[HN Gopher] It's nearly impossible to buy an original Bob Ross p...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       It's nearly impossible to buy an original Bob Ross painting (2021)
        
       Author : rmason
       Score  : 65 points
       Date   : 2025-06-15 20:21 UTC (2 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (thehustle.co)
 (TXT) w3m dump (thehustle.co)
        
       | ahofmann wrote:
       | While the article is interesting, the lede is buried literally at
       | the very end of the article:
       | 
       | > Ultimately, the real reason there aren't more Bob Ross
       | paintings up for sale is that the artist never wanted them to be
       | a commodity.
        
         | wkat4242 wrote:
         | What artist does though?
        
           | warmedcookie wrote:
           | The painter of light
        
             | hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
             | On that point, I saw a pretty great documentary about
             | Thomas Kinkade called "Art for Everybody" a year or so ago
             | at a film festival. Was pretty fascinating. I won't give
             | away too much but was really interesting to go into the man
             | (and his other artwork) behind the facade.
        
               | p1anecrazy wrote:
               | Thank you, I found this very insightful.
        
             | dehrmann wrote:
             | I'd pay a decent amount of some of his darker paintings.
        
           | egypturnash wrote:
           | Any artist who wants to be able to pay their bills without
           | doing anything besides "making art".
           | 
           | If you can convince giant bags of money pretending to be
           | people that one of your paintings is worth several years
           | worth of the median wage, it's no more a less a commodity
           | than if you're selling hundreds of thousands of prints of the
           | same image for $5 apiece.
        
         | jart wrote:
         | He doesn't get to decide that. They belong to the people now.
         | Let them have it.
        
           | nkrisc wrote:
           | Seems like he does, because those who have them are honoring
           | his wishes.
        
             | jart wrote:
             | If they were smart, what they would do is sell them
             | directly to consumers who will cherish them and give the
             | paintings good homes. Then make the buyers sign a contract
             | of some sort that they can't be resold for X number of
             | years. That way the paintings bring joy and value to
             | others, while respecting Bob's wishes of not being a
             | commodity.
        
               | IncreasePosts wrote:
               | And then they would be involved in lawsuits with normal
               | people who didn't honor the contract. Legally okay, but
               | would be a bad look for the foundation.
        
               | jart wrote:
               | [delayed]
        
             | earnestinger wrote:
             | People who hold them, sued Bob Ross's son for using "Ross"
             | i.e. his last name.
             | 
             | Slimy people.
        
           | rcstank wrote:
           | Who are "the people" you're referring to?
        
         | paulnpace wrote:
         | I'm not clear on the use of the word "commodity" here.
         | 
         | I think if the artist doesn't want the work to be highly
         | commercialized, then maybe the better way would be to have no
         | copyright on their works?
        
       | blueblimp 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.
       | 
       | This seems like a bit of a waste given that there's demand for
       | them.
        
         | margalabargala wrote:
         | > given that there's demand for them.
         | 
         | Yes, just think of the commercial opportunity!
        
         | ahofmann wrote:
         | I wondered also, but then I've read to the end of the article.
         | The article seems to be a bit disingenuous, because the real,
         | real reason seems to be, that the Bob Ross Inc. respects the
         | wish of Bob Ross to not make his paintings a commodity.
        
           | arp242 wrote:
           | They put him in a Mountain Dew ad:
           | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q51bomzSQ_s
           | 
           | The Kowalskis sued to exclude Bob Ross from the company
           | bearing his name in the final days of his life, when he was
           | struggling with cancer.
           | 
           | So let me carefully suggest that Bob Ross Inc. is not as
           | benevolently looking out to preserve the heritage and legacy
           | of Bob Ross as you might think.
        
         | hinkley wrote:
         | There's wanting to own one as property, and then there's
         | wanting to own a souvenir of an experience. Like a patch, or a
         | t-shirt, or a trophy.
         | 
         | Maybe they should do some Bob Ross events and give the
         | paintings away either as a prize or do a charity raffle. Shit
         | make a foundation to get art supplies to underprivileged kids
         | and use the sales to establish a trust for the foundation.
        
         | prmoustache wrote:
         | The scarcity makes the demand. I doubt there are that much
         | people wanting low/average quality paintings, even if it has
         | the signature of a person as famous as him. But the 3 of them
         | are willing to spend a lot of money on it. If anyone could buy
         | an original batmobile, people would grow tired of seeing them
         | in the street and they would lose their appeal really quickly.
         | 
         | Most fans of Bob Ross would probably have painted something
         | similar. What he teached was that the enjoyment came from the
         | process and that anyone could paint similar low/average
         | uninspired stuff.
        
           | LPisGood wrote:
           | I don't care about art very much and I would be pay a
           | thousand or two for one. I know that's much but given that
           | I've never bought a painting before and I don't think I'm
           | particularly unique, I believe this signals there is pretty
           | large demand.
        
             | prmoustache wrote:
             | Because he was a celebrity?
             | 
             | I paint myself occasionally some similarly uninspired
             | stuff, and bar 2 painting I hung in the living room and
             | corridor, I throw them away (or rather reuse the canvas)
             | because I don't even consider them art but rather artisanal
             | decorative items.
             | 
             | 2 thousand can get you much more interesting paintings.
             | There are many talented but barely known artists anywhere
             | in the world waiting for you. You just have to visit
             | galleries whenever you are visiting a town.
        
               | tanewishly wrote:
               | No, because he painted something that I find pleasant to
               | look at and consider it worth money. The price is higher
               | because of the artist's fame, that much is true - but
               | that is always the case with art.
               | 
               | I mean, you're basically arguing about taste... Bob Ross
               | was a lot more famous than most other artists, not in the
               | least because many people liked what he produced.
        
               | prmoustache wrote:
               | He was more famous because he appeared on TV, and
               | transfered/the joy of painting, not because of his
               | paintings. They were unremarkable to say the least.
               | 
               | A lot of people are trying to make a living painting
               | landscapes with the same painting for dummies style that
               | Ross used (not invented). It seems counterproductive to
               | give money to speculators for an unremarkable painting of
               | a dead man when you can spend a fraction of that to buy a
               | similar decorative painting and contribute to the income
               | of someone who actually worked and spent time on it.
        
               | LPisGood wrote:
               | Maybe it's indirectly because he's a celebrity but moreso
               | because the show brought me tremendous joy and I'd like
               | to own some of that.
        
               | robocat wrote:
               | I found a friend's painting in the free pile at an
               | opshop. Told them about it and they thought it was a
               | hilarious - they'd sold it for $65.
               | 
               | I have the painting to another friend as inspiration
               | about the value of art - they love it.
               | 
               | Too many people suggest to artists that they should
               | monetise their work, which is kinda sad I think.
               | 
               | It is good to make art because you want to (assuming one
               | can afford to), not because you want money or $status. If
               | you want to chase money then that's fine too, but
               | understand the negatives that come with that choice.
        
               | dehrmann wrote:
               | The thing with art is that there's always more of it
               | getting created by people who either do it as a hobby or
               | will accept low prices out of desperation to "follow
               | their dreams," they're competing with all the existing
               | art out there, and while some gets lost to natural
               | disasters and neglect, the better stuff sticks around.
        
               | tayo42 wrote:
               | 2k I think could get you two paintings by some of the
               | most famous current water color artists(going off memory)
        
               | moron4hire wrote:
               | If you really want to support working artists, go to
               | craft shows. They're a good time and you'll get to meet
               | the artist.
        
             | EduardoBautista wrote:
             | It's honestly not that much money. Paintings from artists
             | who are not as famous as Bob Ross can go for thousands.
        
           | hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
           | > that anyone could paint similar low/average uninspired
           | stuff.
           | 
           | I hated this sentence. What is wrong with art that is
           | actually, you know, pretty to look at. Obviously Bob Ross
           | paintings aren't very complicated, as they're designed for
           | amateurs to be able to follow along in the instructions. But
           | I find many of his paintings quite beautiful, and if anything
           | the joy in seeing how simple brush strokes can create such
           | beautiful paintings.
           | 
           | Tracey Emin's "My Bed" "sculpture" sold for two and a half
           | million pounds. So people pretending there is some high
           | objective or moral difference between "high art" and
           | "low/average uninspired stuff" are, frankly, full of
           | themselves IMO.
        
             | prmoustache wrote:
             | I myself paint similar stuff. I don't consider that art,
             | rather artisanal decoration. I didn't invent my own style,
             | nor did he. I am not pushing any boundaries or trying to
             | make people question my goals, process and results.
             | 
             | You can find something pretty, that doesn't mean it is art.
             | And you can find something ugly but it is art even if you
             | don't subscribe to it. It is also unrelated to the actual
             | effort in hours spent. I would say the difference lies in
             | the process and state of mind of the author.
        
         | MisterBastahrd wrote:
         | If he didn't want them sold, he should have destroyed them.
         | Because even if his current heirs decide to keep them locked
         | up, eventually someone is going to come to the realization that
         | they don't need to work anymore if they sell a few of them, and
         | why would you spend your life working for someone else when you
         | could just get rid of something that only takes up space to
         | begin with?
        
       | Bayaz wrote:
       | There were plans for a Bob Ross Wii game that sadly never came to
       | fruition. Maybe it can be revisited in AR/VR.
        
         | HPsquared wrote:
         | VR painting in general sounds cool. I wonder if there's
         | anything you could do with painting 3D shapes.
        
         | jrm4 wrote:
         | Having played with VR painting? I'm genuinely shocked that it's
         | not a killer app for VR. Feels like it should be BIGGER than it
         | is.
        
         | ToucanLoucan wrote:
         | Maybe this is the wrong site for this viewpoint, but I don't
         | see what in the world the best damn AR/VR painting game in the
         | world has over actually painting.
         | 
         | Like an expensive canvas is what, $20? And paint can be had for
         | like $5-10 a tube, and unless you just slather the shit on your
         | paintings, you can go quite a long ways on a tube.
         | 
         | Like I play Call of Duty because I don't actually want to
         | experience a warzone. Who wouldn't want to actually paint?
        
           | hinkley wrote:
           | VR is not going to be able to reproduce the experience of
           | applying pen to paper or brush to canvas. So does it even
           | really work as useful practice?
        
           | xandrius wrote:
           | 0 gamification, no incentives and no in-app purchases with
           | real painting.
        
             | ToucanLoucan wrote:
             | .. are these supposed to be the upsides? Or were you just
             | answering what's different, haha.
        
           | Bjartr wrote:
           | Being able to do it without having physical materials and
           | tools on hand is more convenient.
           | 
           | Yeah, you can get by with very simple tools and materials,
           | but a digital version doesn't limit you to only the simple
           | things.
        
           | egypturnash wrote:
           | No drips.
           | 
           | No cleanup.
           | 
           | No need for figuring out what to do with the canvases.
           | 
           | Any color of paint you want, possibly including ones like
           | "polka dots" or "tiled faces of Nic Cage" or "color-cycling
           | rainbow".
           | 
           | And your brush strokes can be 3d contours of virtual paint
           | hanging in the air instead of marks on a flat canvas.
        
           | probably_wrong wrote:
           | > _Like an expensive canvas is what, $20? And paint can be
           | had for like $5-10 a tube_
           | 
           | I think you're oversimplifying how much of a hassle painting
           | can be. Sure, one canvas and one tube of paint cost you $25,
           | but you also need to include brushes (duh), an empty jar for
           | water, a palette or an old plate, an easel or a table where
           | paint spills are not a problem, plus the time to set it all
           | up, clean your brushes afterwards, and tear it down (unless
           | you have an empty garage, with people in apartments typically
           | don't). And then there are the lessons which, if you're a
           | beginner, mean several one-hour chunks (and several canvases)
           | until you feel even mildly comfortable on your own.
           | 
           | I think VR painting is to painting what Guitar Hero is to
           | playing a guitar - you may not be a "real" painter
           | afterwards, but as long as it's fun...
        
         | wishfish wrote:
         | I'm very surprised there's not a Bob Ross painting app. One
         | which would have presets for every color, brush, and blade from
         | the show. People could fire up the app and use their Apple
         | Pencil or stylus to follow along.
         | 
         | I did that once on a boring Saturday. Used Procreate and a
         | Pencil to follow along with a couple of shows. Had to pause it
         | more than once to find & download a matching brush in
         | Procreate. Was quite fun. I think a dedicated app would sell
         | extremely well.
        
       | paulnpace wrote:
       | When the licensing expo was in town here in Las Vegas, two
       | separate attendees told me that Bob Ross licensed products fly
       | off the shelf.
        
       | bluefirebrand wrote:
       | I think that "I don't want people to just buy my art" is
       | consistent with the persona of Bob Ross, at least presented on
       | TV. Maybe he was a different person in private, I don't know.
       | 
       | But Bob Ross the personality trying to teach people The Joy of
       | Painting? I think he would rather people paint their own than buy
       | the ones he painted
        
       | Footkerchief wrote:
       | When did clickbait headlines become acceptable here?
        
       | NaOH wrote:
       | (2021)
       | 
       | Previous discussion when submitted by rmason:
       | 
       |  _It's nearly impossible to buy an original Bob Ross painting_ -
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27014367 - May 2021 (85
       | comments)
        
       | CubsFan1060 wrote:
       | Fun video about the same topic:
       | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDs3o1uLEdU
        
       | paxys wrote:
       | I don't know why the article and everyone here is coming away
       | with the conclusion that Bob Ross didn't want his art to be sold.
       | 
       | A simpler reasoning is that there wasn't any demand for his
       | paintings while he was alive. His show ran from 1983-1994 and he
       | died in 1995. He was reasonably popular at that time, sure, but
       | Bob Ross as we know him only blew up in the 2010s in the
       | internet/YouTube/streaming age.
       | 
       | Now there is a trove of 1,165 paintings which are no doubt
       | valuable, but cannot all be sold because they would flood the
       | market and decrease their own value. So Bob Ross, Inc. is
       | cleverly keeping them under lock and key and letting the scarcity
       | drive prices up.
        
         | earlyriser wrote:
         | Yeah, this was what happened when Warhol died, the market was
         | flood with thousands of works.
        
         | lurk2 wrote:
         | > He was reasonably popular at that time, sure, but Bob Ross as
         | we know him only blew up in the 2010s in the
         | internet/YouTube/streaming age.
         | 
         | He remained popular after his death. I can remember seeing
         | memes of Bob Ross as early as 2008.
        
           | Modified3019 wrote:
           | Going back further, from what I saw he had notoriety even
           | back in 2003/2004 on 4chan.
        
             | Rendello wrote:
             | Peep Show was calling him "God" in 2003:
             | 
             | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74sDcT7Z3M0
        
           | derektank wrote:
           | Yeah, I grew up watching reruns of his show on PBS in the
           | early 00's. It was much more fun to watch when home sick than
           | Antiques Roadshow.
        
         | tanewishly wrote:
         | Bob Ross was known in my country (in Europe) due to his show at
         | the time. Not quite universally, but probably closer to a
         | household name than any other living painter was at the time.
         | Dunno how it was in other countries in Europe, but still. The
         | man was relatively well known for paintings, paintings that
         | were regarded well by the general audience (experts: dunno).
         | 
         | So while maybe he couldn't be selling his paintings for 1000s
         | to the decently-off, there clearly was ample demand. If he
         | truly wanted to make a boatload, he easily could have.
         | 
         | Related: the treasure trove could easily be sold 1 painting at
         | a time. Just don't make it regular - not once a year, but
         | sometimes 2 in 2 months, and then 5 years nothing. That really
         | wouldn't spurs the value that much, if at all.
        
         | Nashooo wrote:
         | Genuinely curious to your age, as I'm suspecting some recency
         | bias? As Bob Ross certainly was well known throughout Europe
         | way before the 2010s.
        
         | khazhoux wrote:
         | > He was reasonably popular at that time, sure, but Bob Ross as
         | we know him only blew up in the 2010s in the
         | internet/YouTube/streaming age.
         | 
         | No, he was well-known already in early 90s (at least on my
         | college campus), and his sayings were pre-internet memes. He
         | was perfect match for slacker stoner culture
        
         | RobRivera wrote:
         | > cannot all be sold because they would flood the market and
         | decrease their own value. So Bob Ross, Inc. is cleverly keeping
         | them under lock and key and letting the scarcity drive prices
         | up.
         | 
         | Personal pet-peeve.
         | 
         | And yes, I know it doesn't really matter to most people.
         | 
         | Still urks me.
         | 
         | "CANT OR WONT!?"
        
         | brandonmenc wrote:
         | > Bob Ross as we know him only blew up in the 2010s in the
         | internet/YouTube/streaming age.
         | 
         | Uh, what?
         | 
         | Bob Ross was very popular in the early 90s while he was still
         | alive.
         | 
         | So much so that he even did a promo for MTV.
         | 
         | https://youtu.be/PuGaV-BvPlE
        
       | ourmandave wrote:
       | The paintings are nice, but I think his ASMR content is worth way
       | more.
       | 
       | Fond memories of zoning out on the couch watching Bob beat the
       | devil out of a 3" brush.
       | 
       | His only nearest competitor was Mother Angelica's Religious
       | Catalog on EWTN.
       | 
       | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLEVtOGGC5U
        
         | erickhill wrote:
         | As a kid I enjoyed his mentor, too: Bill Alexander.
        
       | neilv 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."_
       | 
       | That could be true. Though, someone is sitting atop a treasure
       | trove, the value of which is pinned to the legend being promoted
       | by this article.
       | 
       | For Bob Ross, I wonder whether he might've been too humble to
       | consider that his shows touched many people, such that -- besides
       | whatever personal creative journey he encouraged them on -- some
       | might appreciate having a tangible, more direct link to him, of
       | one of his own paintings.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-06-15 23:00 UTC)