Digital Masterworks Art-TV could switch between TV and art display

Oh sure, GalleryPlayer enables your HDTV to instantly turn into an art display, but it doesn't even pretend to be anything classier than a multifaceted television. Samsung, however, is looking to change the game by partnering with Thomas Kinkade on a new 46-inch prototype Digital Masterworks Art-TV. The unit was recently showcased to news media, and it's said to be "housed n a Thomas Kinkade frame designed to accentuate the fine art theme." From what we can gather, it's being aimed at folks who'd love a nice piece of art sitting above their mantel, but when the time comes, they can switch off the paintings and throw on a day's worth of NFL in HD. The wild thing here is how important the actual art aspect is to the display, with hidden touch controls planned to enable viewers to flip through artworks and zoom in / out as they please. Heck, there's even integrated WiFi, a 40GB hard drive, 3,000:1 contrast ratio, 8ms response time and 500 nits of brightness. The set is due out exclusively through Thomas Kinkade's Signature Gallery later this year, with iffy plans to release it to other retailers in 2H 2009.

[Via CNET]

[Flashpoint @ Jun 4th 2008 5:58PM]

On a wall - OK

but on a table stand? That would be the tackiest sh*t in history.

[Samboini @ Jun 4th 2008 6:30PM]

It depends, my art is porn. Porn is already tacky. Win-win!

Until the parents come over that is...

[Killa Gorillaz @ Jun 4th 2008 6:53PM]

You mean when they go down in their basement? :)

[Cal @ Jun 4th 2008 6:00PM]

I suppose it's better than just having a blank screen when you're not using your TV, but I'm guessing it isn't too kind on your electric bill

[wasabi @ Jun 4th 2008 6:01PM]

wouldn't diminish the lifespan of your tv by leaving it on constantly?

[Flashpoint @ Jun 4th 2008 6:02PM]

Unless things have improved, I'd read 2 years ago that these displays should last for about 70,000 hours.

[Warren @ Jun 4th 2008 6:10PM]

70,000 hours at my math would be just under 8 years of 24/7 usage. Thats a long time...

70,000/24 hours in a day = 2916.6 days
2916.6 days/365 days a year = 7.99 years

[Arttemis @ Jun 4th 2008 6:40PM]

Considering how my last (CRT) TV was fully functional without flaws for 17 years, 8 years seems pretty small... especially when you consider the costs.

I'd much rather stretch those 8 years by keeping the TV on for only several hours a day rather than constantly on --- when it won't even be looked at for longer than a glance at a time.

[miko34 @ Jun 4th 2008 6:08PM]

I'll wait until these are OLED or something better so that we don't see backlight while in "art" mode.

[Arttemis @ Jun 4th 2008 6:11PM]

I take it "image persistence" doesn't matter to this target audience?

[PiNPOiNT @ Jun 4th 2008 6:17PM]

Your art will soon become permanent once the image burns in (or persists) so you can enjoy it overlayed onto your football game as well :)

[peshue @ Jun 4th 2008 6:21PM]

Mr. Rogers would be proud.

[Matthew C @ Jun 5th 2008 11:40AM]

my thoughts exactly. I wonder if he had a patent for that?

[giyad @ Jun 4th 2008 6:27PM]

burn in across the entire TV???

[solu @ Jun 4th 2008 6:30PM]

since when does LCD burn in...

[Colin Potter @ Jun 5th 2008 1:15AM]

LCD WILL BURN IN FROM A LONG TIME OF A SINGLE IMAGE

although it is very very VERY rare... I have seen it. at my work the Tills use LCD monitors and if you close the Point of Sale program to run anything else (it runs off windows server) you can see a slight image burn of the POS program's layout

[Chicksta @ Jun 4th 2008 6:45PM]

When did Thomas Kinkade become 'fine art' anyways? That's like calling Boone's Farm fine wine.

[MeatPop @ Jun 4th 2008 6:58PM]

don't be such an elitist.

boone's farm is mighty fine.

[jojo @ Jun 4th 2008 7:52PM]

yeah...check out the red sox paintings he does.....nasty.

[Sean O @ Jun 4th 2008 10:56PM]

Nothing says "art" like NASCAR.

[asmith @ Jun 5th 2008 2:26AM]

I don't like all this insulting of Boone's Farm. I'd say referring to Kinkade as art is more like referring to prison hooch as fine wine.

[Cassini @ Jun 5th 2008 5:28AM]

I'd say when his paintings first began being celebrated and he was being recognized as an accomplished artist with a unique style. That's part of the whole "fine art" thing.

Each to his own, but while leaving the popularity contest aspect out of it, I'm quite certain many people had the same attitude you did when they had first set their eyes on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Picasso-Necklace.jpg (Not something I'm going to be hanging on my wall anytime in this life. But a Kinkade I would consider).

[Nick @ Jun 5th 2008 10:06AM]

He's the Britney Spears of the art world. You can pretty much assume that if an artist makes that much money while still alive, he's a sellout. But man has he mastered the colorful cottage painting!

[maff @ Jun 5th 2008 11:10AM]

Cassini: it comes down to which is more groundbreaking/original at the time, imo Kincaid is highly drivative and foisted on a undemanding and nostalgic public, i'd have the picasso anyday if I had the sweet moola!

[Steve A. @ Jun 4th 2008 6:54PM]

Yeah, and it probably takes 500 watts an hour while operating. If left on all day, it'd consume 12 kWh daily, 4380 kWh annually.

By the cost of electricity per state, here's what it'd cost you annually just to power your one TV.

Washington State @ .06 per kWh = $307
Texas @ .10 per kWh = $438
Hawaii @ .28 per kWh = $1226

[LT73 @ Jun 4th 2008 8:07PM]

Thanks Steve.

You took the math right out of my mind...

[Bones3D @ Jun 4th 2008 6:55PM]

Didn't they come up with this concept back when Mr. Roger's Neighborhood was first on TV?

[John M @ Jun 4th 2008 6:57PM]

http://www2.panasonic.com/consumer-electronics/shop/Televisions/Framed-Plasma-HDTVs/model.TH-EBP42BLCK_11002_7000000000000005702

I'm afraid Panasonic beat them to it by quite awhile although they are plasma, 42 inch and run galleryplayer though an SD card, not a hard drive with WiFi.

That said there are many companies that will sell you a custom frame for your flat panel TV.

[Samurai Jack @ Jun 4th 2008 7:00PM]

You'd be better off with a Mad Magazine-like fold over cover frame that hides the TV until you want it. Just rest the rails over the bezel. Heck, it can be battery powered and remote controlled if you like. Much more energy friendly to use a real painting than an electronic one.

[cit9 @ Jun 4th 2008 7:05PM]

Power consumption?

[DJ PsiLon @ Jun 4th 2008 7:05PM]

I work for another commercial artist in the same vein and honestly I think products like these just dilute the value of the piece. A Giclee on Canvas will hold more value over time than 2 year old outdated technology.

[michael @ Jun 4th 2008 7:22PM]

Kinkade is a bastard and I'm a jealous artist.

[Bryan Thornsberry @ Jun 4th 2008 7:28PM]

Tell us how you really feel

[michael @ Jun 4th 2008 8:43PM]

I was just joking around. I don't care for his quasi-fantasy paintings at all. I've seen some impressionist paintings of his. Technically they were really well done, as are his quasi-fantasy ones.

I put him in the same place as Koons. I don't like their art but I admire what they've achieved by doing what they love.

[Sebastian @ Jun 4th 2008 7:44PM]

That picture looks like Mêlée Island.

[rob @ Jun 5th 2008 12:13PM]

Wonder if you can buy the Monkey Island paintings anywhere, since they were actual paintings (early on anyways).


Stinkin' Kincade, Painter of Light (tm)... As a Christian, apparently I'm expected to drool over this guys work. I feel the same way as I do about Chihuly. Probably done in an art sweatshop by "apprectices" and he just slaps his name down there. THEN you can take your art to a "Signature Gallery" and have an "accent artist" (read "color by number graduate") spoil the painting you just paid hundreds of dollars for by painting white lines on top of it! Hacks... grrr.

Okay, too early in the AM for all that.

[Jim @ Jun 4th 2008 7:55PM]

What is the painting depicted on the TV?

[Samurai Jack @ Jun 4th 2008 8:51PM]

I guess in this instance he is literally "the painter of light".

[gwizah @ Jun 4th 2008 8:40PM]

Great, At least now I can change the channel instead of having to stare at this kitchsy douchebags paintings.

Oh wait, these are being sold "through" his signature galleries?

No thanks. I wonder what kind of encryption they will be throwing on the HD to keep his painting from being pulled off.

[Y00. @ Jun 4th 2008 9:22PM]

I saw somethig like that in the movie Back To The Future 2.

[Arbert @ Jun 5th 2008 12:20AM]

the thomas kincaid of TVs

[mixed @ Jun 5th 2008 1:12AM]

Koons?????

[bebop @ Jun 5th 2008 4:41AM]

So... given the frame is fixed ratio, do people worry about finding "art" that has the same ratio as the frame? Imagine the Mona Lisa hanging in the Louvre with a 9:16 frame and black fill around the left and right sides!

No wait, for the target audience "fit to frame" would do the trick nicely:

"That's not the Mona Lisa dude. It's Eric Cartman!"

[ITRanger @ Jun 5th 2008 5:51AM]

Finally, something more in line with what I've always viualized. Needs to be OLED, very little power consuption, super slim, fitting practically flush against the wall.

I could imagine rotating photos and/or 'art works' on a weekly or daily basis.

I thought OLEDs in the beginning were supposed to be able to hold a colour display indefinitely with no power needed, unless you neeeded to change the picture/display. How long is that feature going to take to arrive?

[Kevin @ Jun 5th 2008 9:09AM]

I doubt power consumption would be a huge issue. With all of those features, I would guess that they would have timed use, as well as turning down the backlight in "art mode." It's a pretty cool idea and I really like the frame, but I would agree that it's probably a bit ahead of the technology. With that said, as digital photo frames become larger, this doesn't really seem that different, and those are quite popular.

[Anto @ Jun 5th 2008 1:01PM]

Cool, like it! The digital art thing sounds wicked.

[Cassini @ Jun 6th 2008 9:45PM]

@Maff

Groundbreaking? Or the case of this Picasso, absurd? Seriously, though, I hear what you're saying, but if the value of art was simply defined by the term "groundbreaking" (which is also a subjective term), then it could possibly leave out the majority of what would certainly be considered fine art. I can't say that Kinkade's work is groundbreaking, but it's certainly original. I mean, we're not talking about "Dogs Playing Poker" here. And as long as a piece of art isn't plagiarized, when wouldn't it be original for someone? Everyone has their tastes - you talk to ten critics, you get ten different opinions.

Picasso certainly had talent that I see in other paintings he did, but much of what he did during his cubism movement, I don't care for, although I like cubism. Again, each to his own. That painting I linked to may have the Picasso name, but art and the popularity of a name has a funny way of making the regular man pretend he's a highbrow or pseudointellectual (not directed to you, just a general statement). I saw a distinguished British art critic once give praise to a piece of art secretly painted by an elephant. People sometimes read too much into certain works and too quickly discredit others.

And I don't think the motives behind Kinkade's sales are complicated or disingenuous as you make it out to be. Personally, I don't own a single Kinkade painting or book, but if people didn't like his work, they wouldn't buy it. Art speaks to people in different ways.


@Nick

What's wrong with Brittany Spears? LOL... (j/k). But how does making money off of your art make you a sell-out? Is that the case with all actors, composers, musicians, dancers, writers, playwrights, sculptors, photographers, and other artists, too? Do none of them make money while alive and remaining true to their craft and style? Or does this just apply to painters?

Interesting comments here, but in the context of a fine artist, what would being a sell-out even mean? What would you be selling out to, exactly? What style is it that's so in demand in the fine art world that an artist would be tempted to set aside his or her own unique style in exchange for another that was thought to generate more income? Isn't part of making art, sharing it with the world as much as you can? You don't create works simply to hide them in shadow. How does the term "sell-out" apply when considering the people who promote, find demand, and sell off works of art of now well celebrated artists after they're gone? Does that mean that if an artist enjoyed that income during his life, he'd be a sell-out, but because he's dead now and missed out, it doesn't apply? Do you think that the promotion and sale of works which now generate incredible amounts of money after a given artist's death, serve as indicators that the artist wasn't true to his craft when he first created his works?

Incomes vary, like in any other sector of life, but many people make good money off of their paintings while creating fantastic pieces. And likewise, not every artist that starves, is talented. Either your style is in demand, or it isn't. But either way, it doesn't automatically mean that an artist isn't being true to themselves. You couldn't paint like Kinkade and paint that much, and not be true to your style. Kinkade just found a style he enjoys and is good at, and happened to find demand for his paintings - his style hasn't changed from the beginning; he's just honed his ability. Love it or hate it, few here could paint like he does.

If people really examined some of the attitudes behind their criticism of his work (and it's perfectly fine by me if you don't like what he does), people may come to find that it's not all of Kinkade's work that they dislike. In a world so driven by greed (and I'm not accusing Kinkade of anything here - people have a right to make a living), it's probably more of the commercialization of his works they don't like; some people are really turned off by the whole "commercialization" thing. But because the two are joined, they wrinkle their noses at the whole thing. Shoot, maybe they don't like his paintings simply because of his faith, values, and belief system, which he makes known. Maybe someone is simply jealous of his success. Who knows.


@Sean O

I have no reason to believe that any one person will be attracted to every single painting that any one particular artist has created. Some you like, some you don't. But one painting can't discredit the entire library of works of an artist.