Why Do Some People So Dislike Bob Ross, or Say He's Not an "Artist"?

I own a couple Bob Ross books and I love looking at his paintings. They're gorgeous - and they look like they could be places a couple hours' drive from here (Western Washington). Yesterday I learned that Bob, who's from Florida, got inspiration from Alaska, where he was stationed with the Air Force. (Turns out his signature pleasant personality comes from concerns that the Air Force was making him mean.)

But I've seen people badmouth Bob Ross, and his chosen style, in various places online. I also recall overhearing my art teacher having a little conversation about how "bad" he was. It confuses me.

Is this merely the elitism of the True Art crowd? You can't make art up as you go, you can't complete it in half an hour, can't do it without plans and sketches and such, can't be commercial; and it can't be art if the average person can pick up the craft in a couple hours, etc. It kinda sounds like the same sort of comments they threw at Norman Rockwell ("beh, you're just an illustrator, not really an artist at all").

I mean, clearly Bob Ross is talented. If you were going to make a big list of talented artists then he wouldn't be near Michaelangelo or anything, but he's got talent, he's got style, his paintings look enough like actual landscapes to be pleasant and enjoyable... one comment I read today said that his paintings were "emotionless and dead" and I couldn't disagree more.

(And if people dislike the way his style looks good from afar yet rough up close, what's up with pointilism? There's more than one style of art that take advantage of ways to trick the eye into believing there's more detail than there really is. Also, I should note that he never tried to claim he was a great artist; he just did his thing and taught others to do it too.)

But is there anything substantial to these criticisms of his style? I'd like to understand, if understanding is to be had.

ETA: Another thing I keep reading is that people will walk away from his show not knowing how to do XYZ of art (e.g., to work from reference materials, to see the proper colors, to make specific trees instead of generic ones, etc.). How much was he expected to accomplish in his 30-minute show? He wasn't a "theories of art" class. You want the how-to-start-doing-real-art, you go to college and pay for a class like I did. I don't expect him to have to teach the basics of drawing or color choice any more than I expected that from Mark Kistler's Imagination Station - but both shows got people creating art from simple techniques, and opened up the door for them to seek out better techniques on their own.

Am I just so used to self-education that I'm taking it for granted you'd start with Ross and move on? Because several of the comments I've read tonight seem to take it for granted that you'd get stuck at his level. Huh?

edited 1st Aug '12 7:56:43 AM by Kilyle

I agree with pretty much everything here. Ross' art isn't the best landscape work I've ever seen but it's a helluva lot better (IMO) than a lot of works that are considered museum-quality pieces, and a lot better than the pabulum you see in shops like Kirkland's, Hobby Lobby, or Michael's. I'd hang prints of his work in my house with no shame whatsoever, and if I had the time or inclination I'd check out his training videos.

Side-note: his show is one of the most relaxing things you'll ever watch...his voice has an amazing ability to be monotonic but not droning or dull, and is ever so slightly soporific, so that you are lulled into placidity without wanting to nod off.

My main problem with him is I hate landscape art.

>.>

So this the first time I've heard of him. Looking at the pics of his stuff on Google... No, he isn't a very good artist. Sure, those paintings do look like actual landscapes, but that isn't all that landscape painting is about. Saying that he's not an artist is way overboard, I don't like elitism either, but his stuff looks like something you'd expect to see as an illustration, not as a painting that hangs around in a gallery (or on a wall in someone's house, but people hang all sorts of crappy stuff on their walls, so his paintings would definitely be one of the slightly better choices).

I love Bob Ross!

Okay, so his paintings are usually very similar woodland scenes with the inevitable 'big ol' tree' right in the foreground, but I enjoy listening to him talk, I like his little stories about squirrels and things and I like the fact that most of his paintings look very like my favourite place.

But yes; his paintings from the TV are beginner-level stuff. If people really need to have their hands held forever maybe they should stick to colouring-in?

edited 6th Aug '12 12:44:17 PM by InverurieJones

I've been waiting for this to open! I think most people don't like Bob Ross because of his personality, not his talent, which I feel he has. I find him much more talented and accessible than say, Thomas Kinkade. At least Bob Ross painted all his works instead of having apprentices finish everything for him.

Bob Ross was also one of the first people to put art, especially painting, to every person. I adore him. I don't think he's the best artist in the world, but overall as a person and a painter, he's far better than most.

Who can be made when you can paint a happy little tree?

Ugh, don't even get me started on how much I hate Thomas Kinkade...

I thought the point of what Bob Ross did wasn't 'art,' it was for others to find a creative outlet and not feel constricted by the idea that they weren't "talented" enough to do anything. Like if you're looking for True Art you're looking for the wrong thing.

Looking up Bob Ross... I'm not to sure if his Illustrate-y style of art is really up my ally. Then again, I like the type of semi-absraction landscape such as the works of Albert◊ Namatjira and the like or the Impressionist landscape painting.

But he seems like a pretty cool guy.

edited 6th Aug '12 10:00:30 PM by PippingFool

I remember watching Bob Ross on television when I was a child. He made painting look like something anyone could do if they put their mind to it. I liked that about him.

Anyone who endeavors to bring art, culture and learning to the masses is going to get a ration of shit from the "true art" crowd.

I've also heard that the techniques he used to paint things so quickly were something he came up with...not invented per se but condensed and adapted so that he could actually demonstrate how to paint a landscape in a reasonable amount of time.

I like how he has shown people that anybody can draw, I think we need more of that.

However, I don't really like how his drawings look.

My Art Teacher really hated Bob Ross for how he would smudge his pencil lines to get shading. Doing such was sacrilege in her classroom.

It is sacrilege. Its basically giving up control of the shading to get a meh-ish level of shading thats much easier to accomplish with decent control of your pencil or charcoal.

Granted, when you're strapped like fuck for time and not trying to make people into top class artists, it is the faster way to go.

edited 9th Aug '12 1:02:46 PM by Midgetsnowman

Eh, he was in the style of "if it works, there's no reason not to do it". I don't think that smudging your pencil or charcoal to get shading is all that terrible, and I definitely know that it lends itself well to certain styles of art better than others. Mom has a degree in Fine Arts, and even she does it sometimes.

Saw this, thought of you guys◊

Wait, people are badmouthing Bob Ross? The fuck? That is just straight up wrong. Hating him is like hating Mr. Rogers.

Yeah no kidding.

I think what always blew me away about the guy is that he'd do something that seemed off — like, smear some shading or glare somewhere — and then like three minutes later he'd fill in the rest around it and it just worked.

There are just some people that will never be pleased in the art world. They think it has to be done a certain way and anyway else is sacrilege simply because it's not their way. And Bob Ross comes along with his quick methods, which given that his show only lasted like half an hour was pretty sensible to use. He made it seem not so difficult to do, thus less intimidating to start as a hobby. Or as some sort of career, at that.

http://crashmcdougal.tumblr.com/post/29110294299/i-dont-even-draw-or-paint-or-anything-and-this Also this. They set his stuff to auto tune. I don't know why.

This just reminds me that I got in trouble for smudging my pastels and pencil lines in art class.

I thought it looked neat, but it wasn't proper and therefore...doom.

I still like smudging things though and will take opportunities to do so because dammit I will do it how I damn well please. It's not to impress some art crowd or sell anything, but to amuse myself.

THOSE FANCY CRAYONS WILL BE SMUDGED.

...while my art student friend cries.

I always figured that art in any form was about self-expression through any means and methods you choose, not necessarily having to conform to anyone else's arbitrary rules if you feel it's restricting to you or if you feel you could achieve the same/similar/better/more-to-your-liking results through different means...but, y'know, having to follow a strict set of rules dictating exactly how you're supposed to do things is cool, I guess, if you're into that sort of thing.

I mean, it's not like entire movements have been started through ignoring these rules, right?

edited 10th Aug '12 12:02:47 AM by 0dd1

Only if they do it pretentiously, duh. Breaking the rules isn't artistic genius unless you're a complete twat about it.

edited 10th Aug '12 2:50:52 AM by Pykrete

In my formal art classes, we were only allowed to "break rules" after we had demonstrated mastery of the rules to our individual capacity.

But then, most of my professors had been raised on Bob Ross. :)

What you have to understand is that artists have been putting up with the likes of Thomas Kincaid out-selling them for decades. Bob Ross isn't anywhere near as bad as that, but I can understand the resentment at bringing up a whole new generation of hippy-dippies painting "Happy lil' clouds" and ignoring anything unpleasant.

@Odd1: the thing is, art movements that break the rules generally KNOW the rules, and are capable of execuiting within them. They just choose not to.

This is what makes Picasso different than someone who cant draw figures properly. Picasso could do realism quite perfectly. He just got bored with it.

edited 10th Aug '12 9:44:19 AM by Midgetsnowman

Thomas Kincade made his fortune by catering to the Protestant community and putting his crap on everything from greeting cards, blankets, to mouse pads.

Bob Ross has paints and brushes in his name. Nothing else.

I think the marketing speaks for itself who has the more artistic priorities.

Behold! Bob Ross mousepad.