That Old Master.....

It is not surprising to me that art is commercialized like it is in both the article "That Old Master? It's Down at the Pawnshop" and the Thomas Kinkade video. We live in a society where money rules. With increased wealth comes increased stature and prestige. Therefore, if you are an artist looking to be recognized, you have to sell yourself to the media or the wealthy.

What is surprising to me is the lengths to which people will go to make money on art. I could not believe that Kinkade had his own furniture line, as well as hundreds of paintings. I also find it a bit disturbing that Kinkade or his workers can add some paint to a print and the value increased drastically. I was also shocked to see that investors were willing to take on art as collateral for large, large loans. It was also surprising to see that the people pawning their art were powerful people or artists. It makes me wonder how much they paid for the art in the first place, as well as if they made a wise investment.

I would be interested in learning more about other countries and their commercialization practices in regard to art. I believe that I would see some similarities as well as some differences.

After reading the article "That Old Master? It's Down at the Pawnshop" and watching the Kinkade video, I am going to pay more attention to art on people's walls, in stores, and at our university. I do not think that commercializing art is necessarily a bad thing. If you are in the art business to make money, and people will buy what you are selling, then by all means keep up the good work. However, if you are in the art business to express something and do not care how much money you will make, and would rather not make money on it, then I'm sorry art has gone to the pawn shops.

I wonder what all of the philosophers would say about pawned art and mass produced art. I think Plato would laugh at the mass production of art because he already declared art was simply replication.