A Science major says “Hmmm, let’s find out how that works.”
An Engineering major says “Hmmm, let’s find a way to build this.”
A Business major says “Hmmm, let’s decide how to finance this.”
A Fine Arts major says “Hmmm, let’s put a happy little tree right here.”
And a Liberal Arts major says “Hmmm, would you like fries with that, sir?”
And that’s why there were no scientists working on the Manhattan Project or on the Apollo Program.
Bob Ross taped every one of his shows at my college. Going to the studio where he painted was definitely a surreal and cool experience.
I would agree. Not Leonardo da Vinci or…Leonardo da Vinci. But guys who made art and science approachable for the masses.
Look again.
The people in the center are painting an object on the left wall.
The people by the urn can’t see the Mona Lisa due to their angle.
The woman to the right has her back to it.
The three people in the doorway can’t see it, either.
All have been more impressed by other artwork on the scene.
Morse clearly didn’t give it any more prominence than any other artwork in the room.
This is not a logical conclusion to draw from what is depicted in a painting.
Like I said, TurbanDude is facing that wall, but he isn’t painting any of the paintings on it. So I don’t think you can infer anything from which way people happen to be facing. Even if this were a photograph, which it is not.
That tells us only about Morse’s attitude, not art circles in general.
Especially since that is not actually a painting of what the room looked like, but just Morse cramming copies of paintings onto one canvas as a project.
Note that many of the figures are likely actually just Americans Morse knew in Paris and put into the painting when he finished it back home in America, not random people who happened to be in the Louvre copying paintings one random day in 1831.
Note that Morse does pick Mona Lisa as one of 38 paintings to include.
It absolutely doesn’t support** RealityChuck**'s argument in any way, shape or form.
A definition I use for Art is: a masterful display of skill.
What you described was his skill, the whole thing not just the picture on a canvas at the end, and he was pretty masterful at it, no doubt.
The speed at which he can knock out a legitimate landscape painting is astonishing, and if you follow him step by step you can actually also create a decent looking painting with little experience.
Anyway, I can’t believe this website still exists. I thought everyone has moved on to reddit by now.
Is there any truth to the stories online that he was a Master Sergeant in the Air Force for 20 years and a real hard ass?
(Wayback Machine)
Before they were famous, Airman edition
By Senior Airman Michelle Patten
Air Force Public Affairs Agency
That’s a limited definition of both. Engineering disciplines are part of what is called “applied sciences” in some languages. An engineer can start from figuring out how something works or came to be (if it is man made, this is called “reverse engineering”), a scientist can start from principles and general procedures discovered by others to create something new (such as a new substance, composite or alloy). Not every engineer is a builder and not every scientist is a researcher in the purest or “basic”* form of their field.
“Basic”: “we don’t know what it’s for yet, but we hope it will someday be for something.”
Back when lasers were a brand new thing (around 1967) *Popular Science *ran an article on them prompting a few months later, a letter asking, “What good are they, aside from popping balloons so long as they aren’t red?”
The editors’ reply was basically, “People are working on that very question.”
I’d’ve thought that question was answered in 1964 with Goldfinger. :dubious:
“*Do you expect me to talk?”
“No, Mr Bond. I expect you to die.”*
I’m still waiting for a wealthy socialite to tell me if it’s art.
Bumped.
This might interest Doper fans of Bob Ross:
Exactly. I kind of look at Bob Ross in a somewhat similar vein to the way I look at Alton Brown. Both are fantastic at explaining the why and how of how you do something, either on canvas or in the kitchen.
That doesn’t have to translate into either of them being a particularly fantastic artist or cook. I mean, if I had my choice between eating a meal prepared personally by Alton Brown, or say… Anne Burrell, I’d choose Anne Burrell. Mostly because she’s an experienced chef, and is probably better in the kitchen than Alton. But he’s a better teacher and explainer, at least for me.
Bob Ross is likely the same- not necessarily the guy whose art you want on the wall, but he’s going to explain how/why you use that palette knife to make the illuminated side of a tree trunk better than someone who’s a better overall painter.
I think modern society tends to conflate the value of being good at something, with some notion that it translates into being able to teach that same subject. Which isn’t the case; I’d almost argue that if you take someone at the top of their art/craft, they’re going to be most useful in teaching others a step or two below them, not beginners. To use a sports example, Aaron Rodgers would probably be best at coaching rookie NFL players or college players, not middle school quarterbacks. And the fact that someone is fantastically good at teaching middle schoolers doesn’t also mean they have to be a fantastic pro-level quarterback themselves.
The title of the article makes it sound like he secretly kicked puppies or robbed banks. It just sounds like the guy had some very minor human frailties.
Yes, very disappointing. 