In addition to agreeing with YZ I would add that what I see on Costco's site is not better, and arguably worse, than what Mr Moors says spurred his association with big retailers-the crummy poster of the Eiffel Tower, with the fake cancelled letter stamp. At least that print has an association, for the buyer, with an iconic place, a trip, a logic for its composition. What I see on Costco's site makes the Eiffel Tower poster seem like decent, if not great reading, while the stuff Costco and Mr. Moors sells, feels like the silliest drek imaginable.
On the radio, Mr. Moors sounds reasonable, smart, and interested in quality; using his expertise as a dealer in helping people buy art, an experiment in democratizing what has become, perhaps, all too rarified. But I fail to understand why he thinks this stuff is any better than what he claims he wants to change. Noone needs his help buying what is on the Costco site.
As for YZ's concern about artists who don't need the extra revenue, and that he can't compete with them, I would say, don't try to compete with it. Despite what Mr. Moors says about it, he is selling pulp and that's why artists like YZ, and all of us, must find other venues, many of which make commissions that outweigh what the artists make (in NYC, and even, now, Brooklyn, dealers take 60-75%).
Thanks anyway.

When I heard this interview, I was at first thrilled that Moors is making art by the likes of Matisse available to the mass audiences at Costco. I couldn't agree more with his sentiment that middle-class buyers deserve better than kitschy prints of the Eiffel Tower.

However, I am an emerging artist. While I can't fetch the high prices (in the tens of thousands) for my work that more experienced living artists do, Moors' enterprise, in its upper range, does start to intrude on my audience. And I can't compete with Matisse. So instead of going to a gallery or some other venue and buying a relatively inexpensive but authentic and unique (and, arguably, more interesting) work by an emerging artist, the potential buyer will stick with the safe names s/he picked up from the media, like Picasso and Dali. As a result, the public consciousness is directed redundantly back into the safe confines of the art historical canon.

Moors nearly saves himself by also carrying work by living artists, but they are already well-established and don't necessarily need the extra revenue generated by selling prints at Costco. Where he had an opportunity to involve young artists and wide audiences alike, engaging both in a much more exciting exchange about the cutting edge of contemporary fine art, it becomes quite transparent that he has done nothing more than find another way to make money off of the secondary blue-chip market by encouraging the same kind of poster-on-the-wall fine art aesthetic as can already be found in college freshman dorm rooms.

Finally, in the way Moors' enterprise neglects the rest of the art world, it also might potentially devalue the names--associated with pricelessness--that he promotes. And even in the admittedly unlikely event that is true, we emerging artists still won't be able to compete!