Featured Bob Ross's first tv painting goes on sale

Kinkade could NEVER! He could only DREAM of ever making 7 figures. Couldn't even crack mid-5. I hate his art with a passion, but got to hand it to him as a business man. He found a gimmick and leaned in. I was taught once by an animator that knew him from his Disney days. Guy said they all hated him immediately because of course they cared about art and he cared about money. Guy said he was also condescending to artists who were way better than him. Sounds about right.

 

I have one quibble with Bob Ross, and that is his dishonesty. He was a student of William (Bill) Alexander, and for his first two years on TV, freely admitted that. Then he began to claim that he was the originator of all the techniques he used, and denied being influenced at all by Alexander, pointing out that wet-on-wet techniques had been around for hundreds of years. Yes, the technique was not new; but it is a fact that Ross studied with Alexander, and stole freely from his style.
Bill Alexander was the originator of 1/2 hour PBS shows using wet-on-wet techniques, the first to paint "happy little trees" on TV; many years before Bob Ross. Everything Ross ever did was an imitation of Bill Alexander, including most of his catch-phrases, and the title of his program: Alexander, "the Magic of Oil Painting;" Ross: "the Joy of Painting."
Ross actively concealed that fact, and you won't see any broadcasts of the early shows where he admitted that Alexander had been his teacher.
And IMHO, Alexander was a far more entertaining personality than Ross.
(check him out on youtube, for example Fall River - The Best Way to Learn Oil Painting: Wet-on-Wet with Bill Alexander - YouTube)
Sorry for the rant.....

 

Hey! I like this guy better!

 

I'm amazed there is so much contention about someone who, to me was just factory artist who showed his trade. He was great at what he did but nothing notable. Great personality. I'd love to share a pint or a cup of tea with him. His art though was to produce attractive art in a few minutes.

People produce this stuff en masse in Mexico, china etc and no one bats an eyebrow but if someone else dares it's classed as the devil's work ..

 

Honest decorator art/starving artist/art-by-the-yard pieces are fine. It's the price his bits are selling for that incites derision.

 

Could that not be applied to artists such as Lowry? No great technical ability but his works sell for silly amounts due to right place right time? Others have done similar works but more attractive. Bernard McMullen for one.

 

I've always thought the same of Keith Haring and frankly Basquiat. Never understood the appeal of either. Right place right time about covers it. On the other hand I "get" Banksy, so go figure.

 

If not for the PBS show you would have never heard of him. I dont think anyone "hates" him,its more commenting on the state of the art market. Theres so many really talented people who dont get recognition yet this kitsch commands these prices. Boggles the mind. I feel the same way about Warhol (though I like his use of color) ,Haring,Koons,Basquiat,etc,etc.

 

Great minds ! LOL !

 

I just don't get why people love his "art". To me his paintings are, as other have said here, factory art.

I don't watch is show, it puts me to sleep.

 

Basquiat was complete tripe and his following totally pretentious, I agree. Banksy was more of an innovator with a social and political edge so I can understand it too. I once saw a Banksy piece on the antique road show and the owner was scalded for removing it from it's original location.

 

As they should! Banksy is a political public artist. "His" works are to meant to make statements and to be enjoyed by all in a populist way. His adherence to not commercializing his work, or doing things like shredding auction pieces, makes his message even stronger. For his art it's not the technical skill, but the concept. Though of course you can enjoy the pieces aesthetically.

For Warhol, it was to be rich. So like Kincade, I don't care for his art, but I appreciate any artist who can work the system to see fame and fortune in their actual lifetime, unlike having their bones picked when they're gone. Any businessman gets lauded for being rich, but in art you have to "starve" or you're terrible.

If you "get" Banksy then you probably would get Keith Haring too. He also did political social justice work and populist work. I think it's important to remember he died extremely young from AIDS so wasn't given the time to keep developing his work. This is "Unfinished Painting" which he did as he was dying of AIDS. I think it's incredibly powerful.



So maybe the aesthetic doesn't appeal, but the message can.

 

Thanks for posting this Haring. I have not seen it before this. An incredible commentary on a life cut short.

 

I kind of get that, as much as a commentary on AIDS as art. It's definitely a museum/gallery piece though.

 

That is quite beautiful and very poignant...

 

Your beautifully written post punched me right in the gut. So many memories of friends gone,fear,grief. I may have to reevaluate my thoughts on Haring now.

 

It was a terrible time, when it was an epidemic. Many of my friends too, including my very best friend, whose photo is still on my desk.

There are parts of the world where people are still going through this on an epidemic scale due of lack of medication and lack of education.

 

I'm so glad y'all enjoyed the piece as I did. It's moving and so strong and really stuck with me.

Many artists make unexpected works in addition to those (usually commercial) they're known for and it's a treat to see them. Mucha's Slavic Epic comes to mind.

The great thing about art is it has many aspects. The visual appeal, technical skill, methods, concept, cultural relevance, historical relevance, commercial success, and even the history of the piece as an object...as what Bob Ross's first painting represents, or that the Mona Lisa was stolen. You can dislike everything about a piece but 1 aspect, and it has still done it's job in some way.

 

For me, it’s kind of sad the way monetary values get attached to various paintings, and how some artists are respected and others aren’t. I’ve only watched about 30 minutes total of Bob Ross, and was never into Thomas Kincaid art, but I recognize that their paintings (along with highway and factory paintings) take a certain level of skill that I’ll never have. On the other hand, I’ve seen paintings that sell for millions that I could probably copy without too much difficulty.

 

Same here. I'm trying to learn to appreciate some of it, but even though the Kincaid paintings took a lot of technical skill they have zero appeal for me. The colors are pretty, but that's it. I'd make a quilt with those colors but I don't want it on my wall.