WOW! George Zimmerman's Painting sells for $100,099.99 on EBay

[JerryMather]

Now that's putting your notoriety to good use. " A signed 18"x 24" oil painting of a blue American flag featuring part of the Pledge of Allegiance, which had a starting bid of $0.99 was bid on by 24 eBay users."

Interesting, a painting by Hitler recently sold for only $120,000.00 at Auction. He's got nothin on George in the sales dept.

 

Hitler Auction Results

[Roadwolf]

As an artist, I see this all the time… the painting's intrinsic value is overshadowed by the bigger name… (Thomas Kincaid, Hitler, and now Zimmerman). Who paints it is more important than the subject matter, talent or perceived skill set, composition, technique, etc. This time around, it's just a guy with a penchant for violence who gets the money… and when he finally gets his comeuppance the value will only go up for some. Sad.

[Dave McReynolds]

Poor Thomas Kincade. Who would have imagined that he would have such guilt by association!

[szurszewski]

Now that's putting your notoriety to good use. " A signed 18"x 24" oil painting of a blue American flag featuring part of the Pledge of Allegiance, which had a starting bid of $0.99 was bid on by 24 eBay users."

Interesting, a painting by Hitler recently sold for only $120,000.00 at Auction. He's got nothin on George in the sales dept.

 

Hitler Auction Results

 

According to the link Hitler didn't do that well even - a collection of his work was sold to various bidders for a total of 120K.

[Roadwolf]

Ha! Didn't mean it that way, but to some of my fellow artists, he is the Hitler of "fine art." He did a blitzkrieg on much better artists by being a better marketer and having a horde of devoted fans… He mined that material for what it's worth.

[RonStewart]

Look, I know that art is as controversial as religion or politics, but Kincade's work sells on its merit as art, and on the artist's merit as an artist. People put it on their walls because they like it. The vast majority of monetarily successful artists have been successful in part because of their marketing ability. Kinkade happened to be better than most in that respect.

 

So no, I do not think it is a fair comparison, and frankly, it belittles the fans of his work, who don't deserve to be belittled for their taste.

[ratfink]

 

So no, I do not think it is a fair comparison, and frankly, it belittles the fans of his work, who don't deserve to be belittled for their taste.

 

People frequently critisize my sense of style or lack thereof. I've heard that "The Engineer's Guide to Style" is the shortest book in history. I thinks that's funny, I don't feel belittled at all. It's funny that they come to me when they can't make their machines work, I get in my licks...

 

Kincaid's works, they hurt my eyes.

 

[RonStewart]

Some people can take an insult, some can't.

[Dave McReynolds]

"Serious" art is judged based on what it communicates about the society we live in. "Commercial" art is judged based on how successful it is in selling something. It can be as blatant as selling a product, or as subtle as selling an idealized concept of our society that makes people feel good. Certainly Thomas Kincade, Norman Rockwell, or Andrew Wyeth were as technically skilled draftsmen and as much masters of their chosen modes of expression as Pablo Picasso, Salvador Dali, or Andy Warhol. They were far superior technically to Jackson Pollock or Mark Rothko. So why do the five "serious" painters I mentioned hang permanently in the finest museums and command fortunes whenever they are sold, whereas Kincade and the other two, while perhaps better loved, command less respect?

 

I don't claim to have an answer to that question, and I'm sure many people are puzzled by it, since they personally prefer the art of Kincade, Rockwell, and Wyeth to the others I mentioned. Few people, however, would maintain that the art of any of the three offers a perceptive reflection of our society. Certainly at least at the time they were created, most people found the works of the others to be disturbing. Well, they created them that way because they found society to be disturbing, not because they thought their paintings would look nice on someone's wall or as a cover for the Saturday Evening Post. Of course, being disturbing alone doesn't guarantee that a painting will make it into the Museum of Modern Art; it also has to resonate with viewers and communicate something of value about humanity, or sometimes the lack thereof.

 

Can't say how Zimmerman fits into all of this; haven't seen his painting yet.

[Mike]

"Serious" art is judged based on what it communicates about the society we live in. "Commercial" art is judged based on how successful it is in selling something. It can be as blatant as selling a product, or as subtle as selling an idealized concept of our society that makes people feel good. Certainly Thomas Kincade, Norman Rockwell, or Andrew Wyeth were as technically skilled draftsmen and as much masters of their chosen modes of expression as Pablo Picasso, Salvador Dali, or Andy Warhol. They were far superior technically to Jackson Pollock or Mark Rothko. So why do the five "serious" painters I mentioned hang permanently in the finest museums and command fortunes whenever they are sold, whereas Kincade and the other two, while perhaps better loved, command less respect?

 

One of Norman Rockwell's paintings recently sold for $46 million . If commanding a price in the range of, or exceeding, that paid for the works of the recognized masters is the measure of greatness, Rockwell has finally arrived!

 

It's all a little goofy. I try to maintain at least a minimal level of artistic literacy, and some of those recognized as great artists have talents that completely elude me. I am, apparently, a dolt.