>Every home has a toilet too, doesn't make it fine art.

In 1917 Marcel Duchamp presented a urinal at an art exhibition. It was just a urinal, titled "Fountain," signed in large letters "R. Mutt 1917."   

That was the beginning.

However, as "art," Duchamp's "Fountain" is a lot more interesting than Kinkade's paintings. Why? Because calling it "art" intentionally raised questions about what art really is, questions emphasized by the ostentatious fake signature and its placement in an exhibition. And in 1917 that kind of weird behavior, from an established avant-garde painter, was daring and scandalous. As an "art object," "Fountain" is junk, but as a concept that raised questions and invigorated theories of art, it was genius. It shook the art world.

Kinkade's pictures, though, are just kitschy sentiment, designed to do nothing but sell. They can't even boast of Parrish and Rockwell's excellent technique. They *are* wallpaper, for people who think wallpaper is a fine art.

How long can "joy" in a Kinkade painting last, before the image just becomes flat and familiar?