FA: Thomas Kinkade ORIGINAL "Home for the Evening"

Agapito Labios

I could get a translation for the first word "Sikorsky". What is the second
word?

"BrotherBart" wrote in message
news:7brkf.6532$SY.2496@trnddc06...
Agapito Labios

I could get a translation for the first word "Sikorsky". What is the
second
word?

Lips.

Kathryn Hepburn's estate (luckily for me) had three Labios.

Kris

"Kris Baker" wrote in message
m...

"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).


Ahhh, we hear from the expert.
He draws originals. There are first run "prints", often called originals.
Sort of like Gorman.
Some like his stuff, some don't. I don't have any or want any.

I notice that you didn't put down porno mags. Must be what you call art.

Art IS an illustration (ALWAYS), whether painted, drawn, built, sawed,
carved, sculpted.
Oh that's right you think it's a short for Arthur.

DUUUHHHH

" 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. "

That makes the following valid.

I like McDonalds because they sell billions of Big Macs for lots of
money and their sucess bugs the Foodies no end, they know their craft
and their food is more original than the miles of gourmet chefs.

Again as usual Mani, you have shown us your high standards.

"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.

I have seen a couple of his originals on display in California.
They were for sale in the range hundreds of thousands of dollars.
They were originals of the ones he provided for those magazine
covers.
I admit they were good paintings, but were illustrative without
much subtlety, or any feeling that the artist had tried to work
into the painting much at all.
I can see they had a certain historic value, that they represented
a certain passing view that society recognised as it's own.
The painting regarded in this thread surely cannot have issued
from the same artist.
It comes from his factory, which has made him about the richest
"artist" of his time.
--
Thur

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 00:47:52 GMT, "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".

He's making money just like the modern art charlatans.

It's not art; like you say, it's illustration.

Picasso is a fifth rate illustrator.

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,

Value is determined by supply and demand.


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.

The people who pay for Kinkade don't give a **** about what you'lld
rather buy.

"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".

Kris

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

"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)

Horses for courses
Of course, and if they were sold for less than 50$ then who would
care?

--
Thur

"Thur" wrote in message
...

"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)

Horses for courses
Of course, and if they were sold for less than 50$ then who would
care?

--
Thur

This "art" is NO different than the Beanie Babies **scams** so many fell for
years ago.

How many people know what was behind THAT particular marketing campaign?

Kris
Google my stories about all that
Too long to repeat