New York woman falls, rips Picasso painting

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The part I was really questioning was "People who typically shielded themselves from most modern art because of it's apparent secularism." That's the part I am just not quite as sure about. First you'd have to assume they care much about modern art in the first place. A lot of people just don't like the look of it, Christian or not. I am not opposing what you wrote about Christian marketing, and I'll even add people just wanting what others have as a fad.

I'll try to find something about it, but I know that Kinkade specifically marketed himself as a Christian painter, and I know that many people who have collected his paintings, never before were art collectors. Whether it is because they reject the secularism of modern art, or whether they just buy into the Christian label, Kinkade's marketing strategy worked...at least on that demographic. Same thing happened early on in Brittany Spear's career, Miley Cyrus and the Jonas Bros.. Call it what you will, but the Christian label does work as a marketing strategy for a certain demographic of Christians.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well I just think some people are assuming about conservative Christians...as if saying conservative Christian means militant weird person? There are plenty of conservative Christian well educated people who got education in secular colleges. I really hope people aren't assuming every far right winger on VJ represents conservatives or conservative Christians! Maybe you should meet more of them in real life.

I'm talking about some of the people on these boards. Whether they're Christian or not is neither here nor there.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

For Steven-

Just adding my clarification to my post because sometimes it's hard to get across what I mean on the internet without writing a really long thing. I don't want to be misunderstood. What I agree with you on is that the Christian world(stores, churches even perhaps) did promote KinKade, and yes his faith had to do with it. But what I don't agree with is that it means those people typically, as you said, shield themselves from modern art due to it's apparent secularism. Unless there was a poll asking people why they bought it, then there would be fact. Christians don't all grow up one way or just shielded or non-artistic, which I am sure you agree with.

I agree. I'm not suggesting that every Conservative Christian avoids all or anything secular, but there is a strong inclination which is perpetuated by many of the churches, to be skeptical or careful of things that don't fit the Christian brand. Harry Potter, for example. This is whole subject in of itself. As for Kinkade, he brilliantly marketed the Christian label and it worked out for him well...at least initially. He isn't the first nor will he be the last. But his work is unique in that although it carried the Christian brand, there is nothing within the subject matter of his work that was a direct reference to Christianity.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'll try to find something about it, but I know that Kinkade specifically marketed himself as a Christian painter, and I know that many people who have collected his paintings, never before were art collectors. Whether it is because they reject the secularism of modern art, or whether they just buy into the Christian label, Kinkade's marketing strategy worked...at least on that demographic. Same thing happened early on in Brittany Spear's career, Miley Cyrus and the Jonas Bros.. Call it what you will, but the Christian label does work as a marketing strategy for a certain demographic of Christians.

I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that Kinkade does a lot of illustration work for Christian book publishers. The Christian book market is relatively niche compared to the bigger commercial publishers, but its a way for him to market his work to that particular audience.

[Scott & Lai 12]

In your opinion, is graffiti art?

graffiti is theft.

[Peikko 1,575]

graffiti is theft.

Let's just hope you are not a lawyer.

[Scott & Lai 12]

Let's just hope you are not a lawyer.

I don't care if it fits any particular legal definition on the books, I'm talking morally. Grafittists paint their markings on property that does not belong to them and without the permission of the righful owners, therefore they are stealing. Regardless of the artistic quality a grafitto may have, its artistic value is no more than that of a dog pissing on a wall.

Edited January 27, 2010 by Scott & Lai

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't care if it fits any particular legal definition on the books, I'm talking morally. Grafittists paint their markings on property that does not belong to them and without the permission of the righful owners, therefore they are stealing. Regardless of the artistic quality a grafitto may have, its artistic value is no more than that of a dog pissing on a wall.

Naturally, that's to paint all of them with the same brush.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I don't care if it fits any particular legal definition on the books, I'm talking morally. Grafittists paint their markings on property that does not belong to them and without the permission of the righful owners, therefore they are stealing. Regardless of the artistic quality a grafitto may have, its artistic value is no more than that of a dog pissing on a wall.

What if Michael Angelo had painted on a wall of a church without the Church's permission? Would that fresco not be art, even if it was done illegally?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Also I'm not sure I see the difference between artistic quality and artistic value - its sort of the same thing surely.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

What if Michael Angelo had painted on a wall of a church without the Church's permission? Would that fresco not be art, even if it was done illegally?

Typical hippie logic.

I don't care if it's art. Trespassing is still trespassing.

[Jenn! 918]

John Singer Sargent is my favorite.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Typical hippie logic.

I don't care if it's art. Trespassing is still trespassing.

It's a legitimate question, Bill. Yes, defacement of property is still defacement of property, but if Michael Angelo painted a fresco on the wall of a church is it not art, regardless of whether it was done legally or not? It's too bad you didn't take enough philosophy in college. You would have been challenged with such ideas.

Edited January 27, 2010 by Galt's gallstones

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Thinking about complex stuff like that is for hippies, silly Steven.

[Jenn! 918]

Do you keep writing Michelangelo like that on purpose?