Art: The Real Money-Maker

Throughout history, one can look at countless instances of commercialization. Farming is a perfect example. At first, farming was done solely for subsistence. People farmed for themselves and for their families. Then, once it developed into a source of income, collectivization kicked in and farming was no longer a personal activity. Art, in many ways, has also undergone this transformation. The rise of corporations like Art Capital or brand names such as Thomas Kinkade, depict this change.

When one thinks of art, the term expression is often paired with it. This is because traditionally, that is what art has always been; a way of expressing yourself through some kind of medium. In today’s modern society however, particularly in America, people have become so consumed with the acquisition of wealth that even art is in danger of becoming a commodity. Ian Peck and Baird Ryan, co-owners of Art Capital, have built a business around this commercialization of art. They, on a very basic level, issue large loans to people who wish to use art as collateral. Now from a business stand point, this seems like a good deal. Art hardly ever has sudden shifts in value. If a client defaults on their loan, the company knows they will still receive something of value regardless. In today’s economy that type of solubility is quite rare, especially with the way the housing market looks right now. However, from an artistic point of view, there is a net loss in value during such a transaction. The message conveyed in a work of art loses strength when it is circulated as currency. People stop looking at the work for its meaning and more for the monetary gain they can receive from it. Most artists create their art without a price tag in mind. However, even that commonality is changing through the work of Thomas Kinkade.

Thomas Kinkade is in many ways, just like the consumer who views art as a commodity. He has turned the production of art into an assembly line, in which he can pumped out the most amount of “paintings” in the least amount of time. There is no reason for this other than to make a lot of money. The standard Thomas Kinkade isn’t even really a painting anymore. His company devised a way to create elaborate prints of his originals (through use of oil highlights and peal-able ink that is applied to canvas) which are then sold for thousands of dollars. Kinkade’s paintings are almost void of anything meaningful at this point. He essentially uses a formula so that in almost every one of his works there is either some kind of a cottage, or lighthouse, or marina in it. His works follow this formula so as to ensure that to some degree there will always be an aesthetic appeal of the consumer. There is no message or meaning behind a Kinkade painting only the motive to acquire wealth.

As with all commercialization, emphasis is put on quantity not quality. Companies like Art Capital or Thomas Kinkade, make a living off quantity. As a result, art becomes this commodity that is bought and sold. It becomes just another form of currency. With that in mind, can one even call it art anymore if it has lost its meaning? It would seem not.