93
What was wrong with Bob Ross?
(hexbear.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2024
93 points (98.9% liked)
chat
8200 readers
287 users here now
Chat is a text only community for casual conversation, please keep shitposting to the absolute minimum. This is intended to be a separate space from c/chapotraphouse or the daily megathread. Chat does this by being a long-form community where topics will remain from day to day unlike the megathread, and it is distinct from c/chapotraphouse in that we ask you to engage in this community in a genuine way. Please keep shitposting, bits, and irony to a minimum.
As with all communities posts need to abide by the code of conduct, additionally moderators will remove any posts or comments deemed to be inappropriate.
Thank you and happy chatting!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Artschool dropout here. People have mixed feelings. On one hand, he taught a lot of people how to paint and (more importantly) not be afraid of paint. On the other, he didn't challenge himself and was doing the same thing over and over, creating a lot of kitsch and commercial art.
As far as I know, he never had any long-term projects or stuff done in private. This means he plateau'd and stayed at the same skill level his entire career. Compare that to people we consider masters, like Picasso or Rembrandt or Michaelangelo. They were constantly looking for new ways to challenge themselves and trying to unlearn everything they knew to create something new. We have a lot of discoveries because of it.
Picasso invented collage and expanded our knowledge of 2D design. Rembrandt created the building blocks for Impressionism and Expressionism, while uplifting printmaking into its own artistic medium. Michaelangelo went out and practically invented new colors. Bob Ross, by comparison, didn't do much other than show how to paint something quickly. And speed is something all artists get better at with practice.
Furthermore, some of my professors resented Ross for reinforcing realism as the only way of creating art, especially among normies. Ross didn't do this intentionally. It was just a side effect of making landscapes easy. Keep in mind, we're still in the Post-Modern era and a lot of my instructors were the Post-Modern rebels who suffered under their Modernist mentors. So for them, it's frustrating trying to move art forward and have people still cling to what was already done 75 years ago. Even more so when they know the Modernists before them did put a lot of labor into their work.
Using Picasso again as an example, he'd start by drawing something realistically. Then he'd draw it again, but with less detail. And again. And again. And again. He'd get an object down to having as little detail as possible while still being recognizable as what it was supposed to represent. Then he'd compose these drawing into a painting. For Guernica, his magnum opus, he spent an entire summer doing this. There's thousands of drawings for this one, single painting he did and it's a huge painting (like 10 feet by 15 or some shit).
Now imagine you're an art professor who knows this and some asshole wearing a Bob Ross shirt walks into your class and says "Picasso paints like shit."
(I was told not to wear my Bob Ross shirt again)
I see this as the big problem. I don't think there is anything wrong with not seeking to significantly advance one's personal artistic skill or vision beyond a plateau, but Ross did contribute to the current orthodoxy of photorealism being the highest aspiration of an artist. Unintentionally of course, but the compound effect is there. As a hobbyist artist, I often struggle with trying to escape this mindset thanks to the prevailing cultural pressure that comes from corporate and profit driven motives to create, but I can't personally fault a Bob Ross type for enjoying remaining in certain niches (he certainly had more technical skill than I, so I figure I shouldn't judge on that aspect at least.)
Not every artist has the dedication or inclination to create works like Michelangelo or Picasso and that's alright IMO, but we hate to see something like this happen lol
I mostly do miniature painting and it's obnoxious that we're going through the motions of the last 500 years with no self-awareness as other miniature painters encounter problems we've already solved. There's this mindset of needing to make everything as realistic as possible and miniature painters are finding out that has limits. "Blanchitsu" or "grimdark" or "INQ28" or whatever you want to call it, is miniaturists just now figuring out Baroque and Expressionism...you know...the things that influenced John Blanche. Maybe we'll figure out Rococo and Mannerism were already a thing within the next 25 years lmao?
The major push behind it is the corporate and profit driven motivators. Hyper-realistic painting is what appeals to non-artists and the major events around miniature painting are catering to those people. Emperor forbid we see something cool entered into Crystal Brush or Golden Demon like this:
Or these:
Having to start learning from scratch as an atomized individual stuck behind tool & material prices, free time, isolation etc. sets makes that process of learning to represent one's imagination on the medium take so much longer and feel so much more stressful than it should.
It's actually funny; what you said is completely accurate - so many of the techniques that are artificially by medium, community, initial costs, are really just the same principles applied across mediums. The most recent progress I've made in improving my digital 2d technique were from applying painting methods I learned while mini painting
I had so much trouble with illumination, shadow, and reflectivity before trying different mediums and applying techniques both ways. Realism is absolutely fine to pursue, I just wish more people had the time & opportunity to express themselves without sacrifice & worry about precarity and the omnipresent pressure of profit motive 😔