Steven:
No Worries. No offense taken - I liked the Gnome quote, so I used it.
Sorry if my post caused confusion, let me clarify my points.
Realist works require objective evaluation - "Is the piece any good?" It is easier for a person to see if they like it or not as the works represent reality - something which most of us see all the time. Realist works often contain a narrative or story requiring the viewer to think their way into the piece. So, there are more reasons for an objective buyer to reject the work - and you typically need a better and more qualified sales staff.
Abstract works require no real objective evaluation beyond - "do I like the colors/shapes/paper cups/dung." This makes it easier for sales staff to prattle on about a piece and say just about anything they want. Also, it is much harder for the viewer to evaluate the work as "good" or "not so good", so they can take in any old thing on canvas or board and call it "art" and make you wonder what the "artist" was "thinking" when he/she created it - the public takes their word for it and pulls out their check book. "After all, they should know...right?"
As to Kinkade, I was referring to those in control of Madison Avenue, not the gentleman himself. His work is easy, serene, and quite popular - they saw a "market" and "money" - he is just the product. Again the public, now dumbed down from decades of abstract and modern art, pulls out their checkbooks to pay thousands of dollars for a mass produced print with a bit of paint on it that they are assured will be worth thousands more in the future. When this great marketing scheme crumbles or fades, and they are left with a bunch of prints that are in reality worth very little - who will they blame? Themselves?
"First, we kill all the artists."
|
Threaded Mode
