How is it that someone who has produced $100 million selling the art he has created can have critics that say his art is no good? My art is no good, I havn't sold a dime yet, so how can they claim someone who appeals to the masses of people, is not a good artist? Pretty obvious it appeals to thousands if not millions of people who paid money to have one of his pieces of art. Granted they are mass produced copies of the originals, but so are the works of Ansel Adams.
Was Ansel Adams an artist, or can anyone sit in the same location snapping a picture a minute, until the light ends up the best results? Is it the man doing it, or the quality of the camera? How do you take a bad picture of something as grand as Yosemine? The processing of the film is not an art, it is a manufacturing process of chemicals and time. Any photographer would argue til the death on those comments, but when does a craft that can be learned, become an art form? Yet Ansel Adams photographs sell for thousands of dollars. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have one, and love to have a Thomas Kincade, just playing devils adovcate a little, that who is to say what is or is not art. Kincade and Adams both had a style of art that was appealing, and it sold. Kincade's mind thought up his scenes, but Adams had to only hike to the best vantage point for his scenes. 2 different ways of expression, both considered art, painting vs. photography, but in the end both used mass produced processes of copying origionals, so neither was selling art, they were selling reproductions of them.