Comments from Jed: ...
> The painter Raphael Soyer was conservative about the arts, and > strictly representational, but interestingly enough he thought > the greatest graphic artist of the 20th century was Ingmar Bergman. > I thought so too. I am pretty sure that was the minority view in > the fine arts community at least until the 1980s. That was his > socialist persona surfacing. > This is partly an example of "conspicuous consumption;" a term > coined by Thorsten Veblen in the book "The Theory of the Leisure > Class." It refers to flaunting your ability to throw away money > on useless extravagance. A definition: > > ". . . the act of purchasing and using certain goods and services, > not in order to survive, but rather to identify oneself to others > as having superior wealth and social standing. These possessions > and services are extras that are to some extent wasteful. They > symbolize one's ability to waste whatever one wants." > Hopefully, what follows is an amusing personal antidote related to the above account concerning the fickle world of "The Arts": There is a contemporary artist, Thomas Kinkade, who markets himself as the "Master of Light." http://thomas-kinkade-norman-rockwell-pictures-paintings-art.com/ Mr. Kinkade has done an excellent job of marketing his wears by focusing his craft on highly selective subjects that focus on cozy quaint 19th cottages, picket fences, light houses, gazebos, Model "T"s & horse buggies, and flower beds... all thinly veiled within Christian themes. He has become a millionaire by grinding out the same visual themes year after year. He has found a niche market, and that market has been very, very, good to him. Several years ago, 60 Minutes did a piece on Kinkade... more accurately Kinkade's highly successful business model. At one point Kinkade was quoted as making an outrageous claim that he believes he is the greatest 20th century artist in existence, or something equally preposterous. It would have been more accurate for Kinkade to have claimed that he has become a highly successful artist in the commercial sense by focusing his shrewd business savvy (and artistic talents) on churning out selective imagery to a market that continues to pine for the good-ol'days: of quaint 19th cottages, picket fences, light houses, and flower beds... all thinly veiled within Christian themes. (I wonder how many Kinkade prints hang above the fireplace mantles of Tea Party supporters, but again, I reveal my jealousy as to Kinkade's financial success.) Truth of the matter is: I really do envy Kinkade's highly successful business model. I also believe he is a proficient artist with a decent artistic flare. I personally believe that Kinkade could have become a highly recognized artist, one that would have also been financially successful, one that would have been appreciated by the majority of world's independent critics had he chosen to continue developing his unique subject style and not focus entirely on quaint 19th century ketchy cottages. Instead, and IMO, he gave into the "Dark Side" of corporate marketing strategies, of making fast money. Indirectly, as a result of his highly successful business model practices, he has been vilified by just about every independent critic within the art world - not that I suspect Kinkade really give a hoot what most independent critics think. To clarify, what I mean about the "dark side" of Kinkade's, business model: The technique revolves around the procedure of generating reproductions (prints) produced from his original paintings and then employing a stable of artisans to manually "touch up" each of the prints with little dabs of red and blue pigment applied to the rose bushes growing alongside his cute 19th century cottages. The "crime" revolves around the fact that Kinkade business model can then legally claim the fact that all the reproductions are original works of art, because "artisans" have manually "touched up" each print. Incidentally, employing a stable of artisans is not a new concept. In the past many of the great masters employed artisans to perform all the boring work. The difference was that these artisans were employed by their master to work on the master's original painting, not thousands of reproductions! I dealt with my personal frustration (and jealousy) of Kinkade's financial success by generating a digital painting of my own, a spoof based on Kincake artistic style & technique. Anyone with a reasonable level of talent can paint the exact same Kinkade themes. Anyone can employ the same Kinkade techniques. I even attempted to pimp his signature. My reproduced spoof is entirely digital. It was created using Corel's Painter software. It was done as a tribute to my late father, who was also amused at Kinkade's financial success. I seem to recall that my spoof reproduction won an award or two for "best humor" at a couple of Science Fiction related art shows. http://orionworks.com/artgal/svj/Kinkade_m.htm In conclusion, getting back to Jed's reference pertaining to a certain class of individuals flaunting their disposable income, because they could, I recall in the 60 minutes article the fact that they interviewed on one of Kinkade's ardent fans who took matters to an extreme. They were a financially well-off couple who had literally lined every wall of their home with Kinkade prints. They had in fact purchased so many Kinkade prints that they had been forced to recycle them, temporarily putting certain items in storage. I only hope that some of the couple's discretionary income had gone towards making sure their kids got an adequate college education, including perhaps a semester or two in art appreciation. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.Orionworks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
