Kinkade isn't much different than many top photographers. I believe that many of the "top" photographers are best at selling themselves as opposed to making great work. Isn't Kinkade doing the same thing? BTW, if he produced less would we like him more? IOW, are we against him because of his commercialism? I wouldn't hang his work in my house, but it's not that bad. There's plenty worse!

I have no problems with pop art, or pop anything. There is some strange tendancy that if something is popular or commercial it can't be true art. That's such a crazy notion.

I'd rather look at a landscapes than most street photography. Landscapes are emotive and cerebral for me. I also tend to like preconcieved visions over luck of the draw. But that's me.

Newton? He did nothing new. Let's face it, pornagraphy was around and done before the day the first image capture was made. IMO, he brough soft porn mainstream. Or at least he was the first person reckognized by the so called artists or critics of the time for this "type" of work. Again, he probably sold himself better than the others. These others were probably labeled perverts.

As far as intent vs commercial value, just remember Pollock's (hopefully I got it right this time) toilet seat... Converseley, just because it's made for commercial value doesn't mean it's not art. Agian, just my opinion.