Can an artist be an artist once money is involved?

Question

Aren't the motives changed once money is involved. Can anyone call Thomas Kinkade an artist anymore?

Answer 1

Of course. What makes you think that "motive" is the end all be all of art? When you look back through art history you will find profit as a common theme. Yes it does influence the work but that does not make the art of any less quality. The most renowned artists in history and some of the most renowned works in history were all about the artist making money.

Answer 2

I never considered Thomas Kinkade as a artist anyway.
That would be placing him in the same category as Van Gogh,
Picasso and Pollock. Just because his art sells that doesn't make him an artist. Nor does it make it wrong for you to sell
your artwork to make a living. Some middle schools and High schools are starting to teach the importance of chosing art as a productive carrer. I have always felt that every true artist should take marketing classes. It's not enough that you can produce
works of art but you need to have the knowledge on how to market yourself as well. The term starving artist should be a cliche from the past. Do actors act for free..Do doctors perform for free? No and neither should artist be tied to this ideal of poverty. Who pays for the education that it took you to become an artist? Who pays for your supplies? Who pays for your studio rent and gallery space. To even ask this question is an absurdity. You should believe enough in your art that guilt is not assoiciated with accepting monitary gain for it. You art is worth what your self worth is. Ears have already been cut off...so there is no need for you to suffer for your art anymore! God gave you a gift and he didn't give you that gift so you couldnt benifit from it. You know in your heart if you have real talent and likewise you should be rewarded for that talent. Use it wisely and don't even struggle anymore with that thought........Every artist says it a sellout to be popular but you don't se them giving there money back do you? Recording artist, actors and painters all accept money . You hear
people making comments like they sold out....yeah but they still shjow up at those oscars and grammy award shows anyway dont they....No it's not wrong to accept money for your work. The greed of money and lack of talent should be the only thing that you should be embarrased about!
www.robbconover.zoomshare.com

Answer 3

Well, I think Thomas Kincaid is lame. I would call him a very shrewd businessman. He has talent, but figured out that the masses generally have no taste and have no idea what art is. they just want something that looks nice with their furniture. So he just started a business painting lame paintings for lame people. Being an Artist is more than self expression and a creative outlet. If you want to eat, money must be involved. Making art for art's sake is like masturbation, It is so self gratifying but it doesn't pay the bills. If I were a multi-millionaire, then I could truly be free to be an artist.

Answer 4

Receiving money for art just means you're being paid for doing what you would do anyway, and if you're lucky it means you don't have to work and can spend more time doing art.

But Thomas Kinkade is not an artist-- he's a supplier for a factory.

Answer 5

Well Kinkade is a shameless self-promoter and I think he's not very good to start with. I wouldn't call him an artist but you can make money and be an artist.

Answer 6

I truly hate those who claim that any artists that sells his work has prostituted his art.

This is patent bullsh*t! History teems with artists whose work is celebrated and honored for centuries after they have died. These artists wouldn't have survived long enough to produce their great works without the patronage and sponsorship of individuals who have paid their way.

Michaelangelo was paid handsomely by the Pope, and no one challenges his artistic skills, or his claim to the title of artist. Van Gough, died a penniless maniac, but while he lived, he was paid, by his brother who bought virtually everything he produced. And Van Gogh was not recognized for his talent until many years after he died. This is a man who never had any traditional job. But he was paid.

I hate Thomas Kinkade's work, but he earned his chops, the same as every one of us who aspires to be an artist. He learned, he practiced AND he marketed his works. I don't hate him because of his success. I ENVY his success. I wish I had a fraction of what he makes. I wish I also had his marketing skills.

I just don't like his stuff. I never have. And now, you can't call much of his commercial work as HIS, since he has assistants actually put oil on canvass for him. That doesn't take away from Kinkaide's talent. I PITY those who put good money for a canvass that he might not have had much of his own effort put into it.

Kinkaide's an artist, all right. Some of the work appearing with his name might not be. Would you call a coffee mug with one of his images on it a piece of art?

Answer 7

An artist can sell art.
But if the artist sold out the integrity of creating art, he will no longer be an artist.

Answer 8

YES ! He still does the work doesn't he. Just the same for any artist longs as they are still doing the work and not others ,then they are still artist !

Answer 9

They are still an artist but, they base what they do on what sells

Answer 10

That depends on how much you allow the financial aspects to influence your creativity.'