To me, the likes of Thomas Kincade’s company and the Art Capital outfit represent a uniquely American attitude towards art. A raw, capitalist, money-craving attitude governs both of these operations, and I have no surprise that the singularly intellectual world of art should intersect with the beast that is American economic and marketing power.
Art Capital Group seems to send a somewhat hypocritical message. From their own website, through “combining expertise in finance and fine art, we provide customized solutions to the fine and decorative art world.” It seems that they try to create an aura of art appreciation and concern, a safe place to go for discerning art lovers who happen to be in need of some quick cash. This is all well and good, but there is something deeper in what Art Capital is doing. By turning art into loans, they are devaluing the aesthetic intent of the art and turning it into an anonymous commodity. This practice is certainly nothing new (just look at auction houses such as Christies and Sotheby’s), though Art Capital Group puts a new spin on making art more of a commodity rather than art.
This concept ties in rather well with what Thomas Kinkade is doing with his art. Honestly, I had no idea of the scale or methods of Kincade’s art business operation until watching the 60 Minutes piece on him. While Morley Safer’s position on Kincade was obviously critical, it was hard for me not to feel both disgusted and impressed at the same time. Kincade’s products are art, but they are art that has been disconnected from the artist and scaled in such a way that the end result appears more mechanical than passionate. Sure, Kincade does personally create all of his paintings, but he creates them with a formula that is designed to sell. His paintings are equivalent to The Hardy Boys books—good natured, mass produced, virtually identical products not taken seriously by connoisseurs of the trade. In fact, Kincades’s devoted customers seems are in many ways similar to the children Hardy Boys are targeted to. He has found a formula that sells, and he is doing everything in his power to reach any person he possibly can. As much as I disagree with the principal of Kincade’s art, I can be impressed with his brilliant marketing. He knows whom he wants to sell to and targets people who may not ordinarily consider purchasing anything artistic. Using various selling ploys, like introducing God into his sales pitches, he finds devoted customers to continually throw more products at. For the rest of us with our heads out of the sand, we can admire (or cringe) at Kincade’s sales genius following in the footsteps of other marketing giants like Disney and Apple. Kincade is open and forthright about what he does, and while I don’t like his devaluing of art, we all have a choice of whether to buy his products or not. Trust me, I won’t.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

Do you disagree with the principal of Warhol's products (and by that I mean pieces like his screen-printed Brillo Boxes, not things he actually painted and required talent, like his Men and Women collection).
ReplyDeleteI love your statement, “A raw, capitalist, money-craving attitude governs both of these operations, and I have no surprise that the singularly intellectual world of art should intersect with the beast that is American economic and marketing power.” It vividly describes how the likings of Kincade’s operations have devalued art to a commodity. Nice blog.
ReplyDelete