Route 66 News blog has reported that the city of Albuquerque, New Mexico, is proposing a ban on existing neon signs. Central Avenue, the heart of the city, is part of the old Route 66. I have painted several Albuquerque Route 66 images such as the El Don Motel, Hiway House Motel, and the famous El Vado Motel.

My subject matter consists of these old signs. I wanted to record these artistic creations before they are banished to history.

It looks like I may need to hurry a little faster.

This is a third post in a series.

Most of the prints that collectors receive from a Thomas Kinkade Signature Gallery are what are called “canvas transfers”. What is a canvas transfer? Basically it starts out as a four color print on paper - the same printing that is done for your Sunday newspaper (albeit at a higher quality).

The image is then separated from the paper chemically and then placed on a blank white canvas. Thousands, even tens of thousands, of prints are made at one time. These are then mass transfered to canvas. Sometimes the print is “embellished” with paint to make it look like Kinkade had actually touched the print himself.

Is there anything wrong with this process? Absolutely not. In fact a canvas transfer is a great way for a collector who likes an artist’s work to obtain a reproduction at an affordable price. Embellishing by the artists can add value to a print.

So what is the problem you may be asking? The Kinkade marketing machine has given the impression that the buyer is receiving a more valuable product than they are actually receiving. Now I will concede that value in art is subjective. If Picasso drew something on a napkin it could easily fetch thousands of dollars. If I drew something on a napkin it might get thrown away. If someone wants to pay the price that Kinkade charges for a canvas transfer and the buyer receiving full disclosure agrees, I have no problem. However, when a visitor to a Kinkade gallery is given the impression that what they are receiving is something that has more value and a rarity, then I have a problem with that. Canvas transfers are not limited edition quality, it is a mass produced product. However as I have stated in my previous post in this series Kinkade has a different definition of limited edition.

To watch Kinkade’s collectors talk about the prints (see the 60 Minutes segment) it was like each was talking about a painting that Kinkade painted himself and not a reproduction. Who gave the buyer the impression? I’m guessing the Kinkade marketing machine. Where does this machine reach the buyer. The Kinkade Signature Galleries. The Signature Galleries is where the illusion begins.

Next post: My Visit to a Kinkade Gallery.

(Note: This is part II of a series about Thomas Kinkade and the Art Print Market)

To my knowledge limited edition art prints are supposed to be, well, limited. Over the last few years this definition has changed, much in part due to artists like Thomas Kinkade, Bev Doolittle, and other popular artists found in many galleries today.

Art buyers who purchase “limited edition” prints from Kinkade are not receiving the true limited edition of the past. Limited editions created pre-computer were often created at one size, at a specific edition number – usually a low number of around 500 – and signed by the artist themselves. The plates used were then destroyed never to be used again. The edition size was fixed. Now Kinkade, and many other artists, now produce a “limited edition” of an image at a variety of sizes, from small 8″ x 10″ up to 30″ x 40″. The new formula for a determination of a limited edition is now by size, not image. Vary the image by even as little as an inch in each direction and you have a new edition! In my humble opinion this is a sham.

And that’s not all. There is also the substrate differences. A canvas print is different than a paper print. But now a 16″ x 20″ print can be put on paper, call it a limited edition, then put on a 16″ x 20″ canvas and it’s a different edition. This, to me, is pure deception. It makes fools out of unsuspecting art buyers.

But wait, there’s more.

Kinkade’s prints are often “embellished”, which means that someone has taken paint to the print and put highlights over the print, making them seem at times like actual paintings. It is assumed by most buyers that Kinkade himself does the embellishing whereas, as the “60 Minutes” segment showed (to my surprise that they did) art students applying the embellishments. A sort of paint-by-numbers process. The print is also signed by, not Kinkade, but by a computer.

With the technology of today, and to a greater extent the ignorance of art buyers perpetuated by the greed of some gallery owners, the rules have changed. But the problem is the art buyer was not informed of this change.

Most likely the print that is purchased at the local Kinkade Signature Gallery is what is called a “Canvas Transfer”. Now for the layman this may not mean much but for the company creating the piece is means profit. Now there is nothing wrong with profit, I try to continue in business by creating profit in my work, however this profit was, in my opinion, at the expense of truth.

Next week part three: What is a Canvas Transfer?

…and it may have been a good thing.

(This the first in a series posted over the next several weeks)

The art world is in flux today with a perception vs. reality problem that exists between artists, art galleries, and art buyers. Debate over what is an original piece of art, a print, or a limited edition is generating controversy, lawsuits, and a distrust leading to suspicions that affects artists that are truly honest about their work. And no one has perpetuated the instability than artist Thomas Kinkade, known for his images of cottages and themes of “life-affirming values”.

In a series of posts over the next several weeks I will be commenting the differences between the variety of art processes. Explain how some artists and art gallery owners have exploited those processes to mislead naive art buyers into purchasing art that may not have the value that the buyer was led to perceive. I am using artist Thomas Kinkade as an example of my criticism since his business dealings have been in the news lately and he has been the most blatant in reference to the controversy of what the buyer is receiving when purchasing a fine art print. I will not be discussing the merits of his work. I believe that every artist has his or her market and if a collector likes the work then fine, that is fair. But only if the buyer purchases the art with full disclosure of what the product is there is not a problem. But deception in the art buying process is a different story.

The art buyer I am refering to is not the professional or connoisseur that has a history of purchasing art. If that were the case it would be a simple case of caveat emptor. Most serious art buyers don’t even give a second thought to Kinkade’s work. What Kinkade has done is target middle America with his work and made Ma and Pa Kettle believe they were purchasing the very same type of art purchased by the New York SoHo collector. On a “60 Minutes” segment about Kinkade a couple from Mission Viejo, California, admitted to purchasing hundreds of Kinkade prints and called the prints “paintings”. Therein lies the problem. They were reproductions, prints, not paintings. Kinkade has done a masterful job of marketing and promotion. But the grandmas and grandpas that purchased his work are now wondering if they’ve been duped.

Next Monday: Kinkade and the Limited Edition Art Print