Norman Rockwell and Andy Warhol were considered kitsch, yet they are two of the most beloved artists of the 20th century. The more art can be accessible and embracing, the more individuals from all walks of life will participate in the conversation on art, meaning, and how it reflects ourselves and our culture.
Andy Warhol? The “art world” loves openly gay Andy Warhol. The same can’t be said for the more wholesome Norman Rockwell, however. And herein lies the problem. The “art world” doesn’t want decent (non-LGBT) White folks intruding on their space. For them art needs to be “vibrant” and “diverse”. Like this painting by a Jewish woman, Miriam Cahn, depicting what looks like child rape. (I have censored the image for the sake of human decency.)
How does the art world attack Kinkade’s White fanbase? Look no further than this quote from Stefany Anne Golberg (you may notice a last name pattern as you read) from her article Fade to Black:
Thomas Kinkade has often been likened to Norman Rockwell — that other American populist who painted scenes of a happier America that existed in a bygone age. Like Rockwell, some have said, Kinkade attracted Americans not so much with hope but rather with nostalgia, the sweet sorrow of loss. Yet Kinkade’s paintings are not nostalgic; they are simply unreal. If anything, they depict an America that has never existed, and will never exist. It is the fantasy that makes them so attractive.
That’s right, historically White America, your country has never had a happier time. It has never been great and for you it never will be. This cheery Christmas scene never existed. It’s all a lie and you should feel bad for liking this sick fantasy. Now embrace the diversity as you are racially replaced.
Speaking of Christmas, let’s look at what Nathan Rabin thinks about Kinkade in his scathing article, Commemorative Keepsake Yuletide Case File #152: Thomas Kinkade’s Christmas Cottage:
Kinkade calls himself the most controversial artist in the world, and arguably, he is both the most loved and hated painter alive. To his millions of adoring fans, he represents the triumph of populism and wholesome family values over elitism and intellectual snobbery, the victory of the heart over the mind. To his detractors, he represents the triumph of sub-mediocrity and the commercialization and homogenization of painting (I can’t bring myself to describe what Kinkade does as “art.”) … Kinkade’s detractors also dislike him because his work is fucking terrible, a maudlin, sickeningly sentimental vision of a world where everything is as soothing as a warm cup of hot chocolate with marshmallows on a cold December day.
First I’d like to address how Rabin refuses to even call Kinkade’s work art, a view that is shared in the “art world.” To them Kinkade’s work isn’t art, but some photo from Nan Goldin’s birthday party is because there are gay people in it.
They say that art is supposed to challenge the viewer and invoke emotion. Thomas Kinkade succeeds at this with his fans, who find joy and inspiration in his work. Kinkade also succeeds at this with his critics, who are challenged to feel one of the strongest emotions: hate.
From the rest of Rabin’s statement you get the feeling that the “art world” hates things that are wholesome and pretty, which is true, but that is just part of it. Rabin calls Kinkade’s work a “triumph of populism.” Populism in America (at least for the time being) means White people. Kinkade himself once said, “I view art as an inspirational tool. People who put my paintings on their walls are putting their values on their walls.” There are a certain group of people, including much of the “art world”, that hate White values and the imagery that represents it. How many times have you seen the image below accompanying an article or a meme that demonizes the idea of a decent, White nuclear family?
In 2001 Susan Orlean (also Jewish even though it isn’t apparent by her last name) wrote a piece about Kinkade for the New Yorker called Art for Everybody. In her article, Orlean pokes fun at the “meek and awkward” first-time Kinkade buyers, using subtle language to paint them as naive rubes:
By then, it was midday. Several more paintings had been highlighted and taken away by their owners; Glenda was now sitting with a man and a woman, meek and awkward, their new painting, “Clocktower Cottage,” on the highlighting stand.”
“Is this your first Kinkade?” Glenda asked. They nodded. “Well, congratulations. Let me tell you a little about what is here. This is about the changes of time. You see, everything changes. The sky changes, and the clouds change, and life changes.” They leaned in so that they could follow Glenda’s finger as she pointed to details in the picture. “Do you see this?” she asked, resting her finger on the clocktower. “Here the clock says five-o-two, which is Thom and Nanette’s wedding date. And here are the initials ‘NK’ — that’s for his wife, that’s how he honors her. It’s his love language for her.”
They were transfixed now. Glenda took a brush and dipped it in the green paint, and then with quick, short strokes dappled the underside of a tree. It was just a touch, but the tree suddenly stood out from the other trees, and it seemed newly bright and full. “Wow!” the man said. He glanced at his wife and then back at the picture. “I hadn’t even noticed that before.”
Lastly we have RIP Thomas Kinkade, by Jerry Saltz. It was this article from which I lifted the Kinkade quote earlier. Saltz denies that the “art world” hates wholesome and pretty things and instead insists that Kinkade’s art is hated because it is “cliché and already told”:
The reason the art world doesn’t love Kinkade isn’t that it hates love, life, goodness or God. We may be silly or soulless or whatever, but we don’t automatically hate things with faith and love or that other people love. We’re not sociopaths. (Well, most of us aren’t.) The reason the art world doesn’t respond to Kinkade is because none — not one — of his ideas about subject-matter, surface, color, composition, touch, scale, form or skill is remotely original. They’re all cliché and already told. This is why Kinkade’s pictures strike those in the art world as either prepackaged, ersatz, contrived or cynical.
Thing is, I’m not buying your argument, Saltz. You can say it’s been done before about most art. Allow me to demonstrate:
Oh, what’s this? A biting satire about a rich and powerful nation? How many times have I seen that before? *Yawn* What’s that say in the blurb? He did a thing about Hitler begging for mercy? Well I’ll be! No one has ever had to guts to criticize Hitler before. What an absolute pioneer.
Saltz ends his piece with this:
Kinkade’s paintings are worthless schmaltz, and the lamestream media that love him are wrong. However, I’d love to see a museum mount a small show of Kinkade’s work. I would like the art world and the wider world to argue about him in public, out in the open. Kinkade once said his goal was to “make people happy.” I’m not sure if there’s anything to be learned from happy public reactions at a museum to Kinkade’s paintings, but I’m more than happy to, as he put it, test our values on their walls.
Once again, a person with a particular last name thinks that decent White people are wrong for liking what they like. How dare they! Saltz says there’s nothing to be learned from happy reactions to Kinkade paintings. Didn’t Saltz say something about not hating love, faith and god? It kind of sounds like you do hate those things, Saltz. He then snarkily says he’d like to test “art world” values on the walls of White people. What, like homosexual and ugly degenerate stuff? Or like little paint squiggles that are supposed to represent concepts that White people are supposedly too dumb to understand?
In the end, many of the attacks of Kinkade are just an attack on White America. And why attack White people? To answer that all you have to do is look at what he particular last named people are saying:
Norman Rockwell kind of cucked later in his career by doing some anti-White material (see: The Problem We All Live With, 1964). Rockwell managed to rehabilitate his career in the art critic world to some extent before he died. Kinkade never did, or even attempted to. I think Rockwell’s work was more grounded in reality, since the America that he lived in was actually closer to an idyllic White ethnostate than it was decades later during Kinkade’s lifetime. So, it’s certainly true that Kinkade’s paintings existed, in large measure, in a world of fantasy. But isn’t that one of the reasons why art exists in the first place? Isn’t it supposed to inspire the creation of a better world, rather than just tear down and destroy? Maybe that’s what separates the goyische mentality from the Jewish one.
It’s ironic they kvetch about notions of “schmaltz” since Holocaust propaganda relies heavily on such sappy sentimentality to emotionally blackmail people. You’re bombarded with violin music, heavily accented crusty old Jews telling their “voe is ve” stories, and black and white photos of seemly “harmless” Jews in tattered clothes , striped pajamas, and Fiveal from An American Tail hats. The point is to implant in your mind the notion of how an innocent people be viewed with such “hate” by those “evil” Germans or in today’s case, White nationalists and Palestinians.
>sappy sentimentality to emotionally blackmail people
Yes, good point — I especially remember the ridiculous mawkish fable of Herman Rosenblat, ‘Angel at the Fence’ — how he and his smiling idiot wife went on programs like Oprah and glibly lied to all the rapt goyim watching — and the big ‘Oh well, so what?’ when confronted about the fairy tale they’d told for years.
I appreciate you!
Thank you 🙂
We need a modern day final solution
The final solution was to emigrate Jews out of Europe. I suppose a modern one would include Jews resettling Jews out of America as well.
I say we blockade Israel and let the Palestians, Arabs, and Lebanese go full Haitian massacre on them.
The reasons for their hostility to this sort of art are absolutely ideological and have its roots in things like the Dada movement (the original urinal “sculpture”) and the Kentler experiment (article linked here: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/07/26/the-german-experiment-that-placed-foster-children-with-pedophiles).
Dada art was known for being a “fascist detector” because the secret was that despite industry fanfare, much of it was treated less as art and more as a way for anti-fascists to take note of who disliked it as having fascist sentiments. Standards, after all, *are* fascism, you can see this type of language in everything from lowered requirements at schools to the anti science fat “acceptance” movement. The logic goes that anyone who turns up their nose at a literal toilet presented as art is likely to have fascist sentiments and is someone you should distance from while taking note of who they are.
The Kentler experiment, on the other hand, was cooked up by a pedophile sexologist in the 60’s who wanted to implement a program based on Wilhelm Reich’s theories that “total sexual freedom” was the key to erasing fascism before it could get started and so several children were intentionally placed with known pedophiles. This was a government funded project that went on until the 2000’s. And how does this relate to art? These ideas were the bedrock for a lot of “sexual freedom” and “queer ideology” narratives found in Wilhelm Reich’s “The Mass Psychology of Fascism” book which directly influenced photographers like Sally Mann and Jacqueline Livingston. I won’t describe Livingston’s photos here, but they were plainly obscene and both are retroactively heralded as art heroes who stood up against authoritarian censorship.
The “sudden” celebration of ugliness and indecency isn’t necessarily because the industry jews actually like these things. Much like how they live in gated communities while not having to deal with the realities of their own policies, it’s because they want to know who doesn’t support them and is willing to complain about it so they can put your name on a list and punish you further with the next set of “enlightened” inverted norms.
Interesting, thanks for sharing. Makes a lot of sense. I am no expert on the topic of art, but I can report what I’m seeing.
I do think these art scene Jews do like the ugly art, tbh.
I appreciate you 🙂
This could be a partial reason for the traffic boost you were talking about very recently: https://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/439750243#p439759704
Someone’s original thread recommended utilizing the facts on your site to make and spread more memes: https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/439326533/#439326533
Maybe you’ll find some of the recent Adam ones funny. Again, you are appreciated!
Thanks for posting this. It is appreciated. It does help explain a lot of the traffic.
I was wondering why this post had so many comments.
I appreciate you!
I appreciate you.
I appreciate you 🙂
We appreciate you!
I will never stop collecting his puzzles and they can’t stop me.
I appreciate all the appreciating!
I appreciate you appreciating all.of our appreciation.
😀
Stuff like this boils my blood because one of the big reasons I became who I am today Is growing up feeling so atomized and alienated and then learning from things like The Culture of Critique and Lyle Burkhead’s analysis of The Third Wave experiment about absolutely fanatically dedicated jews have been at preventing whites from having any sort of authentic community, belonging, or greater purpose to struggle for.
Jewish savages are offended by this art because it shows that gentiles have the creativity to imagine a world without them. The world depicted by Kinkade is free of the influence of their vile, uncivilized shibboleths. This underlying truth stings them like a vampire being burned by the sunlight.
This assertion that the jews vomit out of their lying mouths that such a world never existed and could never exist is a nakedly-transparent attempt at gaslighting, in addition to being a moot point. The world as depicted in Kinkade’s paintings is an *ideal*, something to strive towards, and is therefor something that jews refuse to acknowledge.
Yes, jews, such a world *can* exist, and it *will* exist, but only after you are cast out.
Also, I appreciate you, Great Mystery
I agree, thank you for the insightful comment. I appreciate it very much!