Bob Ross would be the first to tell you he’s not an amazing artist. That anyone can learn those techniques and through effort start making beautiful things is the whole premise of the show.
I think you’re going in the right direction, but I think you still ended up overshooting the runway here.
As much as there was demonstrated techniques, and explanation… the PREMISE was that the act of painting was something you could enjoy.
The title of the show wasn’t “learn to paint”.
It was literally made by Bob Ross to teach everyone how to paint something decent in ~30minutes. Part of that is enjoying the painting process and not getting frustrated. But it was absolutely instructional, he gave specific colors and techniques because he was teaching us how to paint…
im sorry but this is the most 2018 reddit post ever lmao
Happy little claymore mines outside Karen’s house.
… Why don’t those little trees look so happy any more…?
They’re gonna make your location their little secret.
not wholesome chungus 100
activate instant fall for bait :( sad Keanu noises
I think Bob Ross is a perfect illustration of the big divorce between the art world and the public that happened during the 20th century.
Regular people love Bob Ross because he created paintings that make people feel good. You can find these types of paintings at affordable art markets all over the place as well as on jigsaw puzzles.
The art world decided to turn its nose up at this kind of popular art and pivot toward controversial, shocking, and lazy (looking) art intended to provoke all kinds of responses (many negative). This continues to drive a perception in the public of an artist community that is increasingly elitist and out of touch.
People forget that it wasn’t always this way. Look at masterpieces like the Sistine Chapel frescoes which were intended to inspire awe and reverence in the public, not scorn. Yes, Michelangelo’s technique and artistry was far in excess of Bob Ross’s, but his art was made to be loved by everyone, not just his wealthy patrons. In that respect, Bob Ross is more like Michelangelo than modern artists.
Wow, what a bunch of didn’t happen.
Art has always valued technical skills, however some artists do not need to be particularly technical to convey artistic meaning.
Banksy is a technical artist who also uses creative meanings on his art itself.
Jono (charcoal artist) is HIGHLY technical, has art pieces that are probably more detailed than a literal photograph.
Thomas Schaller, Colin Thompson, and many many many more famous artists with excellent technical skills, all very favored.
Bob Ross teaches beginner’s level technical skills. That means that we can all make our own paintings. It means that it isn’t often expensive to buy those pieces because we can make them. He was teaching people how to paint, that still makes him completely relevant to the art world. It’s just not exactly mentally stimulating once you already know how to paint all those pieces - often artists do things called studies, and then they move on to the next study. Arguably his best artistic work was The Joy of Painting itself and its legacy.
Btw the entire point of those churches and paintings was so the common person felt overwhelmed and unworthy. It wasn’t made for love per se, it was made to give an image of power and divine right.
None of what you said is convincing whatsoever because you cherry picked your examples. How about you try steelmanning Duchamp’s Fountain, Serrano’s Piss Christ, Newman’s Onement VI, or Cattelan’s Comedian? These are all pieces which set the art world on fire with reverence just as they provoked bafflement, bemusement, or exasperation from the public.
You’re also wrong about the Sistine Chapel frescoes. That was the purpose their patron Pope Julius II hoped to achieve. It was defied by Michelangelo (who didn’t like the pope at all), particularly with the anatomical imagery hidden within The Birth of Adam which seems to suggest that God emerged from the human mind. Now his subtle irony may have been lost on almost everyone from his time but it’s not hard to imagine that he hid this Easter egg for future educated citizens to find.
I didn’t cherry pick, I attacked your premise with examples that break it.
Those are fine too, but my point was artists who create technical pieces of things that are beautiful, that beautiful pieces indeed are still appreciated today and I wouldn’t call the previously listed artist’s works any of what you described previously.
The entire Catholic mass was told in Latin at that time specifically to reduce accessibility and increase reverence. I think you underestimate Catholic cuntiness. They were putting people in their place with all of that. If you don’t understand how Catholicism was used by Rome and then later the world to keep slaves in line and convince poor people to fight wars, then you are missing a lot of info on the world. Most Abrahamic religions are meant for that, that’s what the legend of Abraham is about.
My premise wasn’t that “all art today is about elitism”, it was about the art world. One of Banksy’s works actually went up in value after it was shredded!
Who gives a shit about “Catholic cuntiness”? I was talking about Michelangelo whose patron was the pope but who had no love for the pope himself (and may not have liked the church either). Michelangelo the artist made his work for billions to love and enjoy for all time. Banksy’s shredded painting is funny as a middle finger to the rich guy who bought it but it backfired when the painting went up in value after that.
The art world decided to turn its nose up at this kind of popular art and pivot toward controversial, shocking, and lazy (looking) art intended to provoke all kinds of responses (many negative). This continues to drive a perception in the public of an artist community that is increasingly elitist and out of touch.
People forget that it wasn’t always this way.
Banksy has cute and beautiful art too. The balloons, astronauts, and kid ones.
The painting’s location and grandiosity prove my point. It is still a beautiful piece but it wasn’t painted to be accessible to the common man or to be a feel good piece - it was meant to inspire awe and divine worship. Michaelangelo commonly made pieces like this, including ofc David, a LARGE and detailed piece, which is why he was sought after by the wealthy. He was not an accessible every day common man artist like Banksy lol.
You’re just saying stuff to say stuff. Like when people freak out about vegans when they don’t know anything about it, it’s just what they’ve been told.
Far more people have seen Michelangelo’s art in person than have Banksy’s and this will always be the case. Michelangelo’s art will remain relevant a hundred thousand years from now, whereas Banksy’s is tied to current events. It’s not even close!
Okay, but that wasn’t your original assertion. Also, there’s no way to prove this claim anyway about relevancy. Like God is pretty irrelevant these days, why would a painting of him really matter today? Why does David matter? They are just made up stories.
Again, you’re just saying stuff to say stuff
deleted by creator
