[pnh102]

This pretty much sums up why most modern "artists" hate Mr. Kinkade. Contrast what the images you posted to what passes for modern "art":

versus:

Jackson Pollock, who painted the crap on the right, is praised as a "great" "artist" even though what he paints looks like something most of our children can poop out.

[ctdonath2]

My brother once made the classic comment “anyone could do that” regarding Pollock.
Then it occurred to him to try.
Turns out its much harder than it looks.

[jnsun]

But, but, you don't understand. You just don't appreciate the profound depths of the mind of a conceited, self consumed, alcoholic, degenerate, Mr Pollack, who was more of an alcoholic than Thomas Kincade.

Jackson Pollack was a fair to middling artist, as evidenced in his earlier topographic work. He said absolutely nothing except to himself. But he goes to show the power of the wordpress on the pseudo-intellectual phonies of the urban world. Kind of like Barack Obama.

[Ditter]

It isn't that people like one and hate the other,I am an artist and I dislike both Kinkade and Pollock. Kinkades work is sappy and sentimental and he is a crook, Pollocks work is ugly and makes no sense. If I had a painting by either one in my home, I'd be sick at my stomach all the time.

[Fletcher J]

I also hate that silly modern “art”.

BTW - if anyone is interested in a great artist, they should check out Robert Tino. He’s an East TN artist that paints a lot of Smoky Mountain landscapes; my wife and I have several of his prints. We met Robert and his wife years ago at his gallery in Sevierville, and they are so nice. His work is beautiful and realistic.

http://robertatinogallery.com/

[Southack]

"Jackson Pollock, who painted the crap on the right, is praised as a "great" "artist" even though what he paints looks like something most of our children can poop out."

It isn't about what he pooped, but about who he stooped. The reason that it is difficult to do what Pollock did is because what he did was to be Ms. Guggenheim's sex toy.

Guggenheim Museum.

And whatever "art" she wanted to be famous, is famous. Naturally, every artist with asperations of being in the Guggenheim Museum agree with whatever sentiment she put forth. If Pollock was "good" for her then everyone in the art community liked Pollock.

Of course, that sort of sycophancy fails to translate well to the masses...who see random paint splatters as being...random paint splatters.

Thus, modern art is a classic case of the Elites versus the Masses. What most people like is Kinkade, not Pollock. What the Elites like is whatever is popular in their insular world.

[luvbach1]

Jackson Pollock dripped and slopped paint from the rafters of his studio onto huge canvases spread on the floor. Anyone could do the same following that method. If he didn’t like the results he just slopped more paint until he got a look that pleased him.