Bob Ross vs Pablo Piccaso

Post Reply New Topic

Who do like better Bob Ross or Pablo Piccaso explain

A bit of an unfair comparison, don't you think? Pablo Picasso had a unique perspective on his subjects and his art and was unafraid to be forward-looking with it. Bob Ross simply enjoyed painting and had the attitude that "anyone can do this." I don't think either really tried to change the world of art, and that certainly wasn't Bob Ross's goal (there was never anything NEW about his work, compare with Picasso).

They came from two completely different backgrounds. Picasso's father was an academic and had a rigorous approach to teaching. Bob Ross studied with another "anybody can do it" kind of instructor. Picasso started working in art as a small child. Ross started towards the end of his military career. Picasso made money from his paintings. Ross made his money from his TV show and instructional products/materials.

Picasso had a LONG history of painting and was highly skilled in what he did. Yeah, the Cubist works are great, but you also have to look at his entire life's work. Picasso had the ABILITY to produce photo-realistic paintings, but he wasn't ignorant of artistic movements going on around him. He was influenced by the impressionists and early modernists. Even the Cubist stuff wasn't all THAT forward looking when you consider that Picasso's work was always representational as opposed to abstract. There was a high degree of abstraction, but it wasn't the total loss of a subject in painting. Later artists would do that. At any rate, if you're looking for "who was the most skilled and versatile painter?" then hands-down it's Picasso.

What Bob Ross taught us is that nobody should be intimidated by art. You can do some impressive landscapes with some very simple techniques. It's also worth noting Bob Ross basically repainted the same old pictures from one show to the next. There's going to be a mountain. There's going to be a lake. The lake has a reflection of the mountain in it. Some stray clouds. And a happy little tree. He broke painting down so much you'd think a kindergartner could do these paintings, and I really do think that's the whole idea. You aren't going to take a Bob Ross class and start painting portraits. You're not even going to be Andy Warhol.

I'm not a painter and not well-educated in art, btw, but I'm always fascinated by painters. I came from a semi-pedantic background in playing musical instruments--clarinet and piano--and am also a composer. My own children are getting the musical equivalent of what Picasso got as a kid. I WISH I knew how to convince my piano students that playing piano isn't unlike learning Bob Ross painting. Learn your chords and inversions. Learn some chord progressions. Excellent…now let's play "Sweet Home Alabama" along with the recording. Now let's learn Bach's Prelude in C from WTC. Awesome! Now on to scales… Let's try this Mozart sonata…all it is is chords in the left hand and scales in the right. Now let's do some George Winston… Thing is, if you learn I chord, IV chord, and V7 chord with Alberti bass, you can do all the classical composers, and it's not unlike learning Bob Ross painting. The technique is pretty sparse. Classical composers are not very heavy-hitting. If you want to graduate up to Chopin and Rachmaninov, or any of the 20th Century composers and later, you're going to want much more substantial study.