7 ms·
No, because he painted something that I find pleasant to look at and consider it worth money. The price is higher because of the artist's fame, that much is tru
by tanewishly 1y ago
No, because he painted something that I find pleasant to look at and consider it worth money. The price is higher because of the artist's fame, that much is true - but that is always the case with art.
I mean, you're basically arguing about taste... Bob Ross was a lot more famous than most other artists, not in the least because many people liked what he produced.
- prmoustache 1y agoHe was more famous because he appeared on TV, and transfered/the joy of painting, not because of his paintings. They were unremarkable to say the least. A lot of people are trying to make a living painting landscapes with the same painting for dummies style that Ross used (not invented). It seems counterproductive to give money to speculators for an unremarkable painting of a dead man when you can spend a fraction of that to buy a similar decorative painting and contribute to the income of someone who actually worked and spent time on it.
- tanewishly 1y agoThe thing is: I'm not looking for an unremarkable painting. I sincerely am not interested in one. So spending my money that way would be counterproductive. Related: if you feel this style of painting is so unremarkable, why are you advocating for others to support knock-offs? To use an analogy: I have zero interest in buying a Louis Vuitton handbag - but my interest in buying one of the far cheaper knockoffs you can get at touristy places from shady peddlers is a lot lower than that.