World's biggest museum exhibition of Bob Ross paintings. How'd it wind up in BC? | Hacker News Reader

World's biggest museum exhibition of Bob Ross paintings. How'd it wind up in BC?

cbc.ca

44 pointspseudolus21 comments

This will probably be a very unpopular opinion, but I think that making an exhibition of Bob Ross’ paintings makes no sense, as the painting themselves have close to zero artistic value. The real artistic value of Bob was performative, and is inextricably tied to his use of the video medium. The exhibition has a simple tv showing some episodes of his show, but that should be the tentpole of the display, not just one addendum. The painting in themselves are artistically irrelevant divertissement, they are important only because they were painted by Bob Ross. Owning one would be justified by that, but exhibiting them as work of arts on their own merit? Meh.

History might have something else to say, in that, a lot of art is valuable only because it was by 'so and so'. To the extent he was the popular originator of a style ... he 'owns it', so, they're all Bob Rosses now.

Also, if you use the word 'divertissement' while speaking or writing English and are not a native French speaker - you owe everyone who hears or reads it a beer.

Sure the tv show and his performance was the main medium, but that doesn't mean his paintings have diminished artistic value. Art is all about context (with bonus points if it generates discussion, evoke emotions and looks interesting). I don't really see how it's different from 'art' in museums that are remarkable only due to the historical context that they were created in. For a fan, seeing a painting you recognize in an episode up close, in a different perspective will surely transport you to someplace special.

> This will probably be a very unpopular opinion

Not because of Bob Ross, but because it's based on the false premises of what is today (as in: last hundred years) considered and accepted as art.

In the previous and this century, not only the artist displayed objects that were extremely easy to produce, they were also able to display the objects even not produced by them as their art.

1917:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)

Not to mention that the "performance" and the items used in performances are also considered art.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_art

A lot of text, articles, books, papers etc were written about all that during last 100 years.

Of course there are many experts and books evaluating some specific works and their "artistic value" but nobody can claim based on the arguments you gave that something has "close to zero artistic value."

A counterexample for the opinion of experts at the given point of time:

https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2009/10/moma...

These works could have low current "market" value, but I don't think that was tested up to now.

They are figurative paintings. As figurative art, they’re at best mediocre, maybe slightly above average. So if you value them based on their intrinsic value as paintings, they definitely can’t stand on their legs. That is why I elaborated the concept further, saying that their artistic value comes from them being remnants of a multimedia performance, which is indeed of astounding artistic value if considered holistically as Bob’s lifetime-long work of art.

Art can be lots of different things, just because it's not to your personal taste doesn't mean something has close to zero artistic value.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marina_Abramovi%C4%87

You'd have to explain how you price artistic value before anyone can argue with that. But these paintings are also cultural artifacts of a popular show. That they're paintings has misled you.

"While serving as a tribute to the artistic legacy of an artist whose name and work is as well known, this exhibition looks to explore the deeper questions around nostalgia, high and low art, art history, the cult of celebrity, pop culture, the art market and ultimately what is worthy of being exhibited and preserved in our museums. Bob and I both agree there are no wrong answers and I am fascinated to explore these questions."

This exhibit directly invites you to discuss the worthiness of the paintings, so I say it DOES make sense to make an exhibit of Bob Ross' paintings. How could anyone hope to judge them fairly without seeing them first?

http://pentictonartgallery.com/bob-ross-exhibition

>You'd have to explain how you price artistic value before anyone can argue with that.

Nobody knows. Its what people are willing to pay.

Banksy sold his art at a pop up in NYC. Hardly anyone bought: (and one negotiated half price)

https://gothamist.com/arts-entertainment/video-banksy-set-up...

I think what you've said is fine concerning monetary value. But I want to be clear I was talking about artistic value. It's important to make the distinction as this is a museum exhibit.

They have tremendous artistic value as evidenced by people's interest in them - which gives art its value. Also, while kitschy and unpretentious, he knew what he was doing and they are done with a certain amount of skill.

I compare his paintings to animation cels. They were produced quickly to meet a schedule. So not art in the classical sense, but they have a lot of interest & nostalgia from people who grew up watching the Disney and Warner Brothers cartoons.

You can also exhibit plants or animals. This exhibit doesn’t seem to be presenting the paintings as art.

Picasso potentially made more paintings than Bob Ross, but his paintings are still regarded as having a high value. Some are quite good, but I’ve seen a few where if it didn’t have “Picasso” attached to it, it’d be in a Goodwill for $2.

Bob Ross paintings are fine. They don’t blow my mind, but most art museums I’ve been to have scenery paintings making up more than half their collection, and most aren’t half as good as anything Bob Ross could paint in one episode.

I would actually argue that Ross' body of work constitutes a non-traditional branch of modern art and/or contemporary art. It's easy to dismiss it as kitschy landscape paintings cranked out at the rate of 1 per half-hour in order to sell painting supplies by the uninformed. But in achieving the goals of making art accessible to the masses and democratizing it -- much like your average Rothko or abstract dentist office waiting room art achieves the "I could do that" reaction from the public.

Ross actually created a massive, multi-decade, mixed media art form that not only invites the viewer to appreciate the performative parts of the show and the paintings but also to participate. The establishment art world would rather accept mediocre product that generates outrage (and is marketable at auction) and so it rejects Ross who instead focused his work on creating the emotion of calm zen.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that displaying his paintings as they are is not the best way to present them. Each painting was actually made in triplicate as part of the performance production. They should be displayed that way, in sequence, with a screen showing the episode in which the piece was painted perhaps between the first and second paintings, and the third painting and the book page it was presented in coming after. This provides 5 unique contexts in which to appreciate the scene -- performance included.

I might even argue that the entire body of his work is actually a single piece called "The Joy of Painting" that really has to be seen in its totality to be fully appreciated, but also allows the viewer to enjoy it in various fragments. His work is the product of a lifetime, it's informed by his experiences, it challenges establishment art, it tries to evoke a particular emotion, it's monumental, and it's almost exactly the kind of art society needs at the moment.

Interesting observation! So the paintings are a sort of remnant of a performance, like a piece of a set or a costume. Collectible perhaps, maybe pretty, but not the focus of the art. I like it!

Still, they are 'museum worthy' in the sense that a museum documents history. Also, have you seen some of what is in museums? Bob's stuff is a welcome breath of fresh air.

So, I think this is interesting—can you envision a good way to display these works? Do you put them up next to TV screens playing the episode where it was painted, or an edited down version of the episode?

It just seems to me, the overall "performance" has value, and the paintings exist... you ought to do something with them.

I think the comment from Bane, here above, has the best summary of how an exhibition could be set up.

Reminds me a bit of “one and three chairs” by Robert Kosuth, even.

I get the feeling Bob cared more about the act of painting and enabling others to get what he got out of it.

Well, BC is covered in many forests so it's certainly known for lots of happy little trees.

He painted each one 3 times (3 per show).

Bob Ross Inc. has a lot. Stored in less than optimal conditions.

The video here is pretty good (Where are Bob Ross's paintings): https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/12/arts/bob-ross-paintings-m...

the video is the main, but the text part ends with this:

'In 1994, the talk show host Phil Donahue asked Mr. Ross to “say out loud your work will never hang in a museum.”

“Well, maybe it will,” Mr. Ross replied. “But probably not the Smithsonian.”'

My kids secondary school uses Bob Ross on YouTube in mindfulness sessions. The kids seem to love them...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com