Should an artist try to be popular?

Most artists in the history of the world haven’t had the luxury of popularity (at least, not while they were living).

They practiced their art, with the purposes of encouraging discourse, provoking debate, getting people to look at things differently, creating art to self-express and putting their message out into the world, remuneration be damned.

Thomas Kinkade, who died last Thursday, was not among them.

He was called the most collected artist in America. It’s estimated that one of his paintings hangs in 1 in 20 U.S. homes.

He got renumerated a lot.

Dubbed “The Painter of Light,” Kinkade had a signature style that featured glowing highlights and saturated pastels. You could identify one of his “life-affirming” works from across the room. Maybe from across the street.

He had an extremely consistent style. You could call it “American populist living room friendly.” Originality was not his thing.

Or was it?

Don’t you think it takes an incredibly deep storehouse of creative energy to be as prolific as he was? Would’t it take an infinite supply of inspiration?

And what’s wrong with making lots and lots and lots of people happy every time they look at a pretty picture?

In a world already filled with debate and discourse, it’s nice to put a something out there that may not no message other than: “Hey, you: Smile.”