Meaning: The quote by Thomas Kinkade provides insight into the dynamics of the art world, particularly in relation to the influence wielded by a select group of galleries, mainly situated in New York. Kinkade's perspective suggests that the art world operates within a confined and insular network, where information and trends are dictated by a privileged few. This assertion raises important questions about the power structures within the art industry and the impact of this exclusivity on artists, art consumers, and the broader cultural landscape.

Kinkade's characterization of the art world as a "very small pond" implies that it is a tightly knit and limited sphere, where connections, relationships, and influences are concentrated within a confined space. This notion of smallness may allude to the perception that the art world is exclusive and difficult to penetrate for artists who do not have access to the established networks and channels of the elite art circles.

Furthermore, Kinkade's description of the art world as "inbred" suggests that there is a lack of diversity and fresh perspectives within this environment. The use of the term "inbred" connotes a sense of homogeneity and insularity, indicating that the art world may be characterized by a narrow range of voices and artistic expressions, which can potentially limit the breadth and richness of artistic discourse and innovation.

The assertion that the art world relies on information from an "elect elite sect of galleries, primarily in New York" highlights the significant influence that specific galleries, particularly those based in New York, have in shaping the trends, tastes, and market dynamics of the art world. This observation underscores the concentrated power and authority held by certain institutions and geographical locations within the art industry. It suggests that the decisions and preferences of these influential galleries can have far-reaching implications for artists, as well as for the broader ecosystem of art production, consumption, and valuation.

Kinkade's perspective raises important considerations about the implications of this centralized influence on the diversity of artistic voices, the accessibility of opportunities for artists from diverse backgrounds and regions, and the democratization of the art world. It prompts reflection on the potential barriers that artists outside the established art centers may encounter in gaining visibility, recognition, and opportunities for artistic development and success.

Moreover, Kinkade's critique offers a lens through which to examine the power dynamics and gatekeeping mechanisms that shape the art world. It invites scrutiny of the ways in which certain institutions and individuals hold sway over the dissemination of artistic information, the validation of artistic value, and the cultivation of artistic reputations. This raises broader questions about the democratization of art and the role of inclusivity, transparency, and equity within the art world.

In conclusion, Thomas Kinkade's quote encapsulates a critical perspective on the art world, highlighting the influence of a select group of galleries and the concentrated power dynamics within the industry. His observations prompt reflection on the implications of this centralized influence for artistic diversity, accessibility, and equity, and invite considerations about the potential for greater inclusivity and democratization within the art world.