What has this world come to? Art and status in America

The article, "That Old Master? It's Down at the Pawnshop", sparked my interest as I had no idea that such a transaction was possible. The whole process of pawning off art as collateral for debts, mortgages and other financial troubles seems absolutely ridiculous to me. First, in the idea that art could possibly be worth that amount of money, and second, in that people consistently find themselves in that amount of financial trouble. Time and time again, people find themselves spending beyond their means to maintain a certain "status". As of late, it seems that art has worked its way into the commercial empire - - many are starting to view the type of art that hangs in a home to speak about the status of the home's owner just as square footage, cars, and electronics have for decades. But why? Why is it necessary to classify certain types of art as more expensive than others? I understand that some have taken more time and effort, but the end result is ultimately the same - - a piece of art that another person, or group of people, are able to enjoy. However, as time as gone on, art and its creation, has slowly taken on a commercial aspect as has many other aspects of our society.

The article itself speaks of the trouble that people have gotten themselves into as they have bitten off more than they can chew. Take for example this quote from the article, "At a time when stock portfolios are plunging and many homes, even grand ones, have no equity left to borrow against, an increasing number of art owners are realizing that an Old Master or a prime photograph, when used as collateral, can bring in much needed cash." But how have people gotten to this point? It's simple -- status, status, status! Grand houses are not a necessity nor are the excessive amount of stock options that are always somewhat risky. These gambles have not provided the necessary pay-offs as of late, and with that art has become a bargaining tool as society struggles to stay afloat. But is that fair? These pieces of art, created by artists in a time that did not know such decadence and greed, were not meant to be pawns in the "money" game. These works are works of passion with little thought, for the most part, as to their selling price or the amount of money they would make as collateral. We are doing these pieces and the artists a disservice as we attempt to pull ourselves out of the hole that commercial America has helped us dig over the past 50 years.

Thomas Kinkade seems to have pushed the envelope of the definition of "artist" as he attempts to mass produce his rather quaint cottages. After researching Kinkade, since I missed out on the video this past week, I have found that his words drip of the deception that must have been apparent as he spoke in his time on "60 Minutes". His interview with CBS News in 2004 is a bald-faced lie at best. He speaks of his original works of art and the fact that he hand creates each one of these to be sold. Yet in the next breath, there is talk of assembly lines and fork lifts that help "push his vision" into galleries across the nation. Knowing absolutely nothing about the man before my search, I find it hard to believe that one man has enough time to produce so many paintings on his own while still having time for his precious family. He has sold himself to the Olympics and received an award from the California Board of Tourism - - what artist counts that among his accomplishments? I'm sorry, but it was not ever something that I felt an accomplished artist should be proud to admit. Kinkade works under the pretense that his work has these charitable benefits and helps people enjoy art again because there is little to understand. However, I believe that Kinkade is an expert at manipulation, and has learned that Americans will jump on anything that they believe will improve "their status" in society. This is how he has made his millions - - and earned his "status" just like those buying his artwork aspire to.