Poll of the Day > do you think bob ross was a good painter?

(+) Yeah! (+)

i have a friend who is a painter and she told me he isn't good. just wondering.
---

I like his paintings so yeah

tell your friend they are pretentious and no one is buying it
---

He is a good painter. He may not be the best painter in the world, I dunno' what his time-consuming pieces might have looked like, but he was certainly very good at painting fast.
---

he turned accidents into beautiful sweeping landscapes

sounds like your friend is the one who is shitty
---

It depends what you use as a metric for someone to be a good artist. If it's by monetary value then his paintings were awful in that department. His paintings were just average and weren't meant to be artistic masterpieces. His work was more about getting people to paint.

Better than I am.
---

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.

Mead posted...

I like his paintings so yeah

This. No other metric really matters as a personal assessment. He made stuff that looked good, which makes him a good artist in my books.

More significantly than that, though, he put on a good show. It's fun to watch him paint, simply because he keeps up the entertaining patter and encouraging instructions the entire time.
---

magemaximus posted...

i have a friend who is a painter and she told me he isn't good. just wondering.

Please post a few of your friend's paintings and we will tell you whether we like hers better or Bob Ross' paintings.
---

Yes, he was very good at painting landscapes. He was also good at encouraging people to pick up a brush and try. Have I seen better? Yes. Could he paint the human figure, animals, anything else? I don't know. He had his thing and did it well and made people happy.

There are plenty of good and even better artists but he figured out how to support himself and become known so good for him.

I don't like landscapes but I like to watch and listen to him.

If you want to get technical, probably not. You could probably go over his paintings and find errors with proportions and perspective and all that good stuff, but his paintings still come out looking better than most of his audience's attempts and he helped them get interested in painting and improving.
---

Umm, let's be clear here. Bob Ross could paint other things than landscapes and had more precise technique than he showed on his tv show. The paintings done on his tv show are specifically designed to help people without training to paint nice pictures.

Moreover, his show ran for 11 years, is still in reruns after 20 years off the air. He's culturally relevant in now four different decades.

Your friend sounds like a snob who is bitter that despite their training and practice will end up with a regular job and pursuing art as nothing more than a hobby.
---

Your friend needs to pull the happy little tree out of her ass.

I'd like to see some of his other works but all I can find are his landscapes with a barn or bridge or two. The landscapes are pretty.

Didn't realize he passed already...I guess the TC brought this topic up b/c of the new DP2 teaser

he was pretty good. i wouldn't buy his painting because it's not my style, but they look better or as good as paintings in a hotel or corporate office's bathrooms.
---

blurxacc posted...

It depends what you use as a metric for someone to be a good artist. If it's by monetary value then his paintings were awful in that department. His paintings were just average and weren't meant to be artistic masterpieces. His work was more about getting people to paint.

Absolutely this.

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.

Your friend is jealous and/or ignorant.

Complete BS.

TC's friend saying he wasn't a good artist wasn't out of line at all. As a musician, I'm not gonna look at a guitar solo as "good," no matter how technically proficiently it was written and played, if it doesn't sound pretty to my ears.
---

Bob Ross is amazing. His method was unheard of, he was doing it wrong, but the results are incredible. A full painting in no time, 4 tools, few colors, and did I mention happy trees. His outlook and wit were incredible, too.
---

I would say his paintings, on the show, are motel art but that doesn't mean they're not pleasing. Just that they're not meant to be anything other than nice looking.

But given that his paintings were meant for beginners, it's not really that surprising. He wasn't going to go on there to try and teach people to be Jackson Pollack.
---

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)

I think the idea was to get more people painting. Art is tough when you're first starting, and how his show was set up provided decent results pretty quickly. It's more of a starting off point.

I've never seen his paintings from anywhere besides his show, so idk if he was like a virtuoso or anything but his show paintings looked really good considering they usually took less than a half hour to complete.

Also, that's a skill more professional artists utilize - quick sketch for ideas then go more in depth the second time around. It's a good tool to use imo but I really just do art for fun and a lot of that stems from watching his show when I was younger

Yes and no. His style of painting is so simple that anyone can pick it up and be just as good as him. They have shown paintings from people who have never picked up a brush before and they still paint just as well. He seems to be great at doing forests and mountains, but not so great with other things. I think his barns are terrible. I always think he ruins his paintings when he adds one. He brings in other painters to paint faces or flowers, just anything that doesnt have to do with what he typically paints. He has said that he was a terrible painter before discovering the method of painting he does on the show. He is good at painting the type of stuff he does on his show.
---

yes
---

benbeverfaqs posted...

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.

I thought it was because of money laundering.
---

the mona lisa does nothing for me. i've enjoyed bob ross' paintings more.
---

benbeverfaqs posted...

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.

LMFAO, "art" is sold for arbitrary amounts for various reasons, quality is not one of them.



This sold for 1.3 mil.
---

pic isn't loading. just this dark red color.
---

That IS the painting
---

wth
---

benbeverfaqs posted...

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)

This post is pretty fair, honestly.

By "physically attractive," I was implying he always captured the look what foe which he was going. He paints a landscape and it looks relatively authentic, though obviously stylized. But, you're absolutely right. One could potentially not think a painting of a landscape looks good.

Now, of course, art sells for different values because specific people apply specific values to them. That's certainly entirely subjective. Not all "art lovers" will have the same taste. Just because one is willing to pay millions for a certain piece, that doesn't mean said piece is any more validated than any other. A particular group of people with art degrees can state some very valid observations, but it doesn't mean everyone will care.

In the end, when discussing opinions, it doesn't necessarily matter how educated or well versed on a subject you are. Others, even those less initiated, still are entitled to their opinions, and they're not inherently less valid. You can have a perfect portrait, say, the Mona Lisa, and yes, it was crafted objectively well, considering what the artist's vision was. But one may not care for realism, and think cartoony art just looks better. So to them, maybe a Jim Davis sketch could be "better" than a DaVinci, because they like the way it looks more.

Moving on, I really appreciated the "Most of the time the meaning was inner peace and things like that," comment. Insightful. Nothing more to say about that haha.

Though he absolutely is "technically skilled." Not at a high level, but the techniques he used, he used at a proficient skill level. He was skilled at his techniques. "Technically skilled."
---

bob ross is literally the mr rogers of painting
---

tell your friend they were a "happy mistake"
---

Smarkil posted...

to try and teach people to be Jackson Pollack.

thank god. we need less people shitting on a canvas and calling it art. that whole era of American art culture is a fucking embarassment
---