This does happen from time to time, but it has been worse than usual lately.
Someone wanted to compare Bob Ross with Richard Schmid.
Now, you have probably heard of Bob Ross but not Richard Schmid, which is a damn shame.
Go take a few minutes to look at his work. Right now this second.
Richard Schmid is one of the most masterful painters still alive today.
His work belongs in museums, and I hope one day he gains that institutional esteem.
Especially because he kept doing extremely skillful art despite the modern art garbage that took over everything.
So, someone wanted to compare the work of Bob Ross with that of Richard Schmid.
Ok, here are the similarities:
1. Oil paint is involved with both.
2. Bob had cool hair and Richard has a cool hat.
3. The End.
BOB ROSS TO RICHARD SCHMID
IS LIKE PUTTING
IS LIKE PUTTING
YOUR 4TH GRADER'S VIOLIN CONCERT
ON THE SAME LEVEL AS
A SYMPHONIC PERFORMANCE OF MOZART.
You do not compare those things. Why not?
Because they aren't on the same level at all in any way so they cannot and should not be compared.
Comparing Bob R and Mr. Schmid should not be done for those same reasons.
People always say, "Oh but Bob got me started, he made so many people love oils...etc etc."
And it's true that Bob exposed many, many people to painting in a positive way.
Bob is like that beginner teacher you loved madly but taught you such horrible technique (if any) that your next teacher who worked with you had to un-do everything you thought you already knew, and you didn't like it because you loved Bob and his Happy Trees soooo much because messing around made you happy. It didn't matter that you couldn't play (or paint) AT ALL.
There isn't anything wrong with that, but it is most certainly NOT painting in any kind of formal or serious sense. So there is no comparison. It is an insult to those who have dedicated their lives to furthering their artistic development.
Bob Ross is entertainment first and foremost. Not true, learned, practiced skill.
He personally might have had some...I read that he painted outdoors in Alaska for years. He also studied with and ripped off Bill Alexander's gig. So, ironically, all those Bob Ross knock-offs everywhere...he himself was a knock-off!
His work is generic, easy, superficial. It appeals to the masses because it is easy.
It is easier to read at a sixth grade level than a college level.
It is impossible to explain the underwater depths to someone who has only ever touched the surface.
The surface is all that exists to them. They don't know any kind of depth because it is beyond their comprehension. They are content and satisfied with the surface, the easy, the generic.
They cannot recognize anything else nor can they consider it in their scope of existence/evaluation. It isn't that they aren't capable, it is that they have stayed superficial and "safe" their whole lives. So that's how they evaluate everything.
Those of us who live in an artistic underwater AND on the water AND above the water existence can only shake our heads at the complete ignorance which abounds.
I don't care if this post is snarky or snobby or whatever.
It's my blog and I'll snark if I want to!
PS Comparing Bob Ross to Richard Schmid is like comparing those amazing flat screen light boxes to Crayolas!