On 5/6/2016 9:46 AM, PAS wrote:
On 5/5/2016 4:08 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 5/5/2016 9:07 AM, PAS wrote:
On 5/4/2016 7:32 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-05-04 23:22:41 +0000, "MC" said:

Ron C wrote:


Saw this photo for sale on twitter and just had to post here
for comments. ~~ Marcus Dagan ‏@marcusdagan 1h1 hour ago

New artwork for sale! - "Philadelphia Abstract" -
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/p...-poets-eye.htm



l … @fineartamerica ~~ For those not doing twitter I put a copy in my
dropbox:


https://www.dropbox.com/s/1po3on0jio...Art-1.jpg?dl=0
~~ I don't know ...is this guy a marketing genus?


Only if there has been any sales.

Yup!

This is just another example of the pretentious clap trap of
puting a financial value on something in order to justify it as
art.

Yup!

Seeing something as art is a very individual and personal thing
and just because someone else has led you to believe it is art
does not mean it is art.

Yup!

I dare say there are an awful lot of mugs around the world crap
hanging on their walls.

Especially if it is the nauseatingly over-the-top, and mass
produced kitsch of Thomas Kinkade


I have a fair number of friends who collect Kinkade prints and
they've spent a lot of money on them. I've never understood the
appeal of them, but it's a personal thing and we all have our
likes/dislikes.

Someone I knew, now deceased, made a lot of money selling paintings on
velvet. He had a deal with the warden of a prison in Spain. The
inmates did the painting, from what was essentially a paint by numbers
kit. Here is an approximation of the pricing schedule for each of the.
Inmates were paid about .25 per painting
Warden was paid about $1.00. He imported them and sold them to the
retailer for between eight and twenty bucks. Many low income people
considered these to be "affordable art." He


Ahh, the "Velvet Elvis" comes to mind.

I should also mention that he barely got out of Spain, in a fishing boat.


--
PeterN