CollectingBanter - View Single Post - FA: Thomas Kinkade ORIGINAL "Home for the Evening"

[email protected]

Thur wrote:
"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
...
On 04 Dec 2005 16:24:35 GMT, (Biljo White) wrote:

"Kris Baker" wrote:

...and the *worst* thing about it all is that he's conned many
people into buying valueless "originals". They have no value,
people have no "investment" (as promised), and I'd much rather
have the Agapito Labios painting I bought for $2 a few years
ago. Look *that* one up.

I think it amounts to fraud -- as you say, people are conned into buying
'art' they are told has monetary value, only to find out later that its
appraised or auction value is almost nothing.

And this is different, how, from Beanie Babies or the other fad items
we see on eBay?

Also, he has turned the
'print' con into an art of its own - peddling worthless photomechanical
reproductions as 'prints' for absurd prices.

How is something that goes for absurd prices "worthless"? Can you say
"oxymoron"?

I wouldn't buy a Kinkade postcard, but I wouldn't buy a Precious
Moments tchotchka either. Horses for courses.

--

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

The basis of the objections would probably disappear if the buyers
were not seen as being duped into believing they were
1) buying something that they thought was good art.
2) buying something that would increase in value because others
would want it, also in the belief it was good art.
Sometimes these pieces might be sold on, but time will see them cast
aside, as we all cast aside stuff we know has no lasting value.

How is something that goes for absurd prices "worthless"?
I am not sure if you really mean to ask it, but some things can be
overpriced, and some things can be overvalued.
Overpriced explains itself, but overvalued can mean so much more.
If two morons bid each other up to a record auction price for a
dog turd, then there is an example of absurd prices for a worthless
item, to quote the extreme. (It may happen one day, the way things
are going)

And the way things are going, should we be surprised if paintings by
monkeys outsell paintings by humans (even artists)?:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8291421/