[HN Gopher] It's nearly impossible to buy an original Bob Ross p...
___________________________________________________________________
It's nearly impossible to buy an original Bob Ross painting
Author : rmason
Score : 115 points
Date : 2021-05-02 11:42 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (thehustle.co)
(TXT) w3m dump (thehustle.co)
| nidgood wrote:
| DeBeers model of scarcity basically.
| economusty wrote:
| Except the quantity of bob Ross paintings is quantifiable and
| finite. We will literally be mining diamonds forever.
| riffic wrote:
| and manufacturing
| vxNsr wrote:
| Interesting that there's no discussion of forgeries? I feel like
| with Bob Ross paintings they're the perfect target for forgeries.
| No one knows how many real paintings exist, anyone can copy them
| by just watching a video and as long as you practice the
| signature a bit yours is indistinguishable from the original.
| fredophile wrote:
| That shouldn't be a problem. It seems like all the Bob Ross
| paintings are owned by a very small group. If you buy a Bob
| Ross painting and the provenance doesn't include any of those
| people you probably have a forgery.
| vxNsr wrote:
| I don't think that's true based on the article: they say that
| he sold 1000s of paintings in flea markets as well as before
| he became famous, those owners may not know they own a bob
| ross but the paintings exist and thus there's a plausible
| explanation for the forgery.
| fredophile wrote:
| My mistake. I only skimmed the article since it was similar
| to a video I'd seen recently on the topic [0]. If they
| mentioned the flea markets in the video I forgot that
| detail.
|
| [0] https://youtu.be/rDs3o1uLEdU
| gwern wrote:
| No, the sources are horrible. You can easily fake up any
| number of Bob Rosses and simply say, "ah yes, I discovered
| another one of the tens of thousands of Bob Rosses which he
| sold as a young man or whipped out in a charity event in a
| small podunk place, and the original owners prefer
| anonymity". In terms of provenance, the sheer number,
| blandness, and indiscriminate original distribution of
| paintings makes it sound like a nightmare. If the market were
| more developed, so selling Rosses wasn't so unusual, I bet
| forgery would become a much bigger problem (although you
| wouldn't be able to tell if done somewhat competently - how
| hard would it be to get paintings and canvases from the '80s
| and defeat pretty much every possible forensics? that was not
| long ago at all... We're not talking trying to forge
| Renaissance masters here.)
| pmoriarty wrote:
| _" If you buy a Bob Ross painting and the provenance doesn't
| include any of those people you probably have a forgery."_
|
| But are the buyers of his paintings actually checking, and do
| those who are buying just to flip even care as long as they
| can quickly pawn it off to the bigger sucker?
| amelius wrote:
| There is a program where anyone can become a certified Bob Ross
| instructor [0]. So I suppose forgery might be just around the
| corner.
|
| [0] https://experience.bobross.com/cri-classes/
| johannes1234321 wrote:
| There are about 117 pictures which are created in the TV
| series, which are probably the expensive ones. If one appears
| as a duplicate the original cna probably be undercover es
| realtively easily.
| mattowen_uk wrote:
| Bob drew 3 copies of every painting you see in The Joy of
| Painting. The first one is a rough one to get the composition
| right. The second one is the 'proper' one, and the third one
| is the one you see him do on TV.
|
| The 'proper' one, the second, was used as a reference during
| the taping of the show, and was off camera but in Bob's
| eyeline.
|
| As such, there are NO 'happy little accidents'. Every stroke
| you saw Bob do was intentional and designed to show you more
| techniques.
|
| As others have said, it was more about the teaching of a
| skill, than the actual paintings.
|
| Source: I have watched way too many Bob Ross documentaries.
| h2odragon wrote:
| > "He was about as uninterested in the actual paintings as you
| could possibly be," says Kowalski. "For him, it was the journey
| -- he wanted to teach people. The paintings were just a means to
| do that."
|
| I'm actually impressed that they haven't cashed out on those
| paintings they hold; wonder how long they'll be able to hold on
| to cherishing memories before "maximizing profits" displaces
| them, and crushes any feeling of goodwill the public has towards
| the custodians of his legacy.
| adrusi wrote:
| I don't know if that's the reason they haven't sold the
| paintings. I suspect the rights to the Bob Ross brand are worth
| a lot more than the paintings themselves. All the paintings in
| their possession probably aren't worth more than a few tens of
| millions. They probably bring in more revenue than that each
| year by letting Bob Ross appear in commercials and selling
| merchandise, and they don't have to deal with the shady world
| of art dealers to do that.
| caymanjim wrote:
| They're not holding on to cherished memories.
|
| > "The paintings have always just sort of been here," she says,
| with a chuckle. "We were sort of behind the times... it never
| occurred to us that anyone would want them."
|
| They've got stacks of his paintings piled up on the floor.
| Nothing in the article indicates that they cherish them or are
| curating them. I don't have a problem with that, but it's not
| like they're doing anyone any good where they are.
|
| Bob Ross wanted to make painting approachable and demystify it.
| He started out selling them himself, sold them or gave them
| away throughout his career. He knew they weren't high art; that
| was kinda the point. I think he would want them sold off if
| having one brought joy to someone. Contrary to crushing
| feelings of goodwill, I think his fans would be grateful for
| the opportunity to have one of his paintings for themselves.
| They're not one-of-a-kind masterpieces that belong in a museum;
| they're paintings for the people.
| gwern wrote:
| Cherished indeed: https://news.artnet.com/art-world/bob-ross-
| paintings-smithso... "In a short video report produced by the
| Times, Joan Kowalski, the president of Bob Ross, Inc.,
| explained that while the company does indeed store Ross's
| many works--around 1,165 of them--they lack the resources to
| do so properly. The video shows the paintings stacked in
| everyday cardboard boxes, piled together in a bland office
| space without much of a filing system. "They're not 'climate-
| controlled,'" Kowalski explains with air quotes, adding that
| it's not "white glove service.""
|
| Interesting to think a little about how Harberger taxes would
| fix this; no one can make the company treat the paintings
| better or do something more productive with them, because
| 'property is monopoly' - but if they had to pay a Harberger
| tax on the tens of millions of dollars those paintings were
| worth, they would probably discover that they can in fact do
| something better with them than stacking them randomly like
| lumber to get moldy in a warehouse or that people would
| happily take the paintings off their hands...
| KONAir wrote:
| His demysfitication should have been followed up with "keep
| at it as much as you can, even if nobody else values as much
| as you do". I find it sad his message got lost; even you
| can't produce a master piece loved by anyone else (because it
| is objectively just "bad") your experience is important to
| you.
|
| It doesn't matter if others like it or pretend as if it is
| likeable; you made a painting and that's all that matters. It
| doesn't have to live up to standarts, it doesn't have to be
| appericated or notice in history. I think encouraging people
| to feel "this oily matter stuck on bursh is now making shapes
| I can interpret on canvas" is more than enough.
|
| (I am super drunk and voliating like 3 or more curfew law
| things, super sorry for the murder of engrish, but I love Bob
| Ross)
| whateveracct wrote:
| i don't know if sentimentality around not cashing out is an
| issue. Bob Ross already "stars" in a goddamn Mountain Dew
| commercial after all.
| jessaustin wrote:
| I don't think Ross consented to that.
| whateveracct wrote:
| I'm sure his estate or Bob Ross Inc or w/e did
| svachalek wrote:
| This is an advantage of being a small private company; without
| pressure to beat numbers every quarter they are free to
| optimize for the best long term outcome.
| BelenusMordred wrote:
| It's the advantage of being a large private company too.
|
| A publicly traded SpaceX would not be attempting to get to
| Mars.
| redis_mlc wrote:
| Who said a private SpaceX is either?
|
| Did Lyft or Uber deliver autonomous driving? Talk is cheap.
| peterpost2 wrote:
| Bob ross namebrand paint and other materials are already kinda
| overpriced.
| pmoriarty wrote:
| _" Today, 1,165 Bob Ross originals -- a trove worth millions of
| dollars -- sit in cardboard boxes inside the company's
| nondescript office building in Herndon, Virginia."_
|
| That's pretty sad, as they're probably at great risk of being
| consumed in a fire or maybe even being damaged by mildew.
| timonoko wrote:
| Introducing "Bob Ross - arc": Almost everytime the painting is
| momentarily an impressionist masterpiece and then he fucks it up
| with happy wheelbarrows and Rococo-style detailing.
| criddell wrote:
| It's not a Bob Ross painting until it has happy wheelbarrows
| and friendly trees.
| nerdponx wrote:
| He addresses this in a few episodes. He said he does it to show
| a full range of possible details and techniques/styles, not
| because it's necessarily good composition.
| didgeoridoo wrote:
| The sweet spot is usually about a third of the way through,
| when he's done blocking out the composition and has begun to
| lay in some good light and shadows. I'd buy a 1/3 Bob Ross non-
| ironically.
| seumars wrote:
| That would be the stage right before the RUINED comments
| start rolling in.
| canadianfella wrote:
| Why did you say non-ironically?
| rhn_mk1 wrote:
| Can you give an example of a painting that started its
| decline in the middle?
| timonoko wrote:
| Problem is that Bob cannot do "air". When he paints the
| distant misty mountain with full contrasts and color, it
| will do ok on its own. But then he adds the wheelbarrow
| with same set of colors and the mountain is not distant
| anymore and painting becomes annoyingly flat.
| elihu wrote:
| Maybe it depends on where you live? From the article, he
| spent a long time in Alaska. Air pollution may have been
| a lot less than what people are used to in cities.
|
| I had a similar issue with Google maps when they
| introduced 3D views. (I don't think it supports that
| anymore, unless they've hidden the feature somehow; I
| guess they've decided it competed with Google Earth?)
| Anyways, my impression was "this is pretty cool, but why
| is it so hazy? Is it like this all the time in the bay
| area, and so Google engineers think this is normal
| everywhere?"
| nerdponx wrote:
| Honestly, most of them. Especially the ones in a "denser"
| forest scene. The Alaska mountain ones are better.
| pmichaud wrote:
| For me it's the GIANT, NEARLY BLACK TREE SLASHED DIRECTLY
| THROUGH THE FOREGROUND AND MOST OF THE SKY that he adds right
| at the end.
|
| It's actually kind of funny to watch in the spirit of a cartoon
| where our plucky protagonist always gets to the end of a
| potentially nice painting then predictably fucks it up in the
| same way every time before the curtain closes.
| tjr wrote:
| Having dabbled in Bob Ross techniques years ago, that giant
| foreground tree was the part that ruined my paintings too.
| Why oh why did I add that?
| [deleted]
| DavidWoof wrote:
| TLDR; Most are owned by Bob Ross, Inc., who aren't selling them
| currently. Also, some unknown number is in the hands of
| individuals who don't know they own a Bob Ross, the article is
| very vague about this. Not in the article, but it's actually not
| nearly impossible to buy one. In fact there's one on sale right
| now for a cool $95K at the Modern Artifacts gallery, who
| specializes in Bob Ross paintings.
|
| I really, really hate this style of article. Here's a question,
| but before we answer it, here's 25 paragraphs of blather.
| [deleted]
| detaro wrote:
| > _Most are owned by Bob Ross, Inc._
|
| For a value of "most" that is <5% of the paintings he created.
|
| > _Not in the article, but it 's actually not nearly impossible
| to buy one. In fact there's one on sale right now_
|
| As mentioned in the article.
| damontal wrote:
| So odd. I watched a preview of Painting with John on HBO and he
| mentioned Ross. Said Ross was wrong. Everyone can't actually
| paint.
|
| Then I wondered if Ross paintings were on the market. Then this
| thread appears.
| thordenmark wrote:
| Everyone can paint. Not necessarily well.
| moksly wrote:
| It's a nice catchphrase to generate attention for your hbo-
| series that is now teaching everyone to paint though.
| havernator wrote:
| I'd assumed Painting with John was as much about painting
| as Fishing with John was about fishing. Is he actually,
| seriously trying to teach people to paint?
| pmoriarty wrote:
| What it means to paint "well" is completely in the eye of the
| beholder.
|
| Some people value technical proficiency, others emotional
| impact, yet others conceptual cleverness or originality, etc,
| etc, etc.
|
| Trained artists often value different things in art than the
| general public, and critics value different things still (and
| often disagree with other critics).
|
| Ultimately it just comes down to personal preference and
| taste.
| edgarvaldes wrote:
| See Ratatouille's interpretaron of "Everyone can cook".
| davedunkin wrote:
| Anyone can cook [?] everyone can cook. That distinction is
| the whole point.
|
| (And Ratatouille is one of the best Pixar movies.)
| kristofferR wrote:
| Great little New York Times mini documentary (10 minutes) about
| Bob Ross Inc.:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDs3o1uLEdU
| ijustwanttovote wrote:
| > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDs3o1uLEdU
|
| This is awesome, thanks for sharing.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| They could try to sell NFTs of the paintings, or do I still not
| get NFTs?
| jozzy-james wrote:
| nobody does
| kibwen wrote:
| They can sell NFTs of them, and you can also sell NFTs of them.
| Anyone can sell NFTs of anything. They're just an attempt to
| impose artificial scarcity on a post-scarcity commodity (which
| is to say, bits in a database).
| jozzy-james wrote:
| I work in the industry dealing with art/design, and the only
| thing I really see NFT being useful for is a chain of custody
| to prove authenticity - but that only applies to newly
| created works, as with historic pieces you're already at a
| crapshoot on specialists validating stuff correctly.
|
| edit: i use the term 'historic' loosely, i just mean stuff
| that has been circulating for a while.
| twhb wrote:
| That only works if every owner participates, and if you've
| got every owner participating in the same authority then
| you don't need NFTs.
| jozzy-james wrote:
| sure, i guess the thought is if you break the NFT chain
| then you essentially devalue your investment. it's an
| interesting use-case, but don't see it widely adopted in
| the art market any time soon.
| mannerheim wrote:
| What prevents a malicious owner from creating a forgery,
| selling that with the NFT, and keeping the original for
| themselves?
| jozzy-james wrote:
| well, the way i understand it is that the NFT signature
| would prevent that. granted, i've only recently been
| looking at NFT and general blockchain custody stuff at
| work - so i might be missing some key parts on how it all
| works.
|
| edit: unless you meant the forgery was the first to NFT -
| which is why i mentioned that i only see it as viable for
| newly created works that have not already been sold.
| crooked-v wrote:
| You can bake a digital signature into an NFT, but that's
| not going to help you verify a physical painting.
| jozzy-james wrote:
| how so? again, i'm pretty new into researching this for
| physical works - but i would assume with the
| provenance/etc that goes into cataloging a piece, it
| should be...well, at least better than what we currently
| have.
| crooked-v wrote:
| How are you going to map a digital signature to in-depth
| verification of a physical painting? There are basically
| no possibilities here that aren't full of holes, because
| the real world doesn't come in discrete byte values.
| jozzy-james wrote:
| i see them as a chain of custody that accentuates an
| already broken system of 'in-depth verification' as you
| put it. but again, i'm only recently looking into the
| validity of using such a thing. more accountability
| should be good, overall.
| mannerheim wrote:
| You still have to trust that nobody in the chain of
| custody has swapped out the physical work with a forgery.
| jozzy-james wrote:
| sure, but it's an extra layer over what is currently in
| place.
| mannerheim wrote:
| The NFT itself can't be forged, but surely the artwork
| itself can be forged? How would the NFT identify the
| forgery from the original if the current owner is saying
| the forgery is the real one?
| cyberge99 wrote:
| An NFT can contain a secret that the buyer can unlock.
| Presumably a pgp key or similar token. True owner
| transfers it to a seller upon sale. This could establish
| and verify provenance.
| mannerheim wrote:
| How does the key or token distinguish the original from
| the forgery?
| jozzy-james wrote:
| don't have the answers on that one, but i would imagine
| it would come with a shift in how stuff is currently
| done.
| detaro wrote:
| Are you talking about digital files or actual physical
| art?
| jozzy-james wrote:
| physical art/design
| crooked-v wrote:
| Here's a meme blog post that's been going around that
| unironically helps with understanding how NFTs work:
| https://i.imgur.com/NJirDQp.png
|
| > imagine if you went up to the mona lisa and you were like
| "i'd like to own this" and someone nearby went "give me 65
| million dollars and i'll burn down an unspecified amount of the
| amazon rainforest in order to give you this receipt of
| purchase" so you paid them and they went "here's your receipt,
| thank you for your purchase" and went to an unmarked supply
| closet in the back of the museum and posted a handmade label
| inside it behind the brooms that said "mona lisa currently
| owned by jacobgalapagos" so if anyone wants to know who owns it
| they'd have to find this specific closet in this specific
| hallway and look behind the correct brooms. and you went "can i
| take the mona lisa home now" and they went "oh god no are you
| stupid? you only bought the receipt that says you own it, you
| didn't actually buy the mona lisa itself, you can't take the
| real mona lisa you idiot. you CAN take this though." and gave
| you the replica print in a cardboard tube that's sold in the
| gift shop. also the person selling you the receipt of purchase
| has at no point in time ever owned the mona lisa.
|
| > unfortunately, if this doesnt really make sense or seem like
| any logical person would be happy about this exchange, then
| you've understood it perfectly
| johannes1234321 wrote:
| One of the best explanations for NFTs however the NFT
| typically contains only a link. Thus the slip you own would
| say "Mona Lisa is at the Louvre" and you can receive an entry
| in the ledger telling you own that slip :)
| TameAntelope wrote:
| Everyone seems pretty excited to tell me that you aren't buying
| the item with an NFT but the reason I suggested it is because
| one of the reasons they cite is sentimental value. The NFT
| would generate value (you own the NFT of a Bob Ross painting,
| maybe an entire episode) without the folks who care about the
| painting itself losing the sentiment, and who would buy the
| "second" NFT of something anyway?
|
| I wasn't being snide or cracking a joke about NFTs, though I
| think that's how I was interpreted.
| edem wrote:
| What's the TL;DR? The article is beyond my maximum possible
| attention span. :(
| [deleted]
| chubot wrote:
| I don't know whether learning that he was a drill sergeant
| detracts from the mythos or adds to it :) But great article
| overall. It is cool that someone can take such a huge turn late
| in life.
| jwilber wrote:
| Awhile ago I tried to train a GAN to let you generate your own
| 'original' Bob Ross paintings. It requiredsome time creating the
| dataset and lots of tracing, but in the end only worked decently
| for winter paintings- I'm guessing because of their less
| complicated compositions and colors palettes.
|
| Random facts: Bob Ross is missing his left index finger and
| avoids including human evidence in his paintings (eg no
| chimneys).
|
| GAN: https://twitter.com/jdwlbr/status/1131244682317484032?s=20
|
| Data: https://github.com/jwilber/Bob_Ross_Paintings
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-05-02 23:02 UTC)