The story of Margaret Keane's fame being stolen by her second husband, a clear con artist, is a bit bizarre given that the art work itself is repeatedly derided as "kitsch" throughout the film. So if all of the critics think that it is junk anyway, it's hard to see why the couple would be arguing so viciously over who should bear the credit for it. I mean, I understand the oppressed 1960s housewife theme and all of that, but in terms of a moment in the history of art, this one seems pretty small.
I will say that Keane's story seems to be the beginning of the contemporary world's abandonment of any criteria beyond those of success and popular acclaim. The Big Eyes paintings were not great art just because they appeared as copies throughout grocery stories. (That was Warhol's point with the soup cans, right?) But the couple became rich as a result of that, and this is why the artist credit issue mattered so much, I think, because they wanted to believe that *because* they Big Eyes paintings made the couple rich, this meant that they were in fact great. Total non sequitur, but look at how the art world functions today. People speculate on art as a financial investment and have lost all interest in the value of art qua art or l'art pour l'art, as they say. In this case, had the husband not been a shameless self-promoter, then no one would ever have known who Margaret Keane was. Had he been an honest man, then both of them would be unknown today, and no film about them would ever have been made.
I will say that Keane's story seems to be the beginning of the contemporary world's abandonment of any criteria beyond those of success and popular acclaim. The Big Eyes paintings were not great art just because they appeared as copies throughout grocery stories. (That was Warhol's point with the soup cans, right?) But the couple became rich as a result of that, and this is why the artist credit issue mattered so much, I think, because they wanted to believe that *because* they Big Eyes paintings made the couple rich, this meant that they were in fact great. Total non sequitur, but look at how the art world functions today. People speculate on art as a financial investment and have lost all interest in the value of art qua art or l'art pour l'art, as they say. In this case, had the husband not been a shameless self-promoter, then no one would ever have known who Margaret Keane was. Had he been an honest man, then both of them would be unknown today, and no film about them would ever have been made.