Thomas Kinkade, artist or businessman? This is the question that the three reviews by Karal Ann Marling, Brooke Cameron, and Mark Pohlad are basically arguing. Kinkade's paintings and other works usually consist of a little house with the lights on. His work gives a sense of light and warmth at affordable prices. "His franchise earned more than $2 billion in 2000" (pg. 224).
Marling is really supportive of Kinkade's work. She argues that he is a family man because he puts his wife's initials in his pictures. She also mentions that Kinkade takes after an artist by the name of Albert Bierstadt, who "bridges the gap between fine and popular art" (pg. 67). Cameron on the other hand also points out that his work is very soothing for the common person, but he gets more credit than he deserves. She also brings up that his pieces are not authentic, so why buy one? In her last line of the review she compares Kinkade to a "male Martha Stewart" (pg. 5), someone selling something that the average person can relate to and will buy. Pohlad brings together points that the two previous reviews argue, but his main point is the affordability. How many people do you know that can afford a Van Gogh or a Monet? I Know I can't, but a Kinkade's $1,500 painting is a quite a bit more within my grasp.