LogFAQs > #890730897

He was a great painter. Nobody was better at what he did: speed painting landscapes for a camera. He made happy oil paint landscapes in no time at all, while explaining what he did, inspiring millions of viewers. Or just making his viewers feel relaxed.

He used tricks and special brushes to draw trees and snowy mountain peaks quickly, which is an art in itself. The resulting paintings convey a positive and relaxing natural atmosphere, and could be used to decorate hallways, public buildings, offices and whatnot.

He might've been not so great at drawing, and paintings other than landscapes didn't always turn out well. Also, the simple landscapes are not great pieces of art, you can't watch them for hours and there's no deeper meaning.
But that doesn't mean he isn't a great (definitely good) painter.

Your friend is jealous and/or ignorant. Sure there were/are better painters who could speed paint (or speed draw) anything, not just landscapes, like Picasso or Van Gogh. He was not as talented as those, but almost nobody is, so why compare.

He was a television speed painter, and great at that. Compare him to other television speed painters like that guy who does flowers. Or with your own speed paint work.