I wrote this while listening to my country-western music cd and watching Phantom of the Opera: The Movie

The article “…Down at the Pawnshop” by Allen Salkin reveals a little-known aspect of the world of art collectors and the artists themselves. It is something we can all relate to; financial difficulties. What do you do when you can no longer pay your bills, or lack the funds to purchase something you want (like Evan Tawil, an art collector who wanted to buy even more art)? Well, you can follow suit with the famous photographer, Annie Leibovitz, and essentially get a mortgage on your art, as many people do at pawnshops for various items. However, these mortgages start at $500,000 and carry interest rates of up to 24%, at least for a company called ArtLoan, which Salkin mentions in this article. Indicating the controversy surrounding these artistic pawnshops, at least one lawsuit has been brought against such companies, also mentioned in this discussion, over whether a patron had fulfilled his end of the bargain.

The worth that can be siphoned from art cannot be better exemplified than in Thomas Kinkade’s multimillion dollar (billion?) empire that he compares to Walt Disney’s domain in the presentation by 60 Minutes. He has used some very good marketing skills to sell record numbers of his prints, as well as several other products, including snow globes, trinkets, and even houses, which all carry the “Kinkade” brand.

These two phenomena are possible because of the capitalistic society that we live in, and in my opinion, no one can blame people like Leibovitz and Kinkade for taking advantage of it. As was brought up in class, Andy Warhol did incredibly similar things with his art, much of it not even designed by himself (for example, the Brillo boxes, which already existed; they were merely larger copies). At the very least, Thomas Kinkade hand-paints the original piece of art before it is mass-produced; even if people do not consider him an “artist,” it cannot be argued that he possesses artistic talent.


You may have gathered that I have a problem with those who criticize Kinkade. Perhaps I am doing as was quoted in either Freeland’s or Ross’s text, and “speaking to reveal my class,” but so be it. I do not know how anyone can find anything wrong with Kinkade’s “empire” when some drips and swirls on a canvas (i.e., Jackson Pollock, the topic of my future presentation) can sell for ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY MILLION DOLLARS. I believe that it would be difficult to find someone who finds Kinkade’s work unattractive, however redundant and predictable. Is it so bad to like pretty things? I also take issue with how everyone in the 60 Minutes presentation was portrayed, like lemmings with no class and no mind of their own, following the Pied Piper Kinkade off the edge of the cliff. All of the people in the film simply enjoy comfort and familiar things. Also, the $150,000 that the couple with 138 Kinkade paintings spent shows that they are at least members of the upper middle class. They have the means to spend over $1,000 per piece of art, an amount that many people would never be able to accomplish.
Kinkade mentioned his “cultural identity” as a key component in his business. He includes family and God in his values, and whether he believes in these two or not, his audience does. It was also mentioned in class that he paints according to what he knows pleases this audience, but I do not find anything wrong with that either. Warhol said that he did not intend his art for anyone in particular, but he was obviously a self-promoter whose goal was to become rich and famous. If Kinkade wants the same thing, who is to judge him?


Al Capp said this about abstract art, but perhaps it applies to other kinds; “A product of the untalented, sold by the unprincipled to the utterly bewildered.” Does Warhol apply? Kinkade? You be the judge, but you now have my opinion.


The image used in this blog is from http://www.kinkadecentral.com/paintings/tk97-01.htm
It is from 1997 and is entitled "Tea Cup Cottage."