Comment by prmoustache

LPisGood 2 days ago

I don’t care about art very much and I would be pay a thousand or two for one. I know that’s much but given that I’ve never bought a painting before and I don’t think I’m particularly unique, I believe this signals there is pretty large demand.

Reply View 12 replies

prmoustache 2 days ago

Because he was a celebrity?
I paint myself occasionally some similarly uninspired stuff, and bar 2 painting I hung in the living room and corridor, I throw them away (or rather reuse the canvas) because I don't even consider them art but rather artisanal decorative items.
2 thousand can get you much more interesting paintings. There are many talented but barely known artists anywhere in the world waiting for you. You just have to visit galleries whenever you are visiting a town.

Reply View | 9 replies
- LPisGood 2 days ago
  
  Maybe it’s indirectly because he’s a celebrity but moreso because the show brought me tremendous joy and I’d like to own some of that.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
- robocat 2 days ago
  
  I found a friend's painting in the free pile at an opshop. Told them about it and they thought it was a hilarious - they'd sold it for $65.
  I have the painting to another friend as inspiration about the value of art - they love it.
  Too many people suggest to artists that they should monetise their work, which is kinda sad I think.
  It is good to make art because you want to (assuming one can afford to), not because you want money or $status. If you want to chase money then that's fine too, but understand the negatives that come with that choice.
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  dehrmann 2 days ago
  
  The thing with art is that there's always more of it getting created by people who either do it as a hobby or will accept low prices out of desperation to "follow their dreams," they're competing with all the existing art out there, and while some gets lost to natural disasters and neglect, the better stuff sticks around.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
- tayo42 2 days ago
  
  2k I think could get you two paintings by some of the most famous current water color artists(going off memory)
  
  Reply View | 2 replies
  
  tanewishly 2 days ago
  
  Perhaps, but unless one of them is Walt Disney, I've never heard of them - therefore their fame does not impact my valuation of their work. I can see myself spend 50 bucks on a (to me) unknown piece of art because it is pretty. Spending more would require an additional connection - fame of artist, depicts something dear to me, seems like a good investment, etc. etc... only being pretty isn't enough.
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  tayo42 2 days ago
  
  If you want to think about it as art as just a thing that's made
  Canvas or paper will be a few dollars to maybe 10
  Paints maybe another 10 per painting by the end.
  Then maybe a professionals time for like 100/hr. Idk if you can even hire a plumber that cheap.
  A 2 hour painting should cost maybe 400 by an unknown but professional.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
- tanewishly 2 days 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.
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  prmoustache 2 days ago
  
  He 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.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
- moron4hire 2 days ago
  
  If you really want to support working artists, go to craft shows. They're a good time and you'll get to meet the artist.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
rxtexit a day ago

They would certainly go for more than that. Ross didn't paint anything I find even remotely interesting but for $1k, I would buy 20 or 30 Bob Ross paintings right now and sit on them too.
I can't imagine them selling for much less than $20k a painting with a name that everyone knows.

Reply View | 0 replies
EduardoBautista 2 days ago

It’s honestly not that much money. Paintings from artists who are not as famous as Bob Ross can go for thousands.

Reply View | 0 replies

mvkel 2 days ago

1,165 of anything is not very much.

Rolex makes 1,000,000 new watches per year, and the wait lists are years-long.

There is definitely enough demand for all of those paintings to be sold for more than you'd think

Reply View 0 replies

[removed] 2 days ago

[deleted]

Reply View 0 replies

hn_throwaway_99 2 days ago

> that anyone could paint similar low/average uninspired stuff.

I hated this sentence. What is wrong with art that is actually, you know, pretty to look at. Obviously Bob Ross paintings aren't very complicated, as they're designed for amateurs to be able to follow along in the instructions. But I find many of his paintings quite beautiful, and if anything the joy in seeing how simple brush strokes can create such beautiful paintings.

Tracey Emin's "My Bed" "sculpture" sold for two and a half million pounds. So people pretending there is some high objective or moral difference between "high art" and "low/average uninspired stuff" are, frankly, full of themselves IMO.

Reply View 2 replies

prmoustache 2 days ago

[flagged]

Reply View | 1 reply
- dijit 2 days ago
  
  fuck off with this, there’s decades long discussion about what constitutes “art” and what doesn’t,
  Consensus is that anything that makes you feel is art, and his paintings make people feel, t doesn’t matter the reasons why.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies