Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
The Joy of 'Repainting'
Welcome to the forum.
Here you can discuss all things art with like-minded artists, join regular painting challenges, ask questions, buy and sell art materials and much more.
Make sure you sign in or register to join the discussions.
Hang on Studio Wall
This is a Studio member-only feature!
Join our Studio membership and save your favourite Painters Online content, from gallery artwork to step-by-step guides, to your own online mood boards. Create your go-to place for inspiration and learning. Plus, members can also enjoy a range of exciting features including monthly art videos and a digital magazine library.
If you are already a Studio member, simply login to your account.
Not a Studio member? Why not try our free 30-day trial - no commitment, no credit card required
Message
Posted
My November copy of the Artists & Illustrators has just dropped through the letterbox and it has a 4-page article inside on how to paint like Bob Ross, with the title 'The Joy of Repainting'.
Nothing too surprising in that perhaps but American artist Nicole Bonneau and I quote ''is on a mission to paint all 403 of Bob Ross' artworks from his 1980's TV series, The Joy of Painting''. Apart from the obvious question of why you would want to put yourself through that ordeal I couldn't help but wonder if Bob's work and style is still popular (that's assuming that it was popular and it must have been), and still has enough credence for A&I to afford so many column centimetres to this style of painting.
I do know that Bob's name crops up on the forum from time to time, often in a negative way as I recall, I can't stand this style of painting personally, sterile and without soul and bears little or no resemblance to the world outside of the studio and reality.
That aside, I do believe that he still has a large following, and that his TV series encouraged many thousands of people to have a go at painting so it can't be all bad on his part, mission accomplished as they say. Those of you who do like Bob's work can see Nicole take you through a step by step work in progress on one of his paintings, or of course you can still see the man himself at work on Sky TV channels, yes, that's 30 or so years later, oh the joy of repeats...
Posted
Hi Alan , i never liked his style of painting it was formulaic and to me lacking any emotion , the man himself seemed to have a good personality and came across as likeable .
He seemed to have a huge influence on amateur artists worldwide and his type of painting and style is still evident over here .
Posted
Too late - I've seen it.
Bob Ross was a lovely man by all accounts, and I listen to more than watch his shows on YouTube, because they help me to sleep - he has that kind of voice, and it's always interesting to watch a painting develop, even if it's not a very good one. He was what he was - TV painter who had to finish a painting in 25 minutes (which I'm blowed if I'd want to try and do) - he was a showman, demonstrator, he encouraged others by basically creating a hobby form of oil painting: didn't hurt anyone, didn't make any contribution to art either, didn't really pretend to.
But why a (presumably) serious painter wants to replicate those generally twee, formulaic landscapes and wonky shacks that always seemed to appear, presumably using the same kind of very thickened, filler-crammed paint, house-painting brushes and trowels, all 400 plus of them, and why a magazine I took to be a serious arts publication would even think of publishing this - well, there you have me.
Bob Ross was a good man who died too soon, but the very last thing an art mag should be filling its pages with is any encouragement to others that his was a method worth pursuing; in a hobby magazine, fine (although having seen the prices of Bob Ross Inc products these days, it's going to be an expensive pastime) but even if I'm never quite sure what art is, I do know what isn't. I had more respect for A & I than that - haven't seen the article, but I'm distinctly unimpressed by what I've now heard about it..
http://www.isleofwightlandscapes.net
http://www.wightpaint.blogspot.co.uk
Posted
I've never watched a Bob Ross programme, being dissuaded by the type of paintings he produced, which I agree seemed formulaic and soulless. That said, he deserves credit for encouraging large numbers of people to give painting a try and hopefully a significant number progressed beyond the 'BR method'.
The only recent experience I have of Bob Ross is a couple in our art group who booked a one week residential course somewhere around the Med with a tutor who 'taught in the Bob Ross style'. They are competent painters but in my opinion their work suffers from the BR deficiencies so maybe his legacy is still thriving, as demonstrated by the article in A&I.
Posted
Well I must admit when I first saw one of BR´s programmes back in 2005 I thought I´d have a go never having done landscapes before. I believe I have progressed from those beginnings having spent decades painting abstracts and famous buildings previously. I cannot finish any of my works in 25 minutes but I enjoy every minute of it. See for yourself if this is a BR type painting or my own style.
Posted
Absolutely right Robert, Pat's painting, to answer his question is nothing remotely resembling a Bob Ross work, and whether painted with reference from a photo or not is irrelevant, it's a fairly detailed piece which has many merits.
I've come across a fair few of these BR Certified Instructor's, they all paint exactly the same as Ross, in fact you can't tell the difference and after a few sessions their students are all up and running and churning out work in the Ross style like little clones, but probably happy and contented little clones as they aspire for nothing more. I don't know what credentials one needs to be an instructor or indeed how long the training takes, I won't bother to find out.
Posted
That's an interesting point about painting from imagination. I started a painting a few months ago based on a sketch of a view I know reasonably well but not intimately. Once I started the painting I did not use any references but painted an imaginary version of the view I knew. Several people saw the finished article and recognised the scene although I had to point out that if they cared to compare the painting to a photograph or the view itself they would find it somewhat different. They all said the painting had the feeling of being at the viewpoint while acknowledging that it was not an accurate representation of the actual view. The painting sold in an exhibition last month to a punter who 'recognised the view' although, among other things, it included a hamlet in the foreground that doesn't exist in reality!
Maybe that is the essential point with BR in that he painted scenes from his imagination albeit comprised of representative elements put together in differing scenarios. I often use photographs to start a painting but put them away when I have sketched the scene and started blocking in base colours. Maybe the difference is subtle but when I paint I am interested in portraying light and atmosphere (whatever that is!) using the framework taken from reality whereas BR wanted simply to paint an attractive but in many ways sterile scene using elements put together to that effect..
Whose to say BR was 'wrong'. He has many disciples and if they are happy he can't be all wrong. Painting is a broad church and accommodates all sorts of genres I do not find inspiring but if someone else does then who am I...
Posted
Thanks for taking a look at my painting and confirming that it is not in the BR style. Seeing Bob just gave me the incentive to have a go at landscapes 10 years ago. Here are the painting and the photograph I have worked from (there is more blue in the photo than there is in the original by the way).
Posted
Here is the next installment
https://landscapeartblog.wordpress.com/2016/10/12/how-to-paint-the-interior-of-a-mansion-part-2/