|
Kinkade's Art
I must agree with both Steve and Michael. I have seen many buyers being duped into believing that their reproduction prints have a value beyond the cost of print and frame. And this is not limited to Kinkade's. I once did a stint in sales of prints and in doing so I had to actually buy the prints I was using to show to possible buyers. I soon tired of this, but I was stuck with these prints. Years later I was curious if these prints did have any value. And although I did find that when I talked to anyone involved in selling prints, that they would express how lucky I was to have one of these prints, since you could no longer get them, not one of these dealers would offer to buy them - or even put a value on them. In fact, I found no market at all for these prints. I soon learned that the print market, although it allows artist to sell to a wider audience of people, the real value is in the original. The more popular the print, the more valued its original.
Now, that said, it is not that you could not find a buyer willing to purchase a hard-to-find print for more then you paid for it, but that is simply supply and demand. As long as demand is greater than supply, then the value will hold or increase. In the case of Kinkade, he holds the originals now in a vault, and sells only prints. And his many mall outlets, as well as other dealers are dictating the size of the print runs as well as reprints. And these runs number into the thousands - hardly a shortage of supply. And in the future, these prints will be easy to come by, meaning that the value will be equal to other collectibles that number in the thousands per edition. And that is not that high. Collectibles, such as baseball cards and Beanie Babies, for the most part gain value due to the fact that only a few of the many produced survive to become collectibles.
As for Kinkade's prints, as long as more people want them than there are copies for sale, then they will hold value. I personally do not believe that will continue, and because his corporation is having financial difficulties, I think the end has already started. In some ways I think it is partially due to all the exposure he has gotten. People love to tear down the successful if only to make their own failure seem OK or to cover their own insecurities. Just look at how people are eating up Martha Stewart's current FTC troubles. But why should we join in? Although I would not advise someone purchase a Kinkade as an investment (and in many ways I feel those behind the Kinkade market are being dishonest with the buyers), I hold no grudge against Mr. Kinkade. I also must say that I do not think anyone interested in my own paintings would somehow decide not to buy one because they fell in love with some Kinkade print at the mall.
As for the over all level of Mr. Kinkade's work, I feel he is a decent enough artist but I most certainly would not look to him as a master to emulate or copy even if that was the style or subject matter you like. If you like that style there are plenty of artists, including those from the Hudson River School (specifically Albert Bierstadt, Thomas Cole or Thomas Hill) if you want grand landscapes with sunsets and rainbows. Or you may prefer the naturalists painters like Daniel Ridgway Knight. Or if you like the cityscape of lights and reflections, the work of Edouard Leon Cort
|