Thomas Kinkade

So, I was on the Design Observer today, and there was a link entitled "Thomas Kinkade's Guide to Making Things Suck."  And I was brought back to a class I took in college - a writing class on Contemporary Art.  We had a very lively debate (art students versus non art students most likely) on art versus kitsch, and what Thomas Kinkade would fall under.  It makes you wonder why designers and artists see differently than the general public.  Most of your average, non-art clientelle, would consider Thomas Kinkade a wonderful artist.  They look at what we consider art, for example Pollock or Duchamp, and can't understand where we get it from.  And artists and designers often look at Thomas Kinkade and think, to quote the design observer, it "sucks."  So what does that say about artists versus the general public?  If his work really sucked, would he have been able to make such a sizeable living on it?  And what separates Kinkade from someone like Rockwell, who's prints are well loved by the public and have been highly used commercially (and are considered fairly ideallic as well)?  I have the utmost respect for all the artists mentioned above, but it makes for some good debate.

Here is the link to Kinkade - Kinkade