If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Thomas Kinkade ORIGINAL "Home for the Evening"
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 19:55:04 GMT, "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. I would hope that you understand the difference between "overvalued" or "overpriced" and "worthless'. Different things. Nothing is really overpriced if there are people who are willing to pay the price. -- Tony Cooper Orlando, FL |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Thomas Kinkade ORIGINAL "Home for the Evening"
Kris Baker wrote:
"Mani Deli" wrote in message ... Whats wrong with Kinkade? I don't like his work but I like Kinkade because he sells his work for lots of money and his success bugs Artzy fartzies no end, he knows his craft and his work is more original than the miles of schmiery contemporary impressionism. His work ranks with a fair illustrator. Although I don't care for his subject matter, I respect anyone who knows his craft whether or not I like his work. Because he doesn't paint his "art". His crap is made on an assembly line, and he signs the finished "product". It's not art; like you say, it's illustration. The kind you see on the front pages of romance novels, and in sleazy women's magazines (usually advertising rectal health products). ...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. Sounds like a Pokemon to me. A |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Thomas Kinkade ORIGINAL "Home for the Evening"
"Angrie.Woman" wrote in message ... 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. Sounds like a Pokemon to me. A I know nothing about Pokemon, but I now know my Labios Mine's like the girl, without the dog: http://www.converseclocks.com/inventory.asp?k=734 Kris |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Thomas Kinkade ORIGINAL "Home for the Evening"
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 17:23:43 GMT, "Kris Baker"
wrote: "Mani Deli" wrote in message news The people who pay for Kinkade don't give a **** about what you'lld rather buy. Ah, but that's where you're wrong. Theyll'd [sic] be caring a LOT when they try to profit from their "investments"....which is how this crapmeister has sold his wares fromt he beginning. He's the silkscreen version of "collector plates". Never the less, the people who pay for Kinkade don't give a **** about what you'lld rather buy. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Thomas Kinkade ORIGINAL "Home for the Evening"
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 things may be getting smellier than a rotting fish: http://www.ibfn.org/news/newsarticle.asp?a=351 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Thomas Kinkade ORIGINAL "Home for the Evening"
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/ |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Thomas Kinkade ORIGINAL "Home for the Evening"
Mani Deli wrote:
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 17:23:43 GMT, "Kris Baker" wrote: "Mani Deli" wrote in message news The people who pay for Kinkade don't give a **** about what you'lld rather buy. Ah, but that's where you're wrong. Theyll'd [sic] be caring a LOT when they try to profit from their "investments"....which is how this crapmeister has sold his wares fromt he beginning. He's the silkscreen version of "collector plates". Never the less, the people who pay for Kinkade don't give a **** about what you'lld rather buy. They will when they go to sell it in an effort to pay some retirement expenses. A |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Thomas Kinkade ORIGINAL "Home for the Evening"
Biljo White wrote: 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. Also, he has turned the 'print' con into an art of its own - peddling worthless photomechanical reproductions as 'prints' for absurd prices. Nah, fraud implies some degree of intelligence, and even wit. I think of Courbet (towards the end of his life) who threw himself into that whole heartedly, having a couple of hacks paint Courbet-like pictures, and the signing them; or Dali who signed vast amounts of blank paper before his death. Kinkaid popularity is symptomatic of something both emptier, and more dangerous - the need for the broad mass of people to operate on faith, rather than reason. That faith can be anything - from Catholic dogma or Islamacist self-ignition to the new Scientism of Kyoto; from tulip mania and beanie babies to the NASDAQ; from nationalistic fervour to peace-mania. Modern "schools" of art; ARC. All these are based on the unquestioning acceptance of one set of axioms over another; and people tend to them because, just like math for Barbie, questioning one's own beliefs is hard. It's much better to allow someone simply to provide one the answer. Personally, I think Kinkaid is of great value, but in a perverse way. The fact of his popularity puts the lie to a broad segment of academic thinking, and obviously upsets large numbers of group thinkers from the art-as-intellectual-exercise-or-therapy side (look at the length of this thread). OTOH an examination of the actual popular images reveals a good deal about the nature of general society - much more than an academic counterpart, like Warhol - that buyers/believers tend to gloss over. (That alone may help it keep it's value over longer periods). Why are they generally devoid of people? Why - even in the most luxuriantly summery images - is there often snow in the ground? Why is having one's hut lit with arc lamps considered comforting? And when he does venture into some sense of realism, why does his world stop in the mid 1920's? Cheers; CB |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Thomas Kinkade ORIGINAL "Home for the Evening"
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 13:51:16 GMT, "Angrie.Woman"
wrote: Mani Deli wrote: On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 17:23:43 GMT, "Kris Baker" wrote: "Mani Deli" wrote in message news The people who pay for Kinkade don't give a **** about what you'lld rather buy. Ah, but that's where you're wrong. Theyll'd [sic] be caring a LOT when they try to profit from their "investments"....which is how this crapmeister has sold his wares fromt he beginning. He's the silkscreen version of "collector plates". Never the less, the people who pay for Kinkade don't give a **** about what you'lld rather buy. They will when they go to sell it in an effort to pay some retirement expenses. I'm aware of Kinkade, I've seen some of his work, but I have no interest in owning a Kinkade. But I'm tolerant enough of other people's taste that I wouldn't criticize anyone for buying something just because I don't consider it acceptable. I know that there's some speculation in buying Kinkades, but I'm not aware that people buy his work just for investment. Possibly so, but anyone involved in the art market for investment purposes would surely do a little research into the long-term projections for art values. Kinkades may have some short-term investment potential. If something's "hot", there are people that will pay the price. Kinkade's wouldn't be the only thing that enjoy value appreciation even though they aren't generally recognized as inherently valuable. I don't think anyone has any business deciding that someone else's taste in art is lacking. Kris is very proud of the piece she picked up, but I see it as something too close to those paintings of big-eyed children, clown paintings, and dogs playing poker. My assessment shouldn't make any difference to Kris, though, and I'm pleased that she's happy with her purchase. I hope she's happy because she likes the look of it on her wall, and not just because it's worth more than she paid for it. It's quite possible that she wouldn't want some of the originals that I own on her wall, and that doesn't bother me. There are so many things that we buy that don't have an intrinsic value commensurate with what they are. That's what disposable income is for, though. No one wastes money on things that please them. -- Tony Cooper Orlando, FL |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Thomas Kinkade ORIGINAL "Home for the Evening"
If playing the Beatles backward gaves initmations of Satanism, what
lies below the surface of Kinkaid? The Nuclear Powered House In the Depths of Suburban Hell or Why Doesn't the Snow Melt? http://www.gammarat.com/Misc/Misc/c1_12%5b1%5d.jpg (and what levels does one sink to on too much coffee...) CB |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Star Trek cards for auctionne! | Lynne Stewart | Cards:- non-sport | 0 | September 27th 04 01:50 AM |
NEW TRADE LIST | Ray Morgan | Basketball | 0 | January 20th 04 02:42 PM |
FS - Football Singles | The Dogger | Football (US) | 0 | November 5th 03 12:04 AM |
FS - Early 90's Football (Long List) | LD | Football (US) | 0 | October 16th 03 12:58 AM |
CPK Dolls & Misc Items--- FS | Sue from NY | General | 0 | August 28th 03 05:53 PM |