LogFAQs > #890747219

TheThirdDay posted...

Remember, good and bad are completely subjective, 100% of the time. He was absolutely technically skilled, you can't argue that, but how you judge his art is on you. Nothing he painted on his show had any meaning to it, no emotion. Unless you count happy little trees. But they were all certainly physically attractive.

Complete BS

Art can be rated as good or bad on a lot of scales, fairly objectively, based on standards set by society and on what art lovers, in a certain time, like or don't like. That's why some art sells for millions and some (most) art is financially worthless. Simple examples of those scales are technique and originality. you're confusing taste with art. Taste is subjective.
Bob Ross wasn't particulary technically skilled, that's why he used painting tricks to make certain landscapes. He was skilled in a lot of other areas though.
Most things he painted had meaning to it. He spent the whole time talking about a paining while painting it. Most of the time the meaning was inner peace and things like that.
The fact that you think they're "certainly physically attractive" doesn't mean that they are. That's taste again. I, for instance, don't think most of his paintings are physically attractive. (I do like his show and how a landscape grows)