PDA

View Full Version : Bob Ross and Joy of Painting



Pages : 1 [2]

Mike Crawford
12-26-2013, 02:33 AM
Over in the UK, we too had popular TV artists!
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wj84tfS7ag4

Steve Smith
12-26-2013, 03:37 AM
We had a real one too:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mg4TvOIfw6o


Steve.

kintatsu
12-26-2013, 05:06 AM
I liked his work. It started out looking like a jumbled mess of nothing, but ended up looking like something real. His ability to use light and shadow to create the setting was quite intriguing. Another good one was Bill Alexander, a German with a habit of calling things "the almighty..." Who's to say these guys didn't do good work? Everyone's taste is different, some may not like their stuff, but insulting it is like saying "If someone uses a technique or style of photography that I don't like, then they aren't making photos."

My buddy was into their style and tried to work on it. I'd rather use photography to express and create my vision.

Whiteymorange
12-26-2013, 06:25 AM
I won't comment on his painting (haters gotta hate includes me) but I will say that he got everything from this guy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRY7_q6osEg).

I taught painting for over 35 years. The fact that Bob Ross made people get out there and paint is a major point in his favor. The fact that he favored tricks over actual observation is a shame. He taught thousands of people to swivel a brush, drag a knife, put a dab her and there and Voila!, you have something that looks like something. My painting may not be any better than his, but in teaching the craft, I think the point is to get people to look more carefully at the world around them, not try to learn tricks that will make their canvases all look alike.

Just sayin'

kintatsu
12-26-2013, 06:51 AM
In Bob Ross's defense, not saying anything about his art, he lived in Alaska for a long time and observed a lot of nature. He also enjoyed getting out into nature. He at least had a notion of what nature looked like.

In defense of both Ross and Alexander, even Rembrandt used wet on wet on occasion. Their big contribution was getting people thinking about creativity and expression. As Ross was big on saying, it's your world, make it what you want. Isn't showing OUR OWN world a big part of our photography?

I agree about folks using tricks to make their work look the same, though. It bothers me that many of the local "pro" photographers copy each other and there is no real variety or expression. It's to the point that people are selling Photoshop actions to make your photos look like they were taken by them, not you.

Steve Smith
12-26-2013, 06:59 AM
This is how you do it...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDO6bErncPk


Steve.

Wayne
12-26-2013, 07:34 AM
I can't imagine how anyone could insult the Mr Rogers of painting whether they like him or his painting or not.

Ed Bray
12-26-2013, 07:50 AM
This is how you do it...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDO6bErncPk


Steve.

Do you know what it is yet?

Truzi
12-26-2013, 09:45 AM
Wow, that would take a lot of paint!

I painted just the backyard fence, and that was plenty for me...

Why didn't you just take a picture of it? :)

On occasion I like to have an exquisite meal at an expensive restaurant, but often am fine with merely a "good" restaurant.
I enjoy Bob Ross' show, and thought he was good, though never considered him in the league of the "fine art" painters. That is not a bad thing, either. Also, I'm quite sure I could not come close to his results. If I were to take up painting, I think his examples would be very good to start with.

The only way I will ever take pictures even close to some I see posted on APUG is by accident. I take snapshots - basically memories. I am learning to frame and compose better, but still, they are not awesome photos, and have no intention to be.
Also, I'm not about to sit down with someone to learn how to make photos and prints as good as those by what we here consider the "masters." That is not what I'm in it for - I just want to make "good" prints, not "great artistic" prints.

Thus, I don't think there is anything wrong with Ross' paintings. What he did was good, and showed people how to make nice paintings. If someone followed his instruction and really became serious about painting, they'd certainly pursue further technique.

When a parent finds I play guitar, and wants suggestions on what to get their child/teen who wants to learn, I ask if they want the kid to stick with it or not? It's a rhetorical question. They often feel an acoustic guitar would be a better learning tool - and in many ways it can be (and it is far less annoying). However, if the kid wants to learn rock, and they give him an acoustic guitar and country or classical lessons, he may not stick with it. I started with electric, learning KISS, Judas Priest, Metallica, etc. If I started any other way, I would have lost interest. I now play classical guitar and take lessons from a college professor, and I can even read music (poorly). I still play the electric, too. (I'm not saying one is inferior, just making an example based on what many people feel is better.)

Steve Smith
12-26-2013, 11:08 AM
I enjoy Bob Ross' show, and thought he was good, though never considered him in the league of the "fine art" painters.

I have seen much worse being shown by prestigious London galleries - but that is just my opinion.

Who are we to say that Bob Ross paintings are any worse (or better) than those of another artist?

All we can really do is express our preferences.


When a parent finds I play guitar, and wants suggestions on what to get their child/teen who wants to learn, I ask if they want the kid to stick with it or not? It's a rhetorical question. They often feel an acoustic guitar would be a better learning tool - and in many ways it can be (and it is far less annoying). However, if the kid wants to learn rock, and they give him an acoustic guitar and country or classical lessons, he may not stick with it. I started with electric, learning KISS, Judas Priest, Metallica, etc. If I started any other way, I would have lost interest.

I agree with this totally. I also started with electric because I wanted to play like a couple of friends at school. I got some bits of old, cheap electric guitars and built a (barely) playable guitar for myself. I was not interested in the acoustic at the time, in fact, there had been acoustic guitars in the house for many years which I had ignored up to that point.


Steve.

darkosaric
12-26-2013, 04:02 PM
All we can really do is express our preferences.
Steve.

Bob Ross in one episode: "I tried to make paintings of portraits, but I was just not able to get essence of person. My portrait teacher told me to stick with trees and mountains, because this is where my heart is. So I listen to him". This is humble and brave.

LyleB
12-26-2013, 04:37 PM
I would get a whole lot more joy out of having a Bob Ross painting hanging in my house than I would any number of other "real" artist's work. Some of what people pay high prices for and rave about is shear garbage to my eye.