Bob Ross PAINTING Names
Martin
I do for a living) So I decided to do this for myself. I have so many
it is a huge undertaking. I have about 60 shows on tapes. The problem
is I only have about 5 books. Here is my problem. I need to be able to
put the Painting Name and the book together on the DVD menu. I have
already made a test DVD and it is far better than watching the tapes
just for ease of navigation. I also cut all of the front credits from
the beginning and end so I could get 6 shows on one DVD. That coupled
with some neat encoding makes for a nice DVD.
So if I could get some help with paintings names I would be most
grateful.
I will get a screen shot of all of the final frames of each painting
and send them to whoever emails me and maybe I could catalog them. I
am also looking for the 3 Hour workshop tape. I lent mine to a friend
and never got it back. My tapes are real old (13years) so I need to
archive them all soon.
I will trade for the 3 Hour Tape...
Thanks in Advance
Martin C Duffy
Starlightdigitalstudios.com
www.starlightdigitalstudios.com
King Rundzap
available on VHS, but needs to be put on DVD. Maybe you could put in
a bid to do the project for them. The three-hour workshop is already
out on DVD, however.
--King Rundzap
sonof...@yahoo.com (Martin) wrote in message news:<232ae72b.0408...@posting.google.com>...
Dave (BA Hons)
"Martin" <sonof...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> I am archiving my collection of Bob ross recordings to DVD. (Its what
> I do for a living) So I decided to do this for myself. I have so many
> it is a huge undertaking. I have about 60 shows on tapes.
Doesn't he just paint fir trees, lakes and little shacks?
King Rundzap
He was famous for painting landscapes. Those often involved trees and
water, as well as mountains, skies, etc. which is probably not
surprising for a landscape, and quite a few had little shacks, yes.
--King Rundzap
Dave
"King Rundzap" <kingr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > I am archiving my collection of Bob ross recordings to DVD. (Its what
> > > I do for a living) So I decided to do this for myself. I have so many
> > > it is a huge undertaking. I have about 60 shows on tapes.
> >
> > Doesn't he just paint fir trees, lakes and little shacks?
>
> He was famous for painting landscapes. Those often involved trees and
> water, as well as mountains, skies, etc. which is probably not
> surprising for a landscape, and quite a few had little shacks, yes.
I'd forgotten about the mountains behind the fir trees.
You have to admit most of his painting looked quite like each other.
sarpedon
Don't forget the happy little clouds.
sarp
King Rundzap
similarities between a lot of his paintings, making him pretty
recognizable, aside from his signature. But that's not unusual, a lot
of artists have styles in that way, at least during different periods,
if not the same one over most of their careers. The odd thing, maybe,
is that both academically and especially professionally, a narrowing
of output is usually recommended--in subject matter, media, style,
etc.--for fine artists, with the aim of associating the artists with a
style, at least early in their careers, but critically, some artists
(like Ross) tend to be chastised about that, while others (such as
Bosch, Rembrandt, Bouguereau, Gaugin, Tanguy, Pollock, etc.) do not
tend to be criticized about having a style in the same way.
Even some artists with a bit more diverse output overall, such as
Dali, who continued to occasionally do some works throughout his life
that a casual Dali viewer wouldn't likely peg as being his work, had a
style, with similar elements in the Bob Ross way (just different
elements), in 80% of his output, although you can break it into
periods. The same is true of someone like Picasso, who was different
mainly in that he had a larger number of stylistic changes over the
years, and one style to the next was more dissimilar.
Funny comment about the mountains, though.
--King Rundzap
"Dave" <pizzalovi...@allstar.gg> wrote in message news:<YMNYc.524$Ve6...@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net>...
Bob C
> Bob Ross had a "style", and that style was responsible for a lot of
> similarities between a lot of his paintings, making him pretty
> recognizable, aside from his signature. But that's not unusual, a lot
> of artists have styles in that way, at least during different periods,
> if not the same one over most of their careers.
It wasn't just a style, it was a method which could be used to
repeatedly generate completely predictable results. He had well defined
techniques which in a matter of minutes - or even seconds - would let
him create the same tree, the same mountain, the same lake over and over
agin. If you ever saw him on television doing one of his 5 minute
paintings, you realize that there wasn't a lot of creativity or
expression going into it. He did, however, seem to truly love what he
was doing, and that's good enough reason for doing it.
- Bob C
King Rundzap
Except . . . that I couldn't disagree with that much more than I do
(with the exception of your last statement). It _is_ a style, and
part of a style _is_ a method, or a set of habits, by which
individuals "repeatedly generate predictable results". That includes
Tanguy generating his desert/seascape geometric or "geomorphic" forms,
Dali generating Port Lligat settings or rhinoceros horns, Bouguereau
generating angels or the particular way he drew feet, etc. It's
simply not true that every time those artists did those things they
reinvented the wheel (with respect to their works).
The speed with which something is rendered doesn't make it more or
less a style, and for a lot of the other artists I was referring to,
we don't actually know how long it took them to do characteristic
things. Yes, Bob Ross worked fast on television, out of necessity,
and when he painted in other venues, he could and did take a bit more
time. Not that more or less time makes a better or worse painting, in
general.
Also , I am _very_ familiar with Bob Ross' television show (I'm a bit
of a painting show "fanatic"--I have tons of Bob Ross, Frank Clarke,
Jerry Yarnell, etc. on VHS), and he did _not_ do the "same tree" or
"same mountain" in every painting any more than Dali did the "same
Port Lligat", Bouguereau did the "same angels", Pollock had the "same
swirls" etc. and I don't agree that there isn't a lot of creativity or
expression going into the works--he did creative works in his style,
which stemmed from his passions.
It's ridiculous that folks criticize Bob Ross (I'm not just thinking
of your post, but the general attitude of the "art literati"
concerning Ross) when the same kinds of criticisms could be used for
most the "accepted" artists, or the artists that they like.
--King Rundzap
King Rundzap
Bob Ross supposedly had, if one actually watches a number of the
shows, they're not quite so rote as the mythology has it. For
example, mountains would sometimes start with palette knives,
sometimes with a two inch brush, sometimes with a fan brush, sometimes
with a filbert, etc. The same is true of all of the other elements in
Ross' paintings, and is also true of composition in all aspects. Of
course, it's true that a large number have mountains, or trees, or
rivers/lakes, or clouds, etc., but as I sarcastically noted in an
earlier post, that shouldn't be too surprising when we think about the
fact that he was primarily doing realist landscapes. He also did
plenty of desert landscapes, seascapes, quaint "farmscapes", etc.
Most of them are wide-focus lanscapes, but again, that's a stylistic
decision, just as most of Georgia O'Keefe's flower painting are
primarily (if not exclusively) close-focus. Yet, the art literati
rags on Ross but not O'Keefe.
I don't think they should rag on either one. I'll defend Ross until
I'm blue in the face, or at least until the critics are being
consistent, partially because I think the criticisms have to do with
factors that aren't really about his paintings, but about cultural
mythologies and norms, cliques, resentment of success achieved through
alternate means, etc. The other part of that equation is that I like
Ross' works a lot, and think he was also a great person and teacher.
--King Rundzap
Bob C <bob...@erols.com> wrote in message news:<41348C98...@erols.com>...
the guvnor
"King Rundzap" <kingr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> Something else I thought I should add. Even for the "methods" that
> Bob Ross supposedly had, if one actually watches a number of the
> shows, they're not quite so rote as the mythology has it. For
> example, mountains would sometimes start with palette knives,
> sometimes with a two inch brush, sometimes with a fan brush, sometimes
> with a filbert, etc.
"Let's go crazy"...
> I don't think they should rag on either one. I'll defend Ross until
> I'm blue in the face, or at least until the critics are being
> consistent, partially because I think the criticisms have to do with
> factors that aren't really about his paintings, but about cultural
> mythologies and norms, cliques, resentment of success achieved through
> alternate means, etc. The other part of that equation is that I like
> Ross' works a lot, and think he was also a great person and teacher.
Well said, clearly he liked to paint mountains, with fir trees, rivers and
little shacks, but if he encouraged people to have a go, then good on him.
King Rundzap
looks like it didn't go through (I got an error on Google Groups, but
that happened before and I ended up with duplicate posts).
Anyway, I also wanted to point out that I misread something you said
the first time. I read you as saying, "It wasn't a style", rather
than, "It wasn't _just_ a style". I probably wouldn't have been so
spastic in my response if I had read that correctly, lol, but I think
I was anticipating the usual ridiculous public comments about Ross
that I've seen in the past from artists.
--King Rundzap
Bob C <bob...@erols.com> wrote in message news:<41348C98...@erols.com>...