I'm a proponent of the "if it's art to you..." camp. It seems to me the only way to level the playing field if everyone's "art" is given a chance. Yeah, there's a lot of stuff out there better than what I saw of Kinkade. What if some of that better art never made outside the studio because it was "too" edgey and not immediately liked? How many great artists have we lost because of this?

Creativity is fragile. I think the slightest blow could render an artist comatose effectively, ending her or his career. Which is why I am gentle in the Critique. Who knows what this photographer is going to become? I do my best to encourage them so that I don't trample the tender flower that would later rip up the sidewalk

Okay, so I have to admit:
I had to go Google every name that was mentioned in this thread. I found Kinkade... not my cup of tea, but I would consider it "art." It certainly envokes a reaction

I had a hard time figuring out who "pollack" was. My google search brought up several, a few of which I liked

If someone would like to link to an image by anyone discussed and start a discussion on WHY they like it or don't, I think that would be exemplary. I don't mean photography (for now) I mean any of the artist mentioned or otherwise. I want to know why it's icky, or repulsive, or wonderful. Then let's extrapolate that discussion to photography.

Just my thoughts,
Rick