This originally being a thread about how to make money at it, at what point does promoting one's "art" for sake of income become deceptive and unethical, or as defined by outright legal codes, illegal? The combination of both painter and fauxtographer I mentioned certainly accomplished things technically, and deserve due credit for that. Kincade devised a particularly high-end method of mass-producing his paintings both print press style and via a fancy paint-by-numbers assembly line. He kept a tiny bit of toenail still inside the legal definition of an original painting, but by teasing authorities in that manner, put a big bullseye on himself. Once people realized that their "investment" in mass-produced images was a charade, and Kincade's financial empire began collapsing, he resorted to distinctly illegal means to keep it going, got indicted, and drank himself to death. Is that success? - not in my opinion.
Then the clone of his marketing model, Peter Lik, likewise came up with a real contribution to technique in the specific methodology his "factory" is capable of handling really big prints for sake of decor display. But the manner in which he promotes this, including a lot of "investment" hype and malarky unverifiable giant sales figures, puts a bulleye right on him too, as far as tempting indictment. So is that really a successful business model, or more of a gamble? I'm not surprised he's based in Vegas and juggles in the real estate market there, which might be a significant portion of his personal wealth. I dunno. I do know he's played awfully dirty driving competing galleries out of Lahaina where those cruise ships dock.
But, with certain exceptions, tourist hubs like that are rarely where one finds quality work. Yes, I myself displayed in Carmel for awhile, but never sold a single print to a tourist - they all went to locals, including some notable photographers, or to people who actually flew in for those little events. It was a town known for great photographers and photographic galleries, but also for slick kitchy painting galleries so egregious that a full-time FBI was planted there for awhile uncovering all the art fraud. One instance was a gallery which featured a fictitious famous seascape artist, which actually turned out to be an assembly line in Mexico. Same kind of slippery nonsense occurs at Fisherman's Wharf galleries in SF, where suckers will "invest" thousands of dollars for a mass-produced poster worth far less than the frame it's put it. Entirely predictable.
I'd far rather make an honest living doing something else, and therefore have the liberty to photograph and print what I please, which is exactly what I did. But I did supplement my basic income with incidental commercial photography, print sales, and architectural color consultation, among other things. All of those activities were interrelated, so networking itself was almost automatic.
