Bob Ross Paintings
Zoloft
look. Shame he died at 53, hs was a gifted man.
Bill.
Puree
"Zoloft" <zol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fuAzf.110318$km.84228@edtnps89...
***He was good, no doubt about it. On a different plane was John Nagy, of
"John Nagy Learn to Draw". He was quick, and had a patter that Mr. Dressup
would be proud of.
John van Gurp
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Zoloft wrote:
> If anyone here wished they could paint like Bob Ross, give this site a
> look. Shame he died at 53, hs was a gifted man.
>
> Bill.
Sort of a paint-by-numbers style :-)
John
John van Gurp
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, lucretia borgia wrote:
> x-no-archive:yes
> Though I don't always feel beautiful likenesses are paint-by-numbers.
> Ever seen Pat Burstall paintings and prints ?
>
> http://www.hmcsnavyships.com/
I agree. Burstall's paintings seem to be done with the purpose of
rendering an accurate image of naval vessels in a painterly style. Bob
Ross' paintings (to me anyway) seem flat and lifeless. There's a
methodology in creating them that tries to compensate for natural talent.
Then again, who am I to criticise? lol - I may know a bit about art but I
certainly have no real experience producing anything. This is just my
personal taste and opinion.
To put it in perspective, I find Alex Colville's famous works to be boring
and non-stimulating. It's just drafting as far as I am concerned. Many
many people would argue the opposite. His early works OTOH are moving. His
war art is really something else. Any art that makes your mind fill in
"the blanks" and that makes you use internal imagery to complete the work
is good art imo.
Taste is a personal thing and can change at whim.
Cheers,
John
Gabby
"John van Gurp" <j...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.106...@halifax.chebucto.ns.ca...
>
> To put it in perspective, I find Alex Colville's famous works to be boring
> and non-stimulating. It's just drafting as far as I am concerned.
Glad to hear it's not just me. I feel the same way about most of
Christopher Pratt's stuff.
> Many
> many people would argue the opposite. His early works OTOH are moving. His
> war art is really something else. Any art that makes your mind fill in
> "the blanks" and that makes you use internal imagery to complete the work
> is good art imo.
>
> Taste is a personal thing and can change at whim.
So true. My greatest reaction to a work of art occured at the Multicultural
Fest in Dartmouth in the mid 90s. Was walking through a tent and came upon
a display of works by Dozay Christmas. One piece left me with tears
streaming down my face and a lump in my chest because I couldn't afford to
buy it. Van Gogh has never had that effect on me. I grieve that painting
to this day.
The second time something like that happened was at a display of amateur art
in Grand Falls N.L. I came upon a watercolor piece depicting an old
weathered house with a clothes line on which hung a colourful quilt. The
house itself reminded me of my grandfather's house and the quilt was so
beautifully rendered! I had to have it.
"If you like that one, come over here", said my friend. There, behind a
divider, hung another watercolor by the same artist. It could have been the
same house from a different perspective. This time the quilt was a crazy
patch and it took up most of the foreground. Both pieces now hang in my
living room. I never tire of looking at them.
What makes those two pieces 'amateur' and Rembrant's "The Man in the Golden
Helmet" a masterpiece. I'd never want the Rembrant in my living room.
Gabby
Gabby
"lucretia borgia" <lucreti...@florence.it> wrote in message
news:ulbvs1l9elf0ev26c...@4ax.com...
> I was never much into modern art but underwent a slight change of
> thought at the National Gallery in the summer, they have some
> interesting pieces - ignoring that ridiculous purchase of the three
> blocks of colour.
Fire? You mean that didn't speak to you and bring a tear to your eye? You
philistine, you! ;o)
I don't know what's in that room now, but the year my friend and I were
there, on the right wall as you faced 'Fire' hung another painting by the
same artist. A small rectangular white canvas with a red stripe down one
edge. The sign read "Donated by the artist's wife" causing my friend to
comment "Feeling guilty for getting so much money for 'Fire' I guess."
Gabby
John van Gurp
What a great post! From this I extract that "good art" is any art that
moves the viewer.
Cheers,
John
Joni
I love modern art. And still hate that one.
Do they still have the installation with the toilet on the ceiling? (at
least I think it was the ceiling, could have been the wall it was nearly
10 years ago now)
Joni
John van Gurp
Yeah "Voice of Fire"... interesting concept and all, but at $1.8 million
it shear obscenity when you think of how many impoverished kids could
have been sent to school with a good breakfast for that cost...
Cheers,
John
Bob
view it might be what moves a viewer to reach for his wallet!
Bob
Zoloft
the worlds greatest paintings. Also, The Night Watch by Rembrandt I have
viewed at the Rijks Museum in Amsterdam, is a stunning and HUGE work.
Bill.
--
Free Nutrition and Weight Loss Information:
Zoloft
magic of that painting. It has to be viewed in person to 'get' what is
so special about it.
Bill.
lucretia borgia wrote:
> x-no-archive:yes
>
>>I have seen The Mona Lisa 'in person', and it is a masterpiece, one of
>>the worlds greatest paintings. Also, The Night Watch by Rembrandt I have
>>viewed at the Rijks Museum in Amsterdam, is a stunning and HUGE work.
>>
>>Bill.
>
>
> To you. To me Mona Lisa always looked like a smug, self satisfied
> person. Maybe she was, who knows.
>
> As we have just been saying, everyone is touched by art in different
> ways. Just wouldn't do if we all liked the same thing :)
Gabby
>I have seen The Mona Lisa 'in person', and it is a masterpiece, one of the
>worlds greatest paintings. Also, The Night Watch by Rembrandt I have viewed
>at the Rijks Museum in Amsterdam, is a stunning and HUGE work.
>
> Bill.
I haven't had that pleasure, but in '98 I had the opportunity to see the
Courtauld Collection at the Toronto Art Gallery. I was thrilled to see
Renoir's "La Loge", but more because I was seeing a Renoir than because of
the painting itself, although I could hang that one in my living room --
along with Degas' Dancers. Seurat, OTOH, left me completely cold.
Rodin's 'The Kiss' I find a beautiful sculpture but I failed to be moved by
being in the presence of some of his gynecological 'studies' yet they are
considered masterpieces too.
Jackson Pollock is supposed to be some kind of genius, but the one work of
his that I saw was bits of wire & drips of paint between two sheets of
acrylic. Left me scratching my head.
Oh yeah, one that I saw at the National Art Gallery was called 'Flower". It
was a canvas painted to look like a page out of a scribbler. I don't get
it.
Art appreciation is quite subjective. I supposed if I'd thought of painting
a red stripe on a blue canvas and someone had offered to pay me millions for
it I'd feel differently.
Gabby