To Market To Market To Buy Some Fat Art.

Because Koons embraced the establishment from day one. I believe he worked in a museum or gallery early in his career, he sought out the old guard like Dali and Warhol for advice. He was a fan. He creates for the art investors. Art investing requires one hand feeding the other - critics, museums, curators, investors, galleries, auction house, artists - all benefit from the cycle. No one wants the music to stop and be left without a chair so the they all feed off each other and keep the music playing.

Don't know much about Kinkade other then he played outside the establishment (like Lik), selling his own work, licensing it, franchising it. Created his own art world and sold to people who could care less about the establishment. These people create for the end user.

kincade plastered all his art on plates and other knick knacks. if that's all you do, people will make fun of it and they did. while his art was nice, it was kind of the same looking. he was also a bit religiousy, but i don't know if that played against him or not. i don't know who the other guy is.

---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Mike - Koons is the balloon animal guy.

Koons holds the record for the most money for the sale of a work of art by a living artist. Something like 58 million dollars.

is there a picture of his work?

most of the time when selling art of any kind - is who you know, and how good your hype engine is. kincade has his stuff plastered on everything, so he basically sold trinkets. where others some how stepped up and got on a higher platform. like if i knew a guy that knew a guy that could make me famous overnight, i wouldn't be here. but if you don't know a guy that knows a guy, then you have to figure out how to do it yourself. i guess koons, lik and others that fetch high prices, have that guy that helps them out in that area.

---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

https://www.google.com/search?q=jeff+koons&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=d9sSVZ2BA8G1ggTNiIRQ&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1338&bih=603#imgdii=_&imgrc=Zsws7Oul4SlBrM%253A%3BFOFkCGYBkBOH-M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252F3.design-milk.com%252Fimages%252F2013%252F06%252FJeff_Koons_Gagosian_10-600x394.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fdesign-milk.com%252Fa-closer-look-at-jeff-koons%252F%3B600%3B394

I think Edward's review of Koons is spot on. He has always had the notice and respect of the art world, whereas Kinkade, not at all. No doubt Kinkade had painting skills but that alone does not define great art. I am not and have never been a Koons fan. But laying my cards on the table he has his place in the art world. Kinkade (I think Lik too) were/are more of a popular sideshow for the masses. Particularly Kinkade's religious bent caused some to use his work like a shrine.

We are a house full of working artists and our running joke was that we would not even say Kinkade's name, he was referred to as "the K word."

Like it or not Koon's works now are all going to high end collectors and museums. Just try Googling the "value" of a Kinkade. You will find many for sale but getting a valuation is almost impossible. That says volumes. I believe we will discover something similar when it comes to Lik's work. To claim one "sold" for X amount but provide no documentation smells worse than our old barn yard.

While Kincaid's cottage paintings got old real fast I really like his plein air work. I have no love for Koon's stuff. Another difference is Kincaid's cottages were kitsch whereas Koon's balloon dogs are a parody of kitsch.

i've never seen his work until i looked him up. and i still never saw it. its a cute thing, i can see why people would like it. kind of wonder what they're made from though.

kinkade also painted right on top of photographs, i can't really say he was a good artist or not since he was more or less paint by number. one of the pieces he has, in located in nj, a place i go to every now and then.

still why anyone would plunk down millions for something is beyond me,but that might be a status thing from rich people. i think its lasting power though, these balloon things are neat, but how long would they keep these for? i see it as a novelty item more than anything else.

certainly makes making smaller home sized versions easy though. but i wonder if he has to sue clowns for making them at birthdays, it's a little hard to get a copyright on.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

David, a "parody of kitsch" is very much on target. My personal question about Koons is what has his work added to art that was not there by Oldenburg? Mike I think most of his work is metal and will last a very long time.

Something I learned watching the "Madness of Art" series on YouTube - Koons sells "bite sized" versions of his art for collectors who don't have the millions or space to house the large pieces.

For every giant balloon animal that you see, there are thousands of smaller pieces like "collector plates" priced in the $800 - $1,000 range. Like Kincaid, Koons provides pieces in various price points.

Like any luxury business. You have the one of a kind "haute couture" for the 1% crowd and then sell mass market jeans for the rest of us.

Chuck Close paints a huge painting for the top museum and then offers silkscreens for the lesser museums and then for the masses offers a book in the gift shop.

Here's one of the collectable Koons plates. Edition of 2500.

Edward very interesting!

Artbrokerage has tons of this stuff. Koons silkscreens, photos, collectibles. Stuff priced in the $5,000 or less category. Affordable for any Orthodontist who cares to name drop that he/she owns a Koons at the next Dental Conference.

The art world is fascinating. Seems straightforward but then the more you peel back the onion you realize its more complex - much more like the world of high finance. Investment packages designed for any sized investor.

Dale Chihuly does much the same thing. He has smaller versions of his work in the $2,500-$3,500 price range. This is actually a tried and true way for an artist to extend their reach. Many very famous painters of the late 19th and early 20th century would "recreate" a painting or drawing in a smaller version in stone litho. As many as 1,000 fine art prints might be pulled and sent to galleries and museums around the world. A painting by Matisse, for example, of his muse Lydia Delectorskaya might sell in the hundreds of dollars (or possibly thousands), but a signed litho would go for around $45 dollars (1930s money of course). Today his paintings are worth millions but one can still purchase an original signed and framed Matisse for 2-3 thousand. Same with Klee, Kandinsky, Rousseau, Miro, and more.

I was in Santa Fe last year and saw a great carved sculpture, abstract and large, in the $100,000 plus range. You could purchase a table top sized work for $10,000. Shucks I forgot my wallet.

A lithograph or smaller version of original artwork is one thing, but a plate? I guess Koons is as big a "sellout" as Kincaid, the only difference is Koons figured out how to pander to the art elite as well.

David why would you call it a sell out? How does this fit in with POD or phone cases, pillows, and duvets?

BTW a stone litho is not a large run process and is considered fine art in its own right. This is very different from high speed lithography. More akin to and related to etchings, wood cuts, etc. fewer and fewer recognize or understand this these days.

Right or wrong Koons work lives in a very different world than Kinkades

on the plus side, i really can make that myself. and i bet he has a really hard time controlling the counterfeits. it's just a shiny balloon animal. i'd like to see him making it, i guess it starts out as a mylar tube? and a guy dressed as a large clown, twists and turns it into that.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Yes. I am wondering what the definition of "Sell Out" is. What exactly does that mean? That one should only sell an original to a very select few?

I guess we could say that many musicians became sell-outs. The ones who inspired many to run to a different tune. Now they're judges on a variety of "talent contests".

I'll know it has completely gone to hell when Bob Dylan is judging on America's Got Talent!

As for artists... perhaps they should all take a cue from Van Gogh and wait to sell after they die.

i never understood the term. if you make money with your art, your not a sell out. i can't think of anything else.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Kevin, notice I put "sellout" in quotation marks indicating sarcasm. However, Kinkade is often pointed out by the art world for being a "sellout" but the information Ed has just shared shows that Koons isn't much different yet he's revered by the art world. I'm not sure Kinkade and Koons are so far apart, they are/were obviously both marketing geniuses.

I know what a stone litho is, my comments indicate I am holding a litho in much higher regard than a print on a plate, sorry I wasn't as clear as I could have been.

BTW, look up Kinkade's plein air paintings, the guy definitely had skills, which should be obvious given his art education. He didn't paint on top of photos because he didn't have the skill to make a painting from scratch.

I think it's great 'fun' to see artists make fun of any other artist's work and their "success". MOST everyday appreciators of 'decorative' art will buy a Kinkade over a Koons. Only those that float high in the upper scale, many of whom are bamboozled by 'art critics/dealers', hang those things in their homes. How many of any of these artists will be more than a footnote in 500 years - unlike a David, Rembrandt, Michelangelo, etc?

I live on the 'poor' side of the street from several reasonably wealthy (they own lake front property and have houses of around 3k+sqft) folks, nice friendly, I've been in their homes, had a glass of wine or beer - but they have paintings - not prints - of landscapes, flower gardens, one gentleman is into hunting scenes (dogs, quail, deer) and sailing ships - didn't see a single thing that looked even mildly 'Koonsy' or modernist in any way.

Still looking for what "sell out" means. Thomas Kinkade was very true to what his goal was. That is... to put a piece of art into people's homes that would be an encouragement to them. He never made any other kind of statement contrary to that.

As far as his work goes.... cottages were but part of his repertoire. Plein air was a part... as well as his Robert Gerrard work which was more impressionistic. He was probably more popular for his great outdoors scenes... and later... for his commissioned Disney work.

This may sound like sour grapes.

Anyhow,to me

As a Oldenburg wannabee, ...Koons has been recognized for his art,..only because he was able to be in the situation to work BIG

Edit:

And with Kinkade,

I'm sure he saw the popularity of the work of Edgar Guest .....And ran with it,

Glenn, I have a perfect example of your first comment....we were visiting some friends in California a few years ago. The husband is a doctor. They had recently purchased a small Kinkade.
They were so happy with the painting, just loved it....they were quick to show me. It had a coveted place in their home, where they passed it regularly. They mentioned the artist's name ( not that I didn't recognize it) but they spent most of the time talking about the painting itself and how it made them feel. They had no other art in their home and could well afford it.
This painting accomplished what Kinkade set out to do

Ditto Marlene. I'll add once again that when I had my galleries it was not uncommon for me to find someone looking at a piece of his work that had brought them to tears. He had a gift of touching people.

People put their money where their heart is.

kinkade always lacked the art establishment and educational backing. He wanted both, he did get a show at a college in which Jeffery Vallance was a biggie and nice things were said by Vallance but if you know anything about Vallance you would take this with a grain of salt.

The issue Ron is ... "it doesn't matter". Where did you hear that he wanted both the art establishment and educational backers? And who doesn't want to be recognized? (Look at all the people with their hands raised on this discussion board) I attended the show with Jeffery Vallance. Kinkade was both gracious to everyone in attendance, and made light of the establishment. His artwork filled many exhibit halls... as did the crowds.

Why would you take what Vallance says with a grain of salt Ronald? He has been there and done that. He has rubbed elbows with the elite... as did Thomas Kinkade. As does Peter Lik for that matter... and Koons too! Let's throw in Anne Geddes also. Hell, Kinkade painted the official portrait of the National Christmas tree for the White House. Have any of us been invited there?

Us folks who are down many rungs on the totem pole (as far as popular recognition goes... err ... hosts of people opening their wallets) seem to think that we have some kind of great insight into these people and what their thoughts are. I have known many artists that were very popular that did not like Kinkade. People who were making millions of dollars a year from their work, and I fortunately represented it. They all had the same decease. Envy. With a heavy dose of Jealousy.

What makes our salt any better than Vallance?

I loved Thomas Kinkade's painting. His warmth, light, & colors in his painting...they always seemed like places I wanted to visit. But..then he got to commercial & his painting weren't as special...they were everywhere on every nic nac possible. Played out to much like a song.

Katie...

With all due respect, Kinkade was always commercial. The biggest mistake he ever made was allowing himself to be talked into becoming a "Stock Market" company. He was working for others who came from the Hoover Vacuum Cleaner and ABC Television Network companies. They took a friendly company, and an artist full of ideas, and destroyed it. By the time he got back in control he was financially buried and personally depressed.

P.S. I was just in Disney World and went into one of the galleries there. Kinkades Disney works were on display, along with other very good artists, and I can only say that they popped! Outstanding colors and compositions. By the way... how many of us get asked to paint for Disney?

I'm sitting here at my computer, looking up at a beautiful Thomas Kincaid painting hanging above me...and, it makes me feel good!! I'm sorry to hear about his troubles, Glenn!

Hey Lynn. Good feelings are... good! I'm sitting here watching American Idol... and the youngest contestant was asked what he wanted to do with his talent. He said... I want to make people feel good! Refreshing to hear someone say this instead of I just want to do what makes me feel good.

Kinkade's story is one that was very much Rags to Riches... literally. They usually get movies made about those. But I guess he is an exception because of his faith and humanity. Too many were around licking their chops with glee when he faltered.

Hmm. I wonder why we didn't mock the song "Our House" by Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young back in the 60s or 70s.
I never detected the slightest trace of satire in the lyrics or vocals, even though the song was popular in a time of counter-culture anti-materialistic ideology. How can you make fun of people wanting to live happily in a house filled with love. (And light.) Even radical revolutionaries dream of having a cozy, safe, loving place to live, don't they? What would the revolution be for, otherwise?

Said the fox, after he couldn't reach them: "Those grapes were probably sour anyway!" (Aesop)
It goes back a long way, doesn't it?

On the other hand, Kinkaide's images just beg for a little satire, too, particularly in our disenchanted and disgruntled era.

A little satire is okay. But that's not what I perceive from most who degrade the Kinkade legacy. It's lots more about gleeful hatred. Especially of the wholesome message he sought to represent.

Glenn I love valences work but as I am sure you know he has a history of thumbing his nose at the art establishment, I own one of the original Blinky the Friendly Hen books. Love it FYI, he also was featured in a punk rock fanzine some years latter when he was making resin castings of animal guts. The article about the Kinkade show went into a great deal of detail about his wanting achademic credibility and how that show was a major breakthrough for him. I have the feeling Vallance was attracted to Kincade more because he is not mainstream modern more than anything else. Sorry it took me a bit to respond but just got back from a violin concert.

Kinkade for me can be understood in his popularity in a similar way as romance novels. His work has a general appeal to people as a time gone by. They can look at his work and reflect on a simpler world of yesterday. In many ways it does not mater if this world really ever existed.

Thank you Ron. It's kind of funny... because all of the video's I heard from Kinkade (and they are many) and that particular show seemed to point the other way. But, that's the way that Vallance perceived it. As I mentioned above... who doesn't want the recognition? As I also mentioned, he made light of the establishment.

Thomas Kinkade was a driven man. He was driven to succeed, and had was focussed to prove it. I happened to take part in the show that pushed him to the other side of success. A defining moment. Even he was blown away by the amount of people that showed up. Crowd control measures were called in because the line was going around blocks. Fights even broke out in the lines. Yes, these same people that loved cottages and quaint home settings so much!

He portrayed being credible with his contemporaries as not the foremost thought in his mind. I'm pretty sure the brainstorm for the show was Vallances. Kinkade wasn't going to pass on the opportunity. I find no fault in that. It's another step up the ladder of credibility.

Whatever the reasons for the show it made a great story! Back in the 1980's I was walking in a thriftshop in Ventura and pulled out a thin book. Almost passed on it but I found myself going "What was that?" It was a signed and numbered copy of Blinky. Ever since then I have followed Vallance. Was never a Kinkade fan anymore than I am a Koons fan but doubt they would care. Was sad to hear about Kinkade's death, hate hearing of any decent person dying before their time.

I have to believe no matter how successful these artists working outside the establishment are - they probably do wish to be recognized by the establishment. Just look at how hard Pete Rose keeps trying to get into the Hall of Fame. The top museums are the hall of fame of the art world.

Although Lik seems to go out of his way to take pride in having nothing to do with the art world or his fellow artist's. From the NY Times article:

"He never studied any photographer, let alone took an art class, and seems to take some pride in that fact. He professes no interest in Ansel Adams, perhaps the most famous American landscape photographer and an obvious touchstone to anyone dragging a big camera into a national park.

“Just a nice shot of Yosemite,” Mr. Lik said, summing up Adams’s work. “Right place at the right time.”

But he does list every professional membership he belongs to - "Peter Lik Master Photographer - AIPP, PPA, FBIPP, FRPS" and lists any awards received from these organizations.

So you can pretend that the establishment doesn't matter but everyone one wants to be recognized by it.

Glenn McCarthy: "Kinkade's story is one that was very much Rags to Riches... literally. They usually get movies made about those"

Last year, Kincade's biography was published. Good reading about the man and people around him.

Billion Dollar Painter: The Triumph and Tragedy of Thomas Kinkade, Painter of Light

http://www.amazon.com/Billion-Dollar-Painter-Triumph-Tragedy/dp/1602862443/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1427371754&sr=8-1&keywords=thomas+kinkade+biography

I just took an art class! art history thanks real interesting i loved reading this thread

My old boss goes all over the world collects art. He knows a lot about Art yet he is an Engineer. He started engineering firm many years ago and he hired me just because he liked Art. My husband works in Academia. I am dealing with people with very keen eyes. Many of them have doctoral degree from Harvard, Cornell, Berkeley, Yale, Cornell, Columbia, Brown, etc. Of course Education doesn't mean that they all have keen eyes for Art but most of them do I noticed and they don't buy prints. Even a little piece they like real thing. They don't have Kinkaid nor Koons paintings at least I know of. I am not sure if they know who Kinkaid or Jeff Koons is. They don't buy because person is famous. They buy it because it is appealing to them.
Personally, I appreciate Art that has soul. Sort of like music, like blues, bluegrass, Jazz, that type of thing.
Banksy from Gerhard Richter, lately

Any of the great art collectors purchased work from up and coming artists because they liked the work. Not because it was a "sure bet".

Margaret Keane (Big Eyes) is another who found mass appeal outside the establishment.

Actually I don't care much for either Kincaid or Koons, though feel Koons work is much more creative in idea. Whether it is worth all that money, not getting my money if I had it. We live in a world where we need to have all types of art, to meet the people's needs. So that is it....either Kincaid or Koons, whichever makes you happy and according to your money! There are many, many other excellent artists in our world.....buy from them, who knows when they, too, may be famous!

I think the question (as posed) is not whether we like or dislike one or the other. The question is WHY does one tap into the high art market and the other the popular art market? When I was discussing this with my son last night he asked, "how do you think Koons compares with Damien Hirst?" Great question as both have achieved fame and multimillion dollar sales in the art world. Although I don't think Hirst is doing baby shark installs for the table top.

In a world where art, music, movies are accessible to so many there will always be those who are elevated by the aristocracy and disdained by the hoi polloi and vice versa. And so it goes.

I looked on Art Brokerage. Hirst is well represented by prints and silkscreens. You might not be able to afford the one of a kind diamond encrusted skull but you can buy a picture of it for $10K.

Or some spin art:
https://www.artbrokerage.com/Damien-Hirst/Spin-in-a-Spin-2002-72216

Interesting thing about music is the price is the same for everyone. $1.29 or so for a download. But yeah, the top 1% of artists probably suck up 75%-99% of the money (in any industry).

Edward I am still looking for my wallet. A Koons and a Hirst, for only around $15,000 and tabletop to boot. (just having a bit of fun)

Yeah Kevin, too much for my budget. I can buy a spin art machine at Toys R Us for $30 and make some myself.

Went and just spent some time looking at Kinkades work. I have never liked his soft inner glow cottage type of pictures. To me they always reeked of being glorified starving artist works of no interest at all. Still don't like those works but what I did discover was Kinkade was a very accomplish landscape painter, several of his works slide into the California tradition. I also looked a bit more closely at Koons and liked his play-doh sculpture. This is why I tell students don't just dismiss a artist that you don't like without studying them for a bit. Often there are things of interest that can be discovered that might change your outlook.

I have to agree with Edward's argument that Koons educated himself at the feet of the establishment and in this way learned to market himself to the establishment. Ronald Walker's point about Kinkade's work being shallow resonates as well. Is it possible that Kinkade also failed to grow as an artist (except as a caricature of himself in his later work)? Especially when so many struggling street artists adopted that same omni light technique for themselves the market became oversaturate in saccharin cozy cottage pictures?

Pragmatism is the problem. But then what comes first. Money or your soul, in my opinion you need both.
Some Artist do both, some just do one because they can afford it

I'd ask you this question Vanessa...

What do you mean when you say "grow as an artist"? Define that. Grow according to who? (I recollect Rockwell being fired from his job after creating all those masterpieces for the New York Post. Did he just forget to grow?) You mention Kinkade's caricature of himself, and I am assuming it's the old man one that is for sale at $100,000.00. Have you dug deeper into his body of work. Stuff that is off the surface of the internet? That piece, by the way, is very reminiscent of his older work as a young man. Much of his work when he was younger would have been accepted by the "know better than anyone else" crowd. Of course, it would not have hit a nerve in mainstream and he and his family would possibly have gone into obscurity like most artists who struggle along. Try Kinkade early years from Alaska to California. His Yosemite work that was chosen for their official cover. Of course, I have the luxury of videos that show his work from grade school through high school.

Ron,

I got to thinking about that Vallance show. I've forgotten much from that time period, and asked my wife about it. She reminded me that Thomas Kinkade had just purchased his company back right before that event. That would help to explain Vallances observation about his desire for recognition. The company was under fire for practices that later came to bite him in the hind-end. Much of it had nothing to do with his decisions, and lots of it had to do with people who were disappointed that they actually had to work and market to be successful in business. Like many of those who invested in the Kinkade Company, they just thought they could show up to work and people would come flocking in.

Kinda reminds me of folks that show up here and think they will automatically sell something...

This book is a nice piece is memorabilia : http://www.biblio.com/book/artists-guide-sketching-gurney-james-kinkade/d/507538787?aid=frg&utm_source=google&utm_medium=product&utm_campaign=feed-details&gclid=CILnmrvPxsQCFcNbfgodeFgAMA

Edit: You're right, Glenn. "Grow" is a little vague. I mean grow as in improving technical skill or exploring subjects, mediums, or approaches. Since with each Rockwell piece was a new idea, Rockwell grew, but was not accepted until later. And caricature as in you could tell Kinkade was imitating what he had done previously and was bored with it. This could, to be fair, be more of a result of his drinking than anything else. The works I'm referencing to were the ones I saw hung in a Kincade gallery in our area towards the end of Kinkade's life. The noodle horses populating one of his pictures were what topped the impression off.

And Kinkade's popularity wasn't what I was knocking, either. The reason why we have works of old masters today is that they were popular as much as could be in those days. It also helps that their works were durable enough to last through some earthquakes, war, incense smoke, a few prudish monarchs that split collected works on paper up to sell them to far regions of their empire (to name just a few more savory temporal maladies).