OT. That's a good question and since it has to do with art, its mostly subjective, so all I can give is my opinion along with some observation. In my opinion, the first 3 I posted above are actually art, and nothing is wrong with them. The fourth one I admit I like as a picture or decoration. That is the problem I have with the art side of it all. Surely you can see a difference in the progression here, and I posted them in chronological order. Some time in the 90s when his stuff was new, I, like most others, liked what I saw, however after over a decade of it, it all ran together. There are few that stand out in my mind as a unique work as say a Picasso or a Monet would. They are a massive jumble of trees, cottage windows, streams and clouds. Its decoration, its wall paper, but I don't think it qualifies as art (again I speak of the mass-produced stuff, not of everything he did). Art should move you and never leave your mind. When I see a gray guitar to this day I think of the Picasso masterpiece that hangs in a museum I saw 20 years ago, the tragedy in the eyes of the player, everything seemed broken and forced, no joy in color or mood. It touches you. Now I know some of those paintings of Kinkade actually bring up a slight emotional response, feelings of patriotism, home and hearth, things we all love, but it doesn't go deep.Then the Disney phase is self-explanatory. Its simply Disney Store souvenir.