Bob Ross (Legend)

Dear TWC
Kind Regards

Bob Ross was amazing.He was quite famous although I've just heard of him.
I have watched about ten of his videos on youtube,i was saddened to read that he died a while ago in '95.
He was a really great painter and seems like a general nice bloke.

I was just looking and reading up on this 'amazing' painter Jackson Pollock.
well,i cant say i'm impressed by him,his work looks like he got drunk stumbled into a dark room and just started throwing buckets of paint around in a drunken stupor.

it looks like the work of a 10 year old.
yet he is lauded as some great artist?.......i hate modern art its such ********.They try and pass of this amatuerish bullcrap of just scribblings and doodles(or worse) as masterpieces.Remember the flashing lightbulb piece that won the turner prize!


(Jackson Pollock painting 'Green Silver')

I like art that takes talent...give me a Bob Ross painting anyday...that takes real talent (he makes it look so easy!)
The only 'modern' artists i like are Salvador Dali and Giorgio de Chirico although these artists did hit there prime 60-75+ years ago so i'm not sure if they still fit into the 'modern art' category anymore.

I have always wanted to paint but just never really tried or been bothered (i occupied my entire school art classes throwing clay clumps at people )
ive always wanted to give it a try.
maybe i will.
I hope you enjoy the videos and suggest you watch more by Bob Ross.

Yours Thankfully
MoralMan

Bob Ross was amazing.He was quite famous although I've just heard of him.
I have watched about ten of his videos on youtube,i was saddened to read that he died a while ago in '95.
He was a really great painter and seems like a general nice bloke.

I was just looking and reading up on this 'amazing' painter Jackson Pollock.
well,i cant say i'm impressed by him,his work looks like he got drunk stumbled into a dark room and just started throwing buckets of paint around in a drunken stupor.

it looks like the work of a 10 year old.
yet he is lauded as some great artist?.......i hate modern art its such ********.They try and pass of this amatuerish bullcrap of just scribblings and doodles(or worse) as masterpieces.Remember the flashing lightbulb piece that won the turner prize!

You like Bob Ross because he makes aesthetically pleasing pictures. If you knew anything about art you would know it's more then just something that looks pretty. Bob Ross has skill, no doubt.

Jason Pollock was a man who was very poor. He died in a car crash filled with prostitutes and liquor. There was a total of 4 or 5 people in the car, all being prostitutes and himself, they all died. He had an over-night success, literally.

In order for Pollock to create his paintings he would use whatever he would get his hands on because he was so poor. Whatever was oil he would use. His paintings represent his strife, his conviction of poverty.

His style of painting is called "Action Painting." What Pollock has done is art because it may present a subliminal truth or because it is awe-inspiring to the viewer.

Do you know who Kandinsky is? An awesome artist. Do you have any idea why?

Dear DariusEG
Kind Regards

I have heard of Wassily Kandinsky and seen his work.
It is more pleasing to the eye than Pollocks and looks like it takes more work than his.
I dont understand the excuse of "oh pollock was poor so thats all he could paint"
Surely a paintbrush isnt that expensive.
He had enough money to spend on booze and whores so he must have had enough to spend on a paintbrush.
What subliminal messages were in his paintings?
All i see is a bunch of random squiggles.

Yours Thankfully
MoralMan

Originally Posted by MoralMan

Dear DariusEG
Kind Regards

I have heard of Wassily Kandinsky and seen his work.
It is more pleasing to the eye than Pollocks and looks like it takes more work than his.
I dont understand the excuse of "oh pollock was poor so thats all he could paint"
Surely a paintbrush isnt that expensive.
He had enough money to spend on booze and whores so he must have had enough to spend on a paintbrush.
What subliminal messages were in his paintings?
All i see is a bunch of random squiggles.

Yours Thankfully
MoralMan

He had enough enough money for booze and whores because that was after he sold his paintings. He probably did have a paint brush, he could of used any brush.

I also wasn't using that as an excuse, in order to critic a piece of art you HAVE to know the history of the work and the artist. Otherwise, you have no right to critic.

There is no subliminal message but a subliminal truth. Is there a subliminal truth there in the Pollock painting? Possibly. Is it awe-inspiring? Possibly. Or maybe he is giving tangible form to a feeling, hmmmm... A feeling of poverty perhaps? Pollock was also an alcoholic. I don't know, what do you think?

Use these two things when viewing a painting. Open your mind and don't use judgments.

The role of the viewer consists of two things:
1. Interpret
2. Understand

I mentioned Kandinsky because of paintings like this:
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth...sky.comp-7.jpg
What do you think about that?

Dear DariusEG
Kind Regards

The picture you showed me does seem rather good but it doesnt have any focus.It seems jumbled and confused.Perhaps that is the point.That being said it would still take some sort of skill to draw the shapes.
It does not inspire me or make me think because there is nothing to see or anything to focus on.There is nothing to really get your mind ticking.Sure it looks nice but there is nothing to draw your attention to.



Now look at this picture.
It sold for $140 million!
could you honestly tell me straight that that is a great piece of work?
a 10 year old could do it.Its just some........well just look at it!. It probably took him no more than 5 minutes.
I mean really....i could do that easily.
Do you not think great art needs to show some talent involved to justify it being labeled as art?
Maybe i should start taking up heavy drinking so i can appreciate modern art.

Originally Posted by MoralMan

Dear DariusEG
Kind Regards

The picture you showed me does seem rather good but it doesnt have any focus.It seems jumbled and confused.Perhaps that is the point.That being said it would still take some sort of skill to draw the shapes.
It does not inspire me or make me think because there is nothing to see or anything to focus on.There is nothing to really get your mind ticking.Sure it looks nice but there is nothing to draw your attention to.

That's because you're looking in the wrong place. Don't be superficial, go deeper into the painting. Look up the artist and history.

Let me begin with the Kandinsky I showed. Kandinsky painted through spirituality. See, spirituality is non-corporeal. There is no representation for it. What Kandinsky tries to do is paint from his soul, that inner force. When he starts to recognize something in the painting he would start all over or, interestingly enough, turn the painting upside down and continue from there. This is what's behind that Kandinsky painting. BTW, it's non-objective. He was also very concerned about color, it was very important, he believed it created the spiritual atmosphere. Kandinsky considered his paintings to be equivalent to music, alive in non-figurative movement and color.

I'm sure this has gotten your mind ticking, hasn't it?

Now look at this picture.
It sold for $140 million!
could you honestly tell me straight that that is a great piece of work?
a 10 year old could do it.Its just some........well just look at it!. It probably took him no more than 5 minutes.
I mean really....i could do that easily.
Do you not think great art needs to show some talent involved to justify it being labeled as art?
Maybe i should start taking up heavy drinking so i can appreciate modern art.

You could do it. A 10 yr old child could do it. Guess what... you're still not Pollock. If you can't believe it sold for 140 million then don't you think there is something you're not seeing or understanding? That should inquire you to dig deeper.

Do you not think great art needs to show some talent involved to justify it being labeled as art?

lol. Funny, there actually is something to justify it as art. But aesthetics isn't one of them. You, it seems, only look at aesthetics. Art is bigger than that.

Bob Ross is an artist not just because he paints pretty pictures.

WOah know whey! RIP man, I remember watching him on TV as a kid on the days that I didn't have school. I really liked that guy. But I didn't know that he died in 95. Hm......anyway, it's a shame.


Such a peaceful voice....

That man knew how to paint a damn fine tree.