Gallery Owners Win Dispute Against Thomas Kinkade
An arbitration panel ruled against the so-called "Painter of Light." "The dealers and other ex-dealers allege that Kinkade used his religious beliefs — and manipulated theirs — to induce them to invest in Thomas Kinkade Signature Galleries, independently owned stores licensed to deal exclusively in his work. They also allege that they were stuck with unsalable inventory, forced to open additional stores in markets that could not sustain them and undercut by discounters that sold Kinkade prints at prices they were forbidden to match. And they accuse the artist of scheming to devalue Media Arts Group before he took the company private for $32.7 million in early 2004, renaming it Thomas Kinkade Co." Los Angeles Times 02/24/06
I've been telling people for years that the crap this guy paints and sells in insanely huge print runs - ISN'T WORTH THE PAPER IT'S PRINTED ON.
Kincade is a perfect example of everything that is wrong with buying 'prints' over original artwork; that combined with the fact that his paintings are ridiculously contrived and serve the lowest commmon denominator is too much to bear sometimes...
Looks like the 'fake' galleries that carry his crap are having to admit it as well.
But how does this bode for other painters that dip into the print market? I do not deal in prints for two reasons:
1. They are literally not worth anything more than the value of the paper they are printed on - if not personally pulled by the artist.
2. I produce over 200 paintings/year; if I took the time to deal with printers and color correction - I'd have little time left to paint.