Originally Posted by $5 submissions

He's the latest example of a NORMAN ROCKWELL to some people.

Some art purists would hate on him for not being a real artist but it's all about NICHE. His materials are for GENERAL CONSUMPTION. It paints a picture of life as his audience wants to see life.

It's all about competing visions.

If your definition of ART and attitude about LIFE is all about Campbell's soup cans or pics of crying kids (intentionally made to cry) or even CANNED HUMAN FECES (see http://www.pieromanzoni.org/EN/works_shit.htm ) Have at it.

That's the great thing about ART in the western world. It is democratic and INVIDUALIZED.

Start worrying when the STATE dictates that you must like only CERTAIN ART and the rest are worthless art that you must avoid.

So Kinkade's art is sentimental worthless fluff to some. To others it's worth collecting. In the end, who are to judge. It's a big market. It's a big world. To each his own.