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