Over a Pepsi light

[Michael Georges]

But God help me, what is that contempt of Kinkade and others of his ilk? What petty and small-minded perspectives we're bringing to our vocation. Is everyone so afraid of pretenders, that we've left our studios to sound the alarms against merchandisers? Let's get a grip.

Steven,

My concern is the fact that many unknowledgable people are paying lots of money for prints with a bit of oil paint on them. They are being sold a line of bull that says that these are "fine art" and that they are "valuable" and that their value will "appreciate" over time.

I believe that harms us all.

Reality is that the value of mass market prints do not go up appreciably over time due to the very high print runs done - more likely they will depreciate when Kinkade goes out of fashion and the mall stores close in a few years. These people will eventually find out that their "investment" is really worth nothing. They will blame who? Themselves? I think not.

These prints are like Beanie Babies but on a much larger scale and thereby much more damaging to the public and the fine arts profession.

Further, the one Kinkade print I have examined up close was tacked down to a board - an improper method of mounting a "valuable" print which renders it valueless. I suspect that all Kinkade prints are mounted this way - if so, then despite the market, they are junk.

[Peggy Baumgaertner]

...and so it will always go. Before Kinkade there was duck art, and cowboy art, and...

Go to any framing/reproduction/limited edition store and you will find the latest in "collectable art". Wildlife art, duck stamps, camouflaged Indians? Collector plates? Painted quarters? September 11th medallions?

Hey, I have no quarrel with novice collectors laying out their hard-earned money for Kinkade. It is just this movement of purchasing wildlife and cowboy reproductions that helped to fuel the demise of the abstract movement. The buyer votes with his pocketbook? Well, he wants realistic art. He wants homey, nurturing, comfortable, non-edgy, non-threatening, non-ugly art. And the big galleries are responding to that. Not by giving shows to Kinkade, but by showing representational art in numbers not seen in the last 60 years. Why? Because that is what people want to buy!

I have my own sacrifices - instead of commissioning me to paint a portrait in honor of a deceased benefactor who donated a large sum of money to our local hospital, the committee determined that an original (this was an original, and extremely pricey...) Kinkade be placed on the wall instead. So there it goes. I have lost a heavy commission to Kinkade, but there is still enough work for all of us.

Don't worry about it. Really. This is the best advice I can give. Run your own race. Set your own goals. It doesn't matter what everyone or anyone else is doing. My greatest advantage (...this harkens back to another thread....) has been to live in a backwater area where there are no other artistic influences around me. I am isolated, and therefore am learning in a cocoon where my friends and teachers are Kramskoy, and Van Dyke, and Sargent.

Kinkade? Who's Kinkade?

Peggy

[Michael Fournier]

I must agree with both Steve and Michael. I have seen many buyers being duped into believing that their reproduction prints have a value beyond the cost of print and frame. And this is not limited to Kinkade's. I once did a stint in sales of prints and in doing so I had to actually buy the prints I was using to show to possible buyers. I soon tired of this, but I was stuck with these prints. Years later I was curious if these prints did have any value. And although I did find that when I talked to anyone involved in selling prints, that they would express how lucky I was to have one of these prints, since you could no longer get them, not one of these dealers would offer to buy them - or even put a value on them. In fact, I found no market at all for these prints. I soon learned that the print market, although it allows artist to sell to a wider audience of people, the real value is in the original. The more popular the print, the more valued its original.

Now, that said, it is not that you could not find a buyer willing to purchase a hard-to-find print for more then you paid for it, but that is simply supply and demand. As long as demand is greater than supply, then the value will hold or increase. In the case of Kinkade, he holds the originals now in a vault, and sells only prints. And his many mall outlets, as well as other dealers are dictating the size of the print runs as well as reprints. And these runs number into the thousands - hardly a shortage of supply. And in the future, these prints will be easy to come by, meaning that the value will be equal to other collectibles that number in the thousands per edition. And that is not that high. Collectibles, such as baseball cards and Beanie Babies, for the most part gain value due to the fact that only a few of the many produced survive to become collectibles.

As for Kinkade's prints, as long as more people want them than there are copies for sale, then they will hold value. I personally do not believe that will continue, and because his corporation is having financial difficulties, I think the end has already started. In some ways I think it is partially due to all the exposure he has gotten. People love to tear down the successful if only to make their own failure seem OK or to cover their own insecurities. Just look at how people are eating up Martha Stewart's current FTC troubles. But why should we join in? Although I would not advise someone purchase a Kinkade as an investment (and in many ways I feel those behind the Kinkade market are being dishonest with the buyers), I hold no grudge against Mr. Kinkade. I also must say that I do not think anyone interested in my own paintings would somehow decide not to buy one because they fell in love with some Kinkade print at the mall.

As for the over all level of Mr. Kinkade's work, I feel he is a decent enough artist but I most certainly would not look to him as a master to emulate or copy even if that was the style or subject matter you like. If you like that style there are plenty of artists, including those from the Hudson River School (specifically Albert Bierstadt, Thomas Cole or Thomas Hill) if you want grand landscapes with sunsets and rainbows. Or you may prefer the naturalists painters like Daniel Ridgway Knight. Or if you like the cityscape of lights and reflections, the work of Edouard Leon Cort

[Timothy C. Tyler]

People who could afford good and reliable makes of cars buy bad ones. People who could choose to construct a lovely home build things that are painful to look upon. A lady near where we once lived went thru 2 designers and 4 builders before she finally constructed the largest and most unsightly 10,000 sq. ft. home in our county. This happens.

Attempting to cure the world of its problems will take all your spare time.

Do good work - there are plenty of people out there who recognize the better stuff.

[Mike McCarty]

Michael,

I agree completely with your approach. And I would like to point out that my approach when I encountered this situation was to listen politely. Only later, speaking here to my friends and associates, did my thoughts spill over.

Your approach, Michael, to gently educate and persuade is the right thing to do. It's right if you care about the person. There have been notable times in my life when I have been "gently set straight." This has occurred on any number of subjects, and on occasion by perfect strangers. I always considered it to be a gift.

It's a little hard to predict what subjects will strike a cord. I would like to propose a truce regarding this subject. I'm going to crack open a COMPLETE Pepsi, loaded with sugar and caffeine and toast you all.

[Steven Sweeney]

I also agree that sharing our perspectives and practices and insights with prospective clients is the way to go. That is SO much more interesting than bashing artisans whose work we feel to be lesser than ours and worthy only of our contempt.

If folks want our work, they'll buy it, if they can. If they don't buy it, then either they know about it and don't want it (it's possible, isn't it, that some of us just don't produce work that everyone is dying to own?), or can't afford the price we've put on it, or they'd like it and would buy it if they knew about it, but we haven't told them about it. Which of those scenarios are the Kinkades of the world to blame for?

If the Kinkade empire is about ready to tank, as suggested, then much of the logic presented in this thread would suggest that we'll all suddenly see such a backlog of commissions, we won't be able to squeeze paint out fast enough.

And wouldn't that be fun? (And doesn't the logic seem, suddenly, harder to follow?)

Now I'm going to open a Pepsi, too, diet and straight up, though perhaps upon reflection with a distilled mixer. Cheers, all, until next time.