Bob Ross $9.8M at auction 0

[BCarter27]

https://goldin.co/item/original-bob-ross-painting-goldin-100-de2ab?queryId=eyJjYXJkSW5kZXgiOjB9

[delekkerste]

A must-watch

[delekkerste]

On 9/23/2023 at 11:58 AM, comix4fun said:

No, they didn't, not according to the gallery's website and every other news source aside from the usually reliable NY POST (insert sarcasm emoji here). 
So, we might need some corroboration given that the NY Post story was from three days ago and every other news source has more recent articles and references to the gallery having it for sale at that number (not at auction, again...thank you NY Post) as recently as yesterday. 

https://modernartifact.com/collections/bob-ross/products/bob-ross-signed-on-air-original-painting-from-season-1-episode-1-of-the-joy-of-painting-1

I'm sure that NY Post story was erroneous - I saw that it linked to a sale listing and it didn't make any sense to me. Cool piece but $9.85 million I don't think is anywhere near the realm of plausible unless there is a backward baseball-cap wearing Powerball winner out there who thinks they can flip this as the "Bob Ross rookie". But, nah, not even then - no one is paying anywhere near that price for this painting. 

[comix4fun]

On 9/25/2023 at 7:25 AM, delekkerste said:

I'm sure that NY Post story was erroneous - I saw that it linked to a sale listing and it didn't make any sense to me. Cool piece but $9.85 million I don't think is anywhere near the realm of plausible unless there is a backward baseball-cap wearing Powerball winner out there who thinks they can flip this as the "Bob Ross rookie". But, nah, not even then - no one is paying anywhere near that price for this painting. 

Clearly it only works economically as a backward-baseball-cap fractional play....and by fractional I mean cutting it up into 10,000 pieces and making
"Bob Ross Rookie EASEL USED Relic Cards" to sell off. 

Edited September 25, 2023 by comix4fun

[Bronty]

On 9/25/2023 at 8:25 AM, delekkerste said:

I'm sure that NY Post story was erroneous - I saw that it linked to a sale listing and it didn't make any sense to me. Cool piece but $9.85 million I don't think is anywhere near the realm of plausible unless there is a backward baseball-cap wearing Powerball winner out there who thinks they can flip this as the "Bob Ross rookie". But, nah, not even then - no one is paying anywhere near that price for this painting. 

As a kid watching late night TV the paintings looked pretty good!   I can't say that now as an adult looking at them with post art-collecting eyes.   

Neat artifacts.    But yeah, five figures, six if someone is drunk.   Not eight.

[cstojano]

On 9/25/2023 at 5:19 AM, delekkerste said:

A must-watch

A story as old as time it seems. Don't give Netflix any ideas they way they churn content but it seems like they could make the same documentary and just switch out the artist name.

[cstojano]

On 9/25/2023 at 8:01 AM, Bronty said:

As a kid watching late night TV the paintings looked pretty good!   I can't say that now as an adult looking at them with post art-collecting eyes.   

Neat artifacts.    But yeah, five figures, six if someone is drunk.   Not eight.

You're going to make me post a random alpha Magic card or random Magic squirrel painting aren't you.

[Lucky Baru]

I read an article that stated that Bob Ross painted over 30,000 paintings in his lifetime.  He might be famous but his work isn’t rare if he produced that amount of works.  If he painted for 30 years then he churned out a 1000 per year 😱

 

“By the time Ross died in 1995, he had produced some 30,000 paintings – on-air or during his traveling workshops – depicting idyllic woodlands or alpine scenes cast in tranquil blues or candy-coated pinks.”

 

https://www.cnn.com/style/article/bob-ross-netflix-documentary-culture-queue/index.html

Edited September 26, 2023 by Lucky Baru

[delekkerste]

What in the AF
 

[John E.]

On 9/29/2023 at 2:34 PM, delekkerste said:

What in the AF
 

Here’s my promo card from Cardsmiths 

[Unca Ben]

Bob Ross was a teacher.

His main goal was not to create a painting for a magazine cover or advertisement, it was not to create a masterpiece (he would say so himself), or to hang in a museum or gallery or even to be sold.  His goal was not even to teach folks that already were training to be artists.

Bob very effectively taught a simple painting technique aimed not only at beginners but average folk that never imagined that they could pick up a paint brush and maybe create something worthwhile.  And in a short amount of time, not the imagined days or weeks that many assume painters need to create a finished piece.

Within a week or two, that average person could create a dozen or more paintings, likely improving from painting to painting, and do something that they never imagined being able to do. Their work probably won't hang in a museum or grace a magazine cover, but eventually it might make it to a local art & cheese festival or hang on the wall of a friend or relative.

Folk Art.

That was Bob Ross's focus.  His goal.  And he did it quite well.  Communicating a technique in a way that the average person can follow is pretty amazing in itself.   He was being of service to improve folk's lives while being a real nice guy at the same time.  Beloved comes to mind.

It does not surprise me that his painting could sell for a lot and the exact amount, whether multiple hundreds of thousands or a few million, isn't as relevant as the fact that his work is desirable and very limited in availability.

And people go nuts about the craziest things.  Now excuse me, I gotta go check if the plastic CGC case on an old Spidey got scratched last time I handled it as that can affect the resale.

Edited October 6, 2023 by Unca Ben
effect affect

[KingOfRulers]

It's my opinion that it's primarily the art snobs or wannabe tastemakers that poo-poo Ross' work. People who think they know better than everyone else what is high quality art versus poor quality art. The same type of people that try to show their supposed sophistication and superior intelligence by attempting to convince the world how wonderful and deep Mark Rothko's work is.

If you conducted a "blind viewing" where you put a Bob Ross painting in a lineup with 20 other similarly sized, similarly themed landscape paintings from masters of the craft, each from a different artist (none of them signed or identified), it's my prediction that you'd get a wide array of votes from viewers as to their favorites. I don't think people would scoff at Bob Ross' work unless they knew they were looking at a Bob Ross work in the same lineup as a Rembrandt.

Certainly, your average person doesn't care about technique, the time involved, or the wounded poet or starving artist backstory. The average person cares about how the final product looks, and I don't think in a blind viewing the average person could tell the difference between the "quality" of a Bob Ross landscape when compared to other highly regarded landscape artists.

In a blind viewing, I think it would be the same story even if you raised the bar to "artsy people", who might be art enthusiasts or artists themselves. I'm guessing that most people (me included) think Rembrandt is a far better painter than Bob Ross. But how much of that perception boils down to what is essentially branding? As a lifelong art enthusiast, I've been trained to know that Rembrandt is superior to Ross. It's a fundamental given. But in a blind viewing of 20 pieces where I wasn't told who created what, I bet there's a solid chance that I (and many art lovers) could be made to look foolish in not immediately choosing a Rembrandt over a Ross.

It's my prediction that in a blind viewing of 20 pieces, you'd have to reach the .05% level of the viewership bell curve before they could fairly consistently point to a Bob Ross painting as being inferior to the work of surrounding masters. The hyper-enthusiast art snob likely has the keen eye to tell the difference...although, having watched several fine art "forgeries and fakes" documentaries over the years, I can say even at that level of expertise there is a decent chance they wouldn't know the difference.  

[Bronty]

On 10/6/2023 at 12:31 PM, KingOfRulers said:

It's my opinion that it's primarily the art snobs or wannabe tastemakers that poo-poo Ross' work. People who think they know better than everyone else what is high quality art versus poor quality art. The same type of people that try to show their supposed sophistication and superior intelligence by attempting to convince the world how wonderful and deep Mark Rothko's work is.

If you conducted a "blind viewing" where you put a Bob Ross painting in a lineup with 20 other similarly sized, similarly themed landscape paintings from masters of the craft, each from a different artist (none of them signed or identified), it's my prediction that you'd get a wide array of votes from viewers as to their favorites. I don't think people would scoff at Bob Ross' work unless they knew they were looking at a Bob Ross work in the same lineup as a Rembrandt.

Certainly, your average person doesn't care about technique, the time involved, or the wounded poet or starving artist backstory. The average person cares about how the final product looks, and I don't think in a blind viewing the average person could tell the difference between the "quality" of a Bob Ross landscape when compared to other highly regarded landscape artists.

In a blind viewing, I think it would be the same story even if you raised the bar to "artsy people", who might be art enthusiasts or artists themselves. I'm guessing that most people (me included) think Rembrandt is a far better painter than Bob Ross. But how much of that perception boils down to what is essentially branding? As a lifelong art enthusiast, I've been trained to know that Rembrandt is superior to Ross. It's a fundamental given. But in a blind viewing of 20 pieces where I wasn't told who created what, I bet there's a solid chance that I (and many art lovers) could be made to look foolish in not immediately choosing a Rembrandt over a Ross.

It's my prediction that in a blind viewing of 20 pieces, you'd have to reach the .05% level of the viewership bell curve before they could fairly consistently point to a Bob Ross painting as being inferior to the work of surrounding masters. The hyper-enthusiast art snob likely has the keen eye to tell the difference...although, having watched several fine art "forgeries and fakes" documentaries over the years, I can say even at that level of expertise there is a decent chance they wouldn't know the difference.  

 

A) If you asked 100 non-comic collecting regular folk, off the street, if they preferred a given Jack Kirby work to a given, I dunno, Dan Jurgens, most of them are going to prefer the Jurgens.    Does that really mean Jurgens is a better or more accomplished artist?   

B) I think even the average person is going to prefer the work of an artist that's well regarded for landscapes - let's say Tom Thomson as my way of putting a little Cdn content into the thread - as opposed to a Ross, side by side.  

Ross was a lot of things but a great renderer of landscapes he clearly wasn't.     That's okay - we can say the Image guys weren't great at rendering at least some things (cough, feet) either - but they have an audience and a relevance regardless, just like Ross.     One of the great challenges as an artist is to get anyone to give a crepe about your work.    Amazing technical proficiency is one way to get there, but its certainly far from the only way, and the other ways are just as valid and just as hard-fought.

 

Edited October 9, 2023 by Bronty

[tth2]

On 10/10/2023 at 2:16 AM, Bronty said:

Amazing technical proficiency is one way to get there, but its certainly far from the only way, and the other ways are just as valid and just as hard-fought.

 

Technical proficiency is so overrated.  For proof, all you need to do is look at Heritage's Illustrated Art auctions, where you can see works by very skilled artists from the 20th century (sometimes the 19th century) go for peanuts. 

Technically proficient artists are a dime a dozen, which is pretty much what many commercial artists got paid for their work.  Only people who can't draw make a big deal out of technical proficiency. 

As I learned from the recent discussion of album cover art, in 1973, Drew Struzan got paid $250 for the week of work it took him to produce the paintings that were used for the front and back covers of "Sabbath Bloody Sabbath".  Technically excellent paintings, but if he had turned the job down it wouldn't have been hard for the record company to find another equally skilled artist willing to take the job at the same or lower price. 

[vodou]

On 10/10/2023 at 1:06 AM, tth2 said:

…in 1973, Drew Struzan got paid $250 for the week of work it took him to produce the paintings that were used for the…

Great money! Annualized that’s $13,000.

Or, $250 was 1,250 new 1973 Marvels, equivalent to $5,000 ($260,000 annualized) today!

Edited October 10, 2023 by vodou

[Bronty]

On 10/10/2023 at 1:06 AM, tth2 said:

Technical proficiency is so overrated.  For proof, all you need to do is look at Heritage's Illustrated Art auctions, where you can see works by very skilled artists from the 20th century (sometimes the 19th century) go for peanuts. 

Technically proficient artists are a dime a dozen, which is pretty much what many commercial artists got paid for their work.  Only people who can't draw make a big deal out of technical proficiency. 

As I learned from the recent discussion of album cover art, in 1973, Drew Struzan got paid $250 for the week of work it took him to produce the paintings that were used for the front and back covers of "Sabbath Bloody Sabbath".  Technically excellent paintings, but if he had turned the job down it wouldn't have been hard for the record company to find another equally skilled artist willing to take the job at the same or lower price. 

$250 seems exceedingly low for the time period.    Either he was fresh out of school... or something..?     From my own collecting I've learned that the guys freelancing for art agencies in the 80s/90s doing this sort of work would typically be paid more like 2000-4000 per illustration at the time.    The agency would then bill the client a marked up number, say 7500 or 10,000.      Early 70s I could see the artist's rate being a fair bit cheaper than that 80s/90s figure...  but not $250 cheap??   hmm.

 

Edited October 11, 2023 by Bronty

[alxjhnsn]

On 10/11/2023 at 10:37 AM, Bronty said:

$250 seems exceedingly low for the time period.    

 

On 10/10/2023 at 2:54 AM, vodou said:

Great money! Annualized that’s $13,000.

When I graduated from Rice University in 1978 with a BS in Electrical Engineering, I made $17K/yr, ~$325 week. I was paid weekly and my rent was about one week's check. I'd say that $250 in '72 wasn't bad at all.

[Bronty]

I guess.   There was a lot of rapid inflation in the 70s so maybe between inflation and being very early in his career, it would be possible.

Just kind of shocking at that's literally 1/10 of what people were being paid 15 years later.

[vodou]

On 10/16/2023 at 10:46 AM, Bronty said:

There was a lot of rapid inflation in the 70s so maybe…

Dunno about Canada or Europe but here regular gas went from 20 cents to a buck, 5x, same period 😉

[Randall Dowling]

On 10/6/2023 at 11:31 AM, KingOfRulers said:

It's my opinion that it's primarily the art snobs or wannabe tastemakers that poo-poo Ross' work. People who think they know better than everyone else what is high quality art versus poor quality art. The same type of people that try to show their supposed sophistication and superior intelligence by attempting to convince the world how wonderful and deep Mark Rothko's work is.

If you conducted a "blind viewing" where you put a Bob Ross painting in a lineup with 20 other similarly sized, similarly themed landscape paintings from masters of the craft, each from a different artist (none of them signed or identified), it's my prediction that you'd get a wide array of votes from viewers as to their favorites. I don't think people would scoff at Bob Ross' work unless they knew they were looking at a Bob Ross work in the same lineup as a Rembrandt.

Certainly, your average person doesn't care about technique, the time involved, or the wounded poet or starving artist backstory. The average person cares about how the final product looks, and I don't think in a blind viewing the average person could tell the difference between the "quality" of a Bob Ross landscape when compared to other highly regarded landscape artists.

In a blind viewing, I think it would be the same story even if you raised the bar to "artsy people", who might be art enthusiasts or artists themselves. I'm guessing that most people (me included) think Rembrandt is a far better painter than Bob Ross. But how much of that perception boils down to what is essentially branding? As a lifelong art enthusiast, I've been trained to know that Rembrandt is superior to Ross. It's a fundamental given. But in a blind viewing of 20 pieces where I wasn't told who created what, I bet there's a solid chance that I (and many art lovers) could be made to look foolish in not immediately choosing a Rembrandt over a Ross.

It's my prediction that in a blind viewing of 20 pieces, you'd have to reach the .05% level of the viewership bell curve before they could fairly consistently point to a Bob Ross painting as being inferior to the work of surrounding masters. The hyper-enthusiast art snob likely has the keen eye to tell the difference...although, having watched several fine art "forgeries and fakes" documentaries over the years, I can say even at that level of expertise there is a decent chance they wouldn't know the difference.  

I'd love to take you to a major art museum, like the Art Institute of Chicago or the Met in NYC.  After spending an afternoon looking at those works with someone that can share some knowledge about them, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't feel the same way.  It really isn't about "artsy people".  It's about something much, much more. 

The fact that most people lack literacy doesn't mean reading is a waste of time.