[OpusatFR]

"...he actually has talent..."

Kinkade doesn't have vision. He paints a pretty picture without depth or dimension. It could be a piece of paint-by-numbers or mother's embroidery for that matter.

It doesn't have the passion that paintings should have.

As always, IMHO..

[Miss Marple]

I agree with the poster who earlier said Kincade is filling a market ignored by the art community. My son-in-law is a painter, and his father is a ceramics artist. The father is trying to get the son to include a few human figures or animals in his paintings, both to stretch himself and to make his paintings more widely marketable (he does still life). The father says that lots of marketing of art is show biz, which I think true.

My elderly neigihbors have a Kincade print for which they paid over $400. They love it and often talk about how beautiful it is. Of course, they also have a house mostly decorated in 70's style.

People want tangible beauty in art, for the most part. They don't want shock or sadness in what hangs in their homes. Kincade is filling that need, which is sad because there are plenty of good artists who could do it and also provide paintings of depth and meaning, rather than assembly-line kitsch.

Americans are undereducated about art, which leaves them prey to the Thomas Kincades AND on the other extreme the poseurs of the Manhattan galleries. In the process many fine painters are ignored.