The pile-on on Thomas Kinkaide - it's not about the art -

[Atman]

96. Chill. I'm not only NOT preaching to you, I wasn't even addressing you!

I'm an "artist." I make a living off of various forms of visual arts, from commercial illustration to painting. I've had a few gallery exhibitions, and I've been a "featured artist" on one of those PBS fund raising auctions -- in a metro area, with my work featured in the fancy printed program, and someone bought it for MORE than the listed price. I've sold several paintings, though I don't make my living off of them. I'm framing a signed print this week to ship out to a buyer in Florida. So in terms of who is preaching to whom, give me a freakin' break!

How many times do I have to point out that I consider Kinkade a scam artist? But don't you understand that that is not at all the same as saying prints or giclees are "scams." The scam comes from the dark soul of the artist who rips people off. Here is a great example...I have a beautiful print hanging in my house, the original work done by a largely unknown artist named Mark Perrin. He is a god, in my opinion. If you're lucky enough to find examples of his work online, maybe you'll agree. One of the best dry-brush watercolorists I've ever seen, with a crazy Hieronymous Bosch-esque sensibility, but updated to more modern times (especially tropical and water scenes). Anyway, the print I have is "signed" by Mark. It is a photographic print, as giclees and modern repro techniques weren't invented when I acquired it. It is one of my favorite pieces of art.

So, several years later, I find out the signed print I own was actually signed by his wife, who wound up with a few of them during an ugly divorce battle. My signed print is an actual print approved by the artist (and he was meticulous about color-matching; the photographer/print maker was a photographer for National Geographic), but signed by his ex-wife to make a few bucks to pay for the divorce. Ironic, eh?

Here's the deal, based upon your what you say about "prints" being bad things...this print is one of Mark's actual prints. He approved it, it was created in a limited edition. But his wife gave it as a gift, representing it as a signed limited edition. Does it make the "art" any less beautiful? No, but it can be argues that it harms the VALUE of all of his prints (unless you can verify edition numbers). Yet, it is still one of my favorite paintings ever. Maybe this ancient scandal will make it worth more, probably not. Mark has been dead for a decade, and his actual originals are sadly now out of my price range. But this print brings me happiness, because I like the art, it makes me think of Mark, and his wife (who I actually rented gallery space from), and it brightens my home.

The point being, after this long diatribe...why is the print, which you so disparage, any less than art if the people who own it enjoy it? Is your definition of art based solely upon the possession of an original canvas, otherwise it's dreck? Kinkade's stuff is dreck anyway, imho, but it is still art that makes some people happy. This is why, totally separate from the discussion of the nature/subject matter of his work, I refuse to jump on the Kinkade-Is-Not-Art bandwagon. His art is pure schlock. It is bad art. It is art you personally don't like, nor do I. But it is art, nonetheless. YOU don't get to decide what is art, unless it going to hang on YOUR wall. But if you want, you can piss on it, put it a jar, and call it your own art.

Rant off.

.