Agreed. It isn’t fair to call him a “shitty artist” because that implies he was bad at what he was trying to do.
Just as long as it matches the sofa, okay, Bob?
One definition of ART that I find helpful—though it’s certainly not the only possible definition, or even the only one I’d ever use—is that a Work Of Art gives the world something that it wouldn’t have if that particular work didn’t exist. A painting (or novel or song or movie or whatever) may be well-crafted and entertaining, but if it doesn’t offer people something that they couldn’t get from dozens of other works instead, it’s not Art in this particular sense.
I’m not familiar enough with Ross’s work to know whether any of it qualifies as Art under this definition. Maybe not. But that wouldn’t mean that he “sucks,” just that that wasn’t what he was trying to do.
I always concidered his stuff “craft” more than art. Art is inspired–anyone can learn to do crafts.
Some years ago at the Tucson Gem and Mineral show my brother and I came upon a really bad copy of a Kincade painting.* After looking at it a moment, I commented, “Kinkade may be a hack but at least he’s a talented hack.”
*There is more than just gems and minerals there.
Like bad Kincaid knock-offs? You’re not really selling it, there 
To me it’s the other way around - anything can be defined as “art” if you ask the right critic, but actual technical skills take work.
I don’t see how this is at all helpful; it sounds clever, but ‘something it wouldn’t have’ is ill-defined and sweeping enough you can use the definition to declare that everything is art or to disqualify anything you don’t like from being art. It’s only really good for sneering at something someone else likes but you don’t, not for conveying real information. I mean, you’re never going to get literally exactly the same thing from this particular work, even if it’s similar to other works, so everything is art if you use the definition that way. OTOH, you can just say that any particular work is ‘something they could get from dozens of other works instead’ even for particularly interesting or thought provoking art - I mean, I can see lots of pics of chicks smiling, so the Mona Lisa isn’t art, I can see lots of naked guys standing around so marble statues aren’t art, there are dozens of paintings of angels, saints, and demons so no religious works count as art.
Art is an expression of the artist’s intentions. They may not be noble intentions. The intentions may not always be profound. The work may not be polished or pretty. But if it convey’s the artist’s meaning, then it’s art.
Bob Ross’ intention, on his show, was giving thirty-minute painting lessons, not creating art. But in as much as his message was often, “Man I just love painting happy little trees!”, he managed to convey that just fine.
But that’s just it: there’s something about the Mona Lisa that sets it apart from all those other pics of chicks smiling. If there weren’t, we wouldn’t still care about it after all these years.
Bob Ross was a very good hack painter who made an enjoyable art instruction show.
In addition to the comments above about being an “art teacher,” one of the recurring themes of the show was that anyone can paint. It was targeted towards people who wanted a hobby in general, or who wanted to paint specifically, but were intimidated by the learning curve. Bob Ross had refined a set of techniques and a color pallet that allowed people to go to the art store, shopping list in hand, and follow along at home without feeling overwhelmed and intimidated. Think of him less as an artist and more as the greatest instructor of a Wednesday night “wine and paint” happy hour ever.
The fact that it was stolen in sensational circumstances helped a lot. Newspapers printed images of it and the world started taking notice of it.
Before, it was just another painting in the Louvre, as this example shows (by Samuel F. B. Morse, known nowadays for his code). Look to the right of the doorway at the bottom. Hardly conspicuous, and none of the painters portrayed is paying any attention to it.
You’re proving my point; you can say the same thing about ANY work. I mean, there’s something about Bob Ross’s painting that set them apart from all of the other landscapes in the word. If there weren’t, we wouldn’t still care about them all these years after he died. Simply discussing whether an item is art or not is enough to qualify it as art under that definition.
Webster’s definition of “scientist” simply states that it is someone who possesses expert knowledge in the natural or physical sciences.
Being a scientist doesn’t mean you have a degree.
Being a mechanical engineer means you’ve studied Chemistry, Physics, and Calculus, and that you use the scientific method to test hypothesis with regards to mechanical devices, oftentimes needing to have deep knowledge of the physical properties of all of the substances used in the products you are testing (ie how much force can we place upon thi metal rod before it bends? breaks?) Anyone telling you a mechanical engineer is not a scientist is woefully misinformed.
Are you talking about this guy?
The art-craft distinction isn’t real.
It’s a not particularly useful, highly subjective, elitist artifact of (mostly) modern Western culture, and more specifically the academy system and the related social constructs that Dano called “the artworld” .
Bob Ross is an excellent artist. But his artworks aren’t paintings. His artworks are TV episodes of painting. Even if the paintings he produced were absolute garbage (they’re not), the show would still do a very good job of conveying the emotions he wished it to convey. He’s calm and peaceful, and when you watch his shows, you become more calm and peaceful. That’s art at its best.
Wow, while looking at the Gallery of the Louvre link, my eye just naturally goes back to the very nice, simple painting of that lady smiling at the bottom. None of the other paintings “do” anything for me; they seem so generic, but that portrait “has it going on” if you know what I mean. Perhaps I’m just conditioned to search for it, but it really jumps out.
Two things as far as Bob Ross goes. 1) Part of his legacy is his short life, dying at age 52 of lymphoma. If he was (today) 77 and still painting, we’d probably consider him merely an old eccentric.
- Go to ebay and search “Bob Ross signed original” (not in the Bob Ross style). Any guesses on how much they range for? I was surprised they were
$13,000 to $20,000Compare them to the ones done in the “Bob Ross style” or technique; most of those look pretty bad. I’d say he had a style to be appreciated.
It was meant as such.