[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/ic/ - Artwork/Critique


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: bob-ross.jpg (69 KB, 618x410)
69 KB
69 KB JPG
http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-32078.html

-"It seems like everyone here has a low opinion of Bob Ross. Everytime his name comes up, a few people say something negative. So why is that?"
>proceeded by an entire thread's worth of discussion about how Bob Ross is only a technically skilled artist, and has not created anything artistic in the sense that all his paintings are literally just simple landscapes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDs3o1uLEdU

1:06 - "Where could a collection of paintings, worth likely millions of dollars, possibly have gone?"
>seems to imply that while the fine art society seems to believe that Bob Ross paintings are essentially worthless, the people who grew up to Bob Ross's legacy as an artist evaluate Bob Ross's paintings as being more expensive

Just thought I'd throw this out here because I found it really interesting since I've grown up through the 2000s hearing the fine art community denouncing the worth of Bob's paintings.
>>
>>4014131
I feel bad for his mentor



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.