-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Voting Results - * Kurt - 44 * ThriftStoreArt.com - 59
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
Should "Pebbles and Friend"
be included on thriftstoreart.com,
yes or no?

VOTE via e-mail at:


(VOTING CLOSED)

See Kurt's comments here.

 

 

 

 

1) Re: Pebbles... YES

2) Wow, you sure reeled in a live one!. I’m gonna e-mail this fella and let him know what true rejection is! When the host of the party gives you your donated painting BACK – THAT’S rejection. I’m going to cast my vote for NO, if only to register my disdain for those who cannot accept a “no”. This guy should try to get a date with Pamela Anderson – she’d probably go out with him just to get him off her back.

3) Loved your Christmas gallery update! Thanks! Laughed 'til I cried : ) No - to Pebbles in the gallery

4) I hereby, being of unsound mind and duly sworn at, vote for inclusion of the piece in question. My reason is simply that I am a proud American, believe in the fundamental egalitarian principles, and more is better! Also I find the piece rather bizarre, which is one of the quintessential elements within the thrift store art genre.

5) It should be included. It is a great piece.

6) Just checked out your web site---- oh so wonderful! and i've just read the on going diatribe you've had going with the pretentious debate team guy from california. his arguments alone were enough to sway my opinion with yours. however , in all honesty, i do agree with your "no" judgement. looking at the other paintings you've got on your site, 'pebbles and friend' clearly does not qualify. it's a mass produced , pre-fabricated, albeit finely airbrushed piece. the person who did this paints everything but the face area, leaving that blank. when some poor schlub is passing by feeding their kids elephant ears and mountain dew (the best part of getting dragged to street fairs/flea markets when you are a kid), the kid whines and says, " i wanna be in th' picture!!!" over and over, so many time that the parent acquiesces and part with his own $5 to get a hold of such a fine portrait of their daughter. once the kid hits a certain age (usually in the puberty area), said kid is mortified that his/ her friends will see this/her head in that now atrocious painting and they secretly throw it out in the good will bag of their old clothes and broken toys, hoping to god his/her parents don't go through the bag. it's much like the dot matrix portraits people used to get of themselves in "wanted" signs , either in poster form or T-shirt form, etc. this guy obviously did not have parents who dragged him to such forums, or his argument wouldn't have been so very very very lengthy. it is indeed a professionally done portrait, done merely for the ducats, not for the art of it. regardless, i do applaud his wanting to get in touch with the simpler side of life. he shouldn't give up so easily just because his painting doesn't qualify on your own web site. keep collecting crap that drives your significant other up a wall, kurt!! i've got a couple of holographic pictures in the bathroom my fella HATES (one is a clipper ship in the high seas, the other is a bunny family crossing a bridge and feeding ducks. ) i love these pictures. greg would love to burn these pictures, as i'm sure your girlfriend would the 'pebbles'. and i doubt she'll ever love it. she'll only grow a callus on that visual part of her brain where she would 'see' that picture. she'll even steadfastly denies that it's there in a few years, if my own mother is any example- my father has collected old chalk figurines that used to be given out as carnival prizes (these, ironically, are also airbrushed). my dad calls this his "ugly collection". i have even contributed a blue pig with pink ears, much to my mother's chagrin. well, i'll end this before i, too, start blabbering on for too long, making your eyes tired while reading my best examples of my extensive vocabulary. and, no, i wasn't in the debate team. i watched 'happy days ' instead. cheers!!

7) My friend Gina wanted me to voice my opinion on Kurt's piece, and here goes. I hate this painting!!! I think it is atrocious! It is a cute story of the making of, but it really is ugly. So my vote is no. I am sorry for any feelings that get hurt in the process.

8) Yes.

9) This kitsch is just as good as any other! As far as I can see, it fits all of the requirements! Good Site! I have marked in a sub folder!

10) Stumbled on to your site. Great stuff! I like the "Pebbles" painting. Classic bad weird art - looks airbrushed and begs one to ask the question, "Why?". Thanks again for the fun site.

11) No -- it's bad, but it's not art

12) I have mixed feelings about the "Pebbles and Friend" piece... Nevertheless, for the amount of (wonderful) debate that was exhausted for the painting, I vote YES that it should be included on the thriftstoreart.com site. I agree with TSA.com on this account though: Yes, "Anything old or weird", but not EVERYTHING old or weird. My opinion is that the piece is a fairly generic one, in fact, the style is one that you can find strewn on t-shirts and on canvas drawn by "artists" who do this "commercially" in malls and on the boardwalk... Yet the content is striking and humorous and deserves some attention in that the "friend" depicted in the painting is somewhat unattractive with it's beady eyes mad-chompin' gums and teeth and perhaps it's just my interpretation, but this Bam-bam borders on androgynous makin' the piece kinda disturbing. I mean if my buddy, Pedro, had a picture like this as his living room piece, and since his daughter resembles the "friend" in your painting, I'd pass it off and call it "cute." But since the "friend" is a stranger to you and I, it engages our curiosity; who is "she/he" and moreover, WHY? That's what I'd like to know. I also have a fondness for random/odd-ball items and your debate has instilled a new vigor for my search for weird shit. Thank you.

13) "Pebbles and Friend" is a disturbing little piece that definitely deserves inclusion on the website. I applaud your courage in posting it in the first place!

14) BAM it! NO NO NO!!!

15) While I like the painting quite a bit, it is properly kitsch, and does not meet the criteria for Thrift Store art you had in mind when you set up your website. "Like" might be too faint a word for my opinion of the painting: I like it very much. On the other hand, you must stick to your standards. Sticking to one's standards is not "snobbery." Just as not everyone is a winner within every arena, your site is not for all art that people think is cool because it's odd. The site has a coherent idea behind it. Organizing ideas into groups is not irritating or elitist, it is necessary and desirable. My vote is for special recognition of this painting. A separate category for future submissions of the like might be a good idea, but since I'm not doing the work, it's easy for me to suggest, I suppose. As an aside, it does look like one of those "send us your child's picture and we'll include her in her favorite cartoon" kind of things, and I suppose that is professional rather than amateur. It is a remarkable piece. I wish it were mine...

16) No. No. No.

17) YES - it made me laugh, it made me weep, it made me a grilled cheese sandwich

18) While I wouldn't necessarily want it hanging in my living room, I do appreciate the opportunity you've afforded me to view "Pebbles and Friend." That would be a "yes" vote. Thanks.

19) No. It looks likes one of those computerized bubble jet on acrylic creations touted at state fairs for $22.95

20) No.

21) NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO !!! Pebbles & Friend is not deserving.

22) Sold out by my own father!!!!! - Son, Mom just made me aware of your gallery update and of your ongoing debate with Kurt, a wannabe contributor. After reviewing the painting submitted by Kurt, I think it ABSOLUTELY should be included! After all, B-a-a-a-a-d is b-a-a-a-a-d! The disproportionate size of the head on the figure holding a hammer and the poor representation of the hills in the background should qualify the painting for your gallery. If you need more reasons, how about the fact that the face on the gal with a hammer in her hand looks like a photograph of someone's actual face that has been placed on top of the painted figure. I think that you have been unfairly critical of the painting. On the other hand, I enjoyed very much the continuing diatribe between you and Kurt. A continuation of that dialogue might in itself be enough reason to continue rejecting the painting, because it would allow your fans (and his supporters) to continue reading each of your arguments far into the future! It provides an interesting, if not world-shaking, alternative to reading about Osama-bin-Laden, et al! Dad

23) Stumbled on to your site. Great stuff! I like the "Pebbles" painting. Classic bad weird art - looks airbrushed and begs one to ask the question, "Why?". Thanks again for the fun site. Kurt P

24) Gentlemen: I think this weird piece is worthy of inclusion in your gallery. I do agree it is not an attempt at "art," per se, but it is badly done, kitschy and somewhat disturbing. How could you not include it? Thanks for all the great work you have brought to the net. Kenneth P

25) I liked the piece and feel it should be on your website....... (Remainder of message CENSORED by webmaster). PR

Interlude - A "short" response to the voting so far from Kurt Benbenek: Hi , Just writing you a quick note to say thanks once again for allowing your devoted PSB Thrift Store Art visitors to vote on the painting "Pebbles and Friend". It's quite exciting and heartwarming for me to read the varied email responses that you're so kindly posting on your web site. However, I would like to lodge a casual complaint and make a gentle plea to the voters to please stick to the issue of whether "Pebbles and Friend" should be allowed a permanent space on your site. I've noticed that a couple of the voters have gone over the line a bit and have semi-aggressively attacked me on a personal level.

Maybe I'm just being paranoid, but here are some examples of that semi-aggressiveness that I've noticed: Voter #2 refers to me as "a live one" and writes that I "should try to get a date with Pamela Anderson". First of all, I'm offended at being labeled "a live one". That's similar to being called a "sucker" or a "chump". I am not "a live one", a "sucker or a "chump". That kind of terse, street corner phraseology has no place in a serious (though lighthearted) discussion of art - - -- and it sort of offends me...plus it's kind of mean-spirited.

Secondly, I'm slightly puzzled as to why the voter thinks I would even want to go out on a date with Pamela Anderson. And I'm also curious as to why he even brought Pamela Anderson into this lively discussion concerning a wacky painting I bought at a swap meet and your reluctance to allow it on your site. I already have a stunning girlfriend (we've been going out for over a year now, and we become closer everyday - - she's quite a gal and I love her a lot) And anyway, Pamela Anderson is not my type (although I sometimes enjoy watching her syndicated TV action show "V.I.P."). (Editor's note - "Me too..."). Besides, I don't even think Pamela Anderson would be available to go out on a date with me even if I wanted her to (I think she may still be married to rock star Tommy Lee or she might still be dating basketball legend Dennis Rodman - - as you know it's hard to keep up with these things). And most importantly, what does Pamela Anderson have to do with any of this? Bringing Pamela Anderson into this is a waste of your time and it's a waste of time for the visitors to your web site. Like I said, I'm curious to know why Voter # 2 brought Pamela Anderson into the discussion in the first place (???).


Voter # 6 refers to me as a "pretentious debate team guy from California". Now I've been called a lot of things in my life, but I don't think I've ever been called pretentious by anyone. I'm not pretentious and I've never been on a debate team. I don't even think my high school had a debate team. For the record, I played the tuba in my high school band and I was proud to do so (and I was also on the football team for one day). Later, in college, I didn't belong to any teams or clubs - I worked on the student newspaper and went to the college library a lot - and I read a lot of books on all sorts of different subjects in the college library (I continue to read books to this very day, it's a great way to relax).

I assert wholeheartedly and emphatically that I am not pretentious. I always strive to be helpful, humble and sincere in everything I do. And I'm sure at this point you would agree with me that there's already too much pretentiousness in the world these days (or should I say, too much pretentiousness in this "global moment of time"). You've professed similar sentiments regarding pretentiousness in some of our previous heated email discussions - so I know you empathize with my concerns regarding the proliferation of pretentiousness in modern
day cultural and/or artistic discussions, most especially on the Internet. In fact, I struggle daily against all forms of pretentiousness and I find it deeply and ethically insulting to be labeled pretentious. I assume you also combat pretentiousness daily in your own unique fashion. So I'm almost certain you would concur that it might be disconcerting to have one of your devoted web site visitors label me (also a devoted visitor to your site) as being pretentious. However, I AM proud to be from California, the Golden State. And I'm especially proud to be living in the United States of America - - the best country in the world. Where else could a fiery debate such as this occur?

Sorry my quick note turned into a lengthy diatribe, but this kinda stuff is really important to me, and sometimes I get a bit carried away. I just wanted to ask you to remind the voters to refrain from personal attacks on me and stick to the main question: Should "Pebbles and Friend" be included on thriftstoreart.com, yes or no? I look forward to seeing the results of the vote sometime in the future. Best wishes to you and the voters and a belated Happy New Year.

Kurt

PS: Please also remind devoted visitors and voters that they can email me directly at bnbnk@earthlink.net (with questions/comments regarding "Pebbles and Friend" only). So far, I've only gotten one email from one of the voters about "Pebbles and Friend" (Voter #12 was kind enough to write me)

26) I vote yes. My reasons are that my sister-in-laws last name before she married my brother was "Hurtado" and also because my best friend's son is named "Kurt". The art sucks but with all the other things considered I have to vote YES.

27) Hey, I am with you on this one. It looks like it was done by one of those t-shirt artists in Panama City. The subject matter is not interesting nor is the actual painting. It just looks like a souvenir caricature portrait. Definitely doesn't belong in the collection.

28) Just who the hell IS Pebbles' friend? I'm sorry - I'm sure the pic has significance to the artist, and maybe a couple of friends (i.e. "Pebbles' friend"), but I think even Dino would have pissed on this one.

29) At first glance, the (apparently) mixed media work, "Pebbles and Friend" seems merely a glib pastiche, a bald-faced appropriational venture that trades on our weary acceptance of flat-footedly ironic postmodernism. But after immersing myself in its claustrophobic chromal warmth, I'm persuaded of an essential transcendant sensuality -- a sense of voluptuous familial longing that beckons the viewer and then, at the point where it has taken one by one's lapels, pushed one, head backward, into the simmering pool of its own over-ripe sentimentality, its abiguous statement of equivocative indulgence suddenly releases the imagination, leaving one clear-headed but quizzical in the waning half-light of ones own abandoned assumptions. I say "Yes" -- but I can understand why others may find its charms less persuasive. TK Major - (PS...Full disclosure: I'm a collector of Kurt Benbenek's own neo-fauvist work and found your site searching on his name in Google.)

30) My vote is "yes!!" With a Hell YES to back it up!!! PREBBLES AND FRIEND may be weird, but "Art" is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?!? A great addition to the site, if you ask moi.

31) Hell ya'. Keep it up!!!!

32) yes, by god how could this not be be included? i mean, my god, isn't this the very definition of thrift store art?

33) Absolutely, the Pebbles must go on.

34) Nope. It's a little too self aware - I like my thrift art to be thisclose to unintentional.

35) No. (1) It was commercially done, so falls outside the focus of your collection. (2) Its execution was 100% successful, which sets it apart from your apparent criterion of failure to actualize the original artistic vision (as expressed by your comic strip friend). (However, I'm not necessarily in concert with such thinking, since many of your pictures are wonderful folk art paintings, which seems to defy the term "failure", and which brings me to note that your hesitation regarding gallery XI is misplaced, since almost every gallery contains folky pictures with a greater folk aesthetic and value than those displayed in gallery XI).

 Yes, it is thrift store art in a broader since. (Of interest to virtually no one but the owner at the time of execution; and destined from the moment of execution to end up in either the trash can or a rummage sale). It is certainly a cool picture worthy of collection and display. It is a wonderful piece of tourist art. I say tourist art, because artists engaging in such work usually locate in tourist areas (although I have seen one such artist at a local mall). And after taking a second look, I believe that it is a computer generated image. If so, I recently witnessed similarly generated pictures in Orlando at the Pirates dinner theater. Tourist art is the category where this picture might comfortably fit.

 Yet this picture is so much better than 99% of the tourist art out there. Can we somehow include it under the thrift store umbrella? Hmmmm. I would say that it is a folk artifact, expressing popular culture from two perspectives: (1) it is low art; cheap art; tourist art; art for the masses, (usually children), and (2) it pictures pop cult icon Pebbles and the whole cave man aesthetic, which seems always at the forefront of the popular imagination, e.g., ice man and other mummies, archaeology digs, cave paintings--TV is full of this type of theme.

While the picture does have a kinship of spirit with many of the works in your galleries, and it is thrift store art in a broader since, it definitely follows a different direction than your vision and collection.

I'm glad you handled that matter in the manner that you did. Defining a category by what it is not is very instructive. And, again, the picture has merit, is worthy of viewing, and probably reached its most appreciative audience by appearing on your site. My thanks to the submitter and to you.

36) no! no! no! a thousand times no! this is not fine art.

37) The work should definitely be permanently included on your website because (1) I'm a big Flintstones fan and (2) a friend of mine has a dog named Pebbles. I know nothing about art and less about your website (except that I did notice better-than-average spelling among your correspondents) but I know a thing or two about thrift stores. The painting is definitely thrift store material and definitely an attempt at art, and therefore is by definition "thrift store art". Give it an audience!

38) I VOTE YES for "Pebbles and Friend". It deserves a permanent place on your site.

39) The Pebbles painting is bullshit.

40) In case the vote is still open, my vote is to not include it, as charming as it is.

41) NO!!!

42) Hello, I was looking for a particular site for thrift stores when I found your site and the debate on whether Pebbles and Friend should be added to your gallery. Unfortunately, I think you may need to include the painting only because it seems that you collect what is old and weird according to your home page introduction. Old and weird is a pretty general statement, I think. It leaves an incredible amount of room for debate. But in viewing the paintings in your gallery, I can see the genre of art that you prefer to collect, and perhaps you could concisely communicate this to hopeful prospects. I think you could avoid needless and potentially hurtful arguments to both you and others because of differences of opinions. In one of your galleries there is the painting of Old Man and the Sea. I liked it, and I knew it was someone's original painting of an illustration I have seen for the book.

Pebbles and Friend, I believe is perhaps a flea market airbrush artist's copy of an original ( and if so, his artistry is good ), and he perhaps sold those paintings at the flea market with whomever's face he was told to paint, whether by someone in person or someone in a photograph. If I were you I would have the painting sent or brought to me to verify that the face is actually painted because it really does look like a superimposed photo. If the face is painted, I think the whole picture should be added to the gallery under the "weird". But, this should be the turning point as I again suggest that you be more specific in what you will accept into your gallery.

43) NO.

44) no, not art

45) I vote no on the painting. As much as I appreciate good thrift store art and bad, if given a choice I would elect to never see that painting again.

46) Most certainly, YES! (BTW Kurt, I also played tuba in H.S., AND have recently taken it up again after 25 years)

47) I'm with those who believe this is a professionally-executed work of "tourist" or "t-shirt" art. A great piece, but it doesn't fit with the rest of the collection. As you mention elsewhere, one of the main reactions to the other pieces is an unanswerable "why would someone paint this?" In the case of this work, that question is easily answered: because someone walked up with a bit of money and enough bad taste to *ask* them to paint it. If it could be demonstrated that this was in fact a non-professional work, and that the face is painted, not a photograph, then I might change my vote.

48) Yes this painting should be included in the gallery. To reject it because it is new is to declare the end of thrift store art. If anything it's rapid journey from artist's creation to the back of a swap meet sign seems to me the epitome of neglectful discard that makes me stop and look at art I find at the reuse center. Rejecting it because it was made with an airbrush seems sort of arbitrary; air brushes have become both common and cheap. The difference in apparent skill between the inset face and the rest of the picture is sort of troubling. I don't care for the TV imagery, but face it: going forward more and more of schlock art is going to be recycling images from mass media. I don't like the picture, but it deserves inclusion... then again it's your party: do as you will.

49) Being a Floridian, of COURSE I think this should be exhibited, containing, as it does, an image of the young Anita Bryant! The coconut and the waste management mounds in the background add to the ambiance; the only thing missing is RuPaul, unless that is him peeking over Mt. Florida!

50) No way should "Pebbles and Friend" be included in the galleries. These things are a dime a dozen at amusement parks such as Cedar Point. My niece has one of herself with Taz. Kurt's a whiner.

51) I vote "no". It is definitely "kitsch", but it was not intended as serious work to begin with. It has accomplished what it set out to do. What makes "bad art" so wonderful is that the artist had a vision in mind, which is obvious to the viewer, but lack of talent or ability had turned that glorious vision into a horrendous nightmare, and then the final "coup de grace" is that they released it to the public anyway! *That* is bad art....

52) The photo insertion kills it, in my view. It takes it over the line. Truly Bad Art should walk right up to the line, maybe even kick the line a bit with its ugly toes, but not cross over it. On the other side of the line is kitschy whimsy. And kitschy whimsy sucks.

53) No on pebbles.

54) No.

55) I am voting yes on the basis that I would have been a less rich human being without being exposed to that horror, and I would like to have others exposed to the same disabling and disturbing influences...does that make me a bad person?

56) Yes, if only because Friend is trying to crack someone's nut.

57) No Pebbles!

58) Absolutely not. A decision has been rendered in this case by the person in charge of acquiring pieces for the site (the de facto curator of this exhibit, if you will), the decision may not be to everyone's liking, but it has been given. It would be ridiculous to assume that every piece of work submitted will be accepted. Absolutely any reason is a valid reason for not accepting this artwork, as it is the sole discretion of the site's organizer which art shall and shall not be accepted. If Mr Benbenek feels so strongly about this particular piece, why doesn't he seek alternative methods for giving it the position he feels it warrants in the world. I don't think Thriftstoreart.com is the monopoly-holder on websites. The last time I checked around there were a couple others in existence. Thank you for your time and consideration.

59) I'd like to put my 2 cents worth in on the "Pebbles and Friend" debate. Now of course you can't expect to include every painting that is rendered at every State Fair by every Yap with an airbrush. But let us not forget that this is precisely how Ed "Big Daddy" Roth got his start. Can you imagine the value of one of his hand-sprayed sweatshirts from for the early 60s? Admittedly, Mr. Hurtado is probably not going to stumble on his own "Rat Fink" character and take off to bigger and better things. But still...this particular painting has its own special creepiness. The cuteness of the slightly off Hanna Barbera character next to that trainwreck of a child's caricature (Jeez, I HOPE it's a caricature!) is amazing! I think you ought to give a special dispensation to this piece, if only because of the spirited debate it raises. I say, let it stand!

60) I'm with you on the Pebbles piece. It really doesn't fit in, in my opinion, particularly due to the collage aspect.

61) YES - For all the amateur airbush artists with kooky ideas like the one in th epebbles painting!

62) No! to pebbles and friend.

63) Yes, Pebbles and her pal are in.

64) This is not thrift store art! Get it out of here!

65) Yes for Pebbles.

66) No! You have to draw the line somewhere. Thanks for making such a great site though...

67) As I see it, there are only two legitimate objections to this piece's suitability for this esteemed collection: 1) it's the webaster's gallery and his aesthetic sensibilities rule the day; and 2) the apparent commercial nature of the work disqualifies it from a gallery of fine (albeit generally wretched) art.

As to the former objection: it's your party, and you have the right to show the door to any undesirables who might turn up. That being said, I think you had, and blew, your chance to rule with an iron fist. Opening up the floor to debate means you pretty much have to accept the will of the people, lest you be deemed an ivory tower-dwelling, autocratic piece of crap. You can't say "let's vote on it," and then call off the election because you didn't like how the vote turned out.

So to those who argue TSA.com should have the ultimate say, enough. He has ceded this power. His is now just one voice of many. The other legitimate objection is that "Pebbles and Friend" may not be the work of a lovably-untalented fine artist but rather that of a cynical commercial hack whose entire artistic inspiration consists of separating carnival patrons from their hard-earned folding money. We even have the painting's detractors accusing the artist of studio trickery like pasting a photograph on a mass-produced, bubble-jet outputted canvas.

Allow me to clear up a miconception or two. I am a friend of Kurt's, and I have seen this thing up close with my own eyes. Pebbles' friend's face has indeed been rendered by an airbrusher possessing some technical ability; it is definitely not a photo (although my untrained eye leads me to believe the artist's model was). Obviously, the cartoon portion of the painting represents a different artistic "style" than the face but that should in no way steer us to the conclusion that this is the work of more than one artist. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. There is nothing, save for the subject matter, that leads me to believe this is an assembly line painting.

I have been to my share of county fairs, carnivals, and amusement parks, but I've never seen a souvenir caricaturist turning out anything that looks like "Pebbles and Friend." Maybe I've been going to the wrong carnivals. When I first saw this painting, it didn't occur to me that it might be "tourist art." Maybe that says more about me than the painting. Maybe it is "tourist art." I still would like to see it enshrined in this gallery, because it is easily as revolting and fascinating as anything else here, and it may actually have sprung from the muse of a seriously twisted folk genius who did it not for the cash, but for the "art."

68) As disturbingly wonderful as it is, i must still vote no.

69) No.

70) Please do not include this in your wonderful site! Thanks for your work and artistic sensibility!

71) Wonderful site - I've wasted many work hours trying to supress howls and tears of laughter, joy, horror and sorrow elicited by your displays (I'm sure my employer is grateful for your site, as well). If the mark of any truly great art collection is to make the audience *feel* - then thriftstoreart.com beats the SFMOMA hands down.

To answer the main question, "should Pebbles and Friend be included on thriftstoreart.com yes or no?" I have to say "No". Although I am deliciously creeped out by the piece, and am glad I've had the chance to bask in it's frightening glory, I say give it the heave-ho for two reasons:

72) No.

73) REJECT IT.

74) I have to side with TSA.com as it is his site, and he should feel free to decide what he likes or doesn't like, the site being his project, not a public organization or something.

75) I vote no.

76) Kurt has my vote.

77) Hi! I read about your collection in the Chicago Reader, and I have to vote a big NO against "Pebbles and Friend." It in no way captures what I think makes good thrift store art!

78) Spooky - obviously the work of a disturbed individual. Definately deserving to be in your collection, so.... YES.

79) Yes.

80) I vote no to Pebbles

81) Saw the article on your site and the art in the Chicago Reader, and just checked it out. You've really got some great material. I couldn't just leave the site without weighing in on the "Pebbles and Friend" controversy. My vote is definitely a NO. I must agree with others that this looks like some sort of "caricature" souvenir, and is definitely not true thrift store art! Mark my NO vote down please.

82) Sold out by a friend! Thanks, but no thanks for the vote, Phil!!! You egomaniacal, reprehensible thriftstore snob. To not include the ever controversial Pebbles piece would be a sin! Pebbles is truly an original, one of a kind, piece of white trash art, created by a disturbed genius of sorts. Leave Pebbles on the site or I vow to never return to thriftstoreart.com, don't tempt me pal.

83) At first I thought "perhaps". Then I looked closer. I assumed you saw immediately what I now clearly see. I have to say that this looks airbrushed. First, you should just state "no air brushed caricatures from your vacations will be accepted". It appears to be a caricature piece from Florida. Unfortunately the woman with the hammer appears to have a photo of her real face superimposed. Are those real teeth? I would much rather see a painting of someone's interpretation of that face than a photo pasted on a tee shirt. This should have never left the closet of the person that bought this when they went on vacation to Dolly World, Gatlinburg, or was it Daytona? "Absolutely NO".

84) Pebbles and Friend rocks! i vote yes.

85) I don't think the work is worthy of inclusion.

86) I vote NO.

87) Friend is not art, but an image that has been abstracted and should not be considered as insparational art.

88) Yes, it should be included cuz its ugly.

89) It is just as sleazy as the rest of the exhibit......include it.

90) I think it's a tacky treasure.

91) Sometimes "bad" is "good", sometimes "bad" is just plain "bad". I'm all for kitchy art, in fact I bought a copy of "Just Above the Mantelpiece: mass-market masterpieces" and enjoy it throughly, but that picture scares me in a bad way. I vote no for "Pebbles and Friend".

92) Although there is some merit to the piece, it definitely has some elements which are too good. There's evidence of too much of an eye for color to suit my sensibilities for bad art. And while there is muddled modeling in the foreground, I'm afraid the sky has too much of a suggestion of actual clouds and depth. I keep wavering, since the object between the girl's legs is pretty close to meeting the gallery standard. But, on balance, please nix the pix. Nice try, though.

93) "Should Pebbles and Friend be included on the thriftstoreart.com site, yes or no?" Oh, hell yes.

94) That Pebbles and Friend piece is a work of great beauty and surreal commercialism meets copyright infringement. While it may well be the work of a tourist trap airbrush artist paid to render vague likenesses of drunken beachgoers, it's still strangely mystifying and implies a picaresque journey into the depths of someone's soul! And I imagine the artist is not at all a "professional" in that he is probably not showing in any galleries. I'd proudly have it in my collection!

95) Fabulous site. While truly horrible, “Pebbles and Friend” does not meet with the standards set by your site. It actually looks like someone purchased an original Pebbles and Bam Bam picture and THEN airbrushed the “Friend” in. Also, it was painted merely to be amusing to someone, not for the serious purpose of creating ART as all of the other paintings in your collection. Horrifying or not, all of your other artists sat down with their medium and made the painful attempt at creating something worthy. It was sheer lack of talent that made it all go terribly wrong. “Pebbles and Friend” gives no hint at that sincerity. And thank you for your site, it quite brightened up a lackluster day.

96) I vote that Pebbles and Friend does not get on the site. My first impression still holds - The painting just doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of the site. I can't quite explain why; as Ken says, it's plenty weird enough. To me, I guess it's the wrong kind of weird. Best suggestion I can think of has already been put forward - Kurt should put the painting on a different site, maybe start his own collection, and have fun with it.

97) NO to "Pebbles and Friend" - It is ghastly! I think it is one of the most repulsive things I have ever seen...

98) I think it should be included in thriftstoreart.com. It seems to fit in rather well.

99) no.

100) Pebbles and friend is definitely NOT worthy. The air brushing/velvet effect and the overly realistic facial image? . . . definitely doesn’t qualify.

101) No.

102) The pepples painting shouldn't be on your site. Thank you for a lot of fun.

103) Absolutely not.

VOTE via e-mail at ________ (Voting closed)