Any ART Aficionados in the House? (Mosconi Painting)

images
 
Last edited:
jason said:
With all due respect Jay, I don't consider that art. It's a craft and a technique with a little showmanship thrown in. There are plenty of "art studios" where they have assembly lines painting the same image over and over. Many times with multiple "artists" or craftsman. You can see many of these oil paintings in the big box stores. Hell, black velvet paintings were even popular for a while and you won't see them hanging in a gallery anywhere.
Click to expand...

Do you consider Andy Warhol's work "art"?

Some people see cues as art, some as fancy tools.

Some people view and collect vintage Ralph Lauren clothes and call them art.

Like aiming systems, and stating what cue hits good....ultimately beauty and defining or determining what is "art" is in the eye of the beholder.
 
Matt_24 said:
Do you consider Andy Warhol's work "art"?

Some people see cues as art, some as fancy tools.

Some people view and collect vintage Ralph Lauren clothes and call them art.

Like aiming systems, and stating what cue hits good....ultimately beauty and defining or determining what is "art" is in the eye of the beholder.
Click to expand...

We could get into the debate of what art is and what it is not, but I won't go there.

If you want to compare someone like Bob Ross with Andy Warhol, then more power to you. That is your choice. I'm not going to sit here and say everything the art world says is the gospal either. I personally appreciate a high quality craftsman. Any Warhol was not that in my opinion. If fact, he started out on the commercial side.

Davinci was an artist, inventor and engineer. Picasso could paint and draw well, but not with the techniques or talent of many of the masters before him. It was a new era with his generation. Photography was changing everything.

Modern times are different. Artists from the past used their skill to depict realism. There were no cameras. Even today their are less illustrators and more photography. Even when photography was considered an art to many, technology has really leveled the playing field there too. Many professional photographers have a really hard time making it.

Coping something is not an art, but rather a learned skill. For entertaining purposes...here is a video for you all.

She actually does a pretty damn good job. And EZ on the I's too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiV1zP6PDY0
 
Last edited:
jason said:
We could get into the debate of what art is and what it is not, but I won't go there.

If you want to someone like compare Bob Ross with Andy Warhol, then more power to you. That is your choice. I'm not going to sit here and say everything the art world says is the gospal either. I personally appreciate a high quality craftsman. Any Warhol was not that in my opinion. If face he started out on the commercial side.

Davinci was both artist, inventor and engineer. Picasso could paint and draw well, but not with the techniques or talent of many of the masters before him. It was a new era with his generation. Photography was changing everything.

Modern times are different. Artists from the past used their skill to depict realism. There were no cameras. Even today their are less illustrator and more photography. Even when photography was considered an art to many, technology has really leveled the playing field there too. Many professional photographers have a really hard time making it.

Coping something is not an art, but rather a learned skill. For entertaining purposes...here is a video for you all.

She actually does a pretty damn good job. And EZ on the I's too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiV1zP6PDY0
Click to expand...

Debating the definition of "art" would be endless and an altogether pointless endeavor. If YOU believe something is art, then it's art - despite what anyone else says. One artist said (and I forget the name), "I'm an artist, so anything I make is art." Hey, why not?

I love Bob Ross. Bob Ross was an artist and craftsman. I include "craftsman" to an extent because he had his specific "wet on wet" technique with oil paint, and used his creativity within the constraints of that technique and was very good at it. Anyone could learn those techniques and with some practice make some pretty decent landscapes. He wasn't a kidding....his techniques were legit and produced nice results for what they were. Also, he was excellent at sharing it with the world and making a lot of people happy.

Warhol and Picasso (and Pollock and many of the greats) were innovators. The work they made created a massive critical and emotional response (despite the techniques they used...whether painting themselves or overseeing a factory. It was different and exciting. Of course, they were some of the first to also sell "themselves" as characters along with their art. What can I say? It worked.

These days with the availability of materials, resources, technology.....everybody and their mother is a photographer and artist. Everybody is a "photorealistic" artist as well. Ugg.....how boring. Chuck Close was the last interesting photorealistic guy -- but I wouldn't hamstring him as that either. To my knowledge he's still producing incredible works. I was able to see once of his gigantic photorealistic paintings (this one was from the 60s I think when he started) at an exhibition in St. Louis and it was something special to behold.

Banksy came along and made street art interesting. I'm personally curious to see who the next big thing in the art world will be. I also enjoy the works of Todd Schorr and Greg Simkins these days.
 
Thanks for the responses. The comments made for an interesting read. Glad I posted this. I'm probably going to pass for now (wasn't totally serious) but still think it's cool. :cool:
 
Matt_24 said:
Debating the definition of "art" would be endless and an altogether pointless endeavor. If YOU believe something is art, then it's art - despite what anyone else says. One artist said (and I forget the name), "I'm an artist, so anything I make is art." Hey, why not?

I love Bob Ross. Bob Ross was an artist and craftsman. I include "craftsman" to an extent because he had his specific "wet on wet" technique with oil paint, and used his creativity within the constraints of that technique and was very good at it. Anyone could learn those techniques and with some practice make some pretty decent landscapes. He wasn't a kidding....his techniques were legit and produced nice results for what they were. Also, he was excellent at sharing it with the world and making a lot of people happy.

Warhol and Picasso (and Pollock and many of the greats) were innovators. The work they made created a massive critical and emotional response (despite the techniques they used...whether painting themselves or overseeing a factory. It was different and exciting. Of course, they were some of the first to also sell "themselves" as characters along with their art. What can I say? It worked.

These days with the availability of materials, resources, technology.....everybody and their mother is a photographer and artist. Everybody is a "photorealistic" artist as well. Ugg.....how boring. Chuck Close was the last interesting photorealistic guy -- but I wouldn't hamstring him as that either. To my knowledge he's still producing incredible works. I was able to see once of his gigantic photorealistic paintings (this one was from the 60s I think when he started) at an exhibition in St. Louis and it was something special to behold.

Banksy came along and made street art interesting. I'm personally curious to see who the next big thing in the art world will be. I also enjoy the works of Todd Schorr and Greg Simkins these days.
Click to expand...

Are you aware that Bob Ross also plagiarized the true inventor of the wet on wet technique whom he taught to Ross? After awhile Ross would not give credit where credit was due. Ross also copied his manner of speech in certain aspects. Google Bill Alexander.
 
Last edited:
canwin said:
Are you aware that Bob Ross also plagiarized the true inventor of the wet on wet technique whom he taught to Ross? After awhile Ross would not give credit where credit was due. Ross also copied his manner of speech in certain aspects. Google Bill Alexander.
Click to expand...

"Good artists copy. Great artists steal." - Pablo Picasso
 
I had a friend that could take any photograph and project it onto a or rather through a canvas and then just paint the color on it that matched what he was projecting onto the canvas. That is probably what this guy is doing.
 
canwin said:
Are you aware that Bob Ross also plagiarized the true inventor of the wet on wet technique whom he taught to Ross? After awhile Ross would not give credit where credit was due. Ross also copied his manner of speech in certain aspects. Google Bill Alexander.
Click to expand...

How does one plagiarize a teacher who taught a student a technique, did Bob claim he invented the technique? Not trying to argue, but you seem a bit more knowledgeable on this subject than I so would like to hear your opinion.

Also, I had no idea that Bill coined the term "happy little trees", hmmmm....
 
Snooker Theory said:
How does one plagiarize a teacher who taught a student a technique, did Bob claim he invented the technique? Not trying to argue, but you seem a bit more knowledgeable on this subject than I so would like to hear your opinion.

Also, I had no idea that Bill coined the term "happy little trees", hmmmm....
Click to expand...

I didn't want to get too deep into the Bob/Bill controversy....but Bob had him on his show and gave him plenty of credit. Later, Bill just became...well....a bit of a hater.
 
I believe this is what is known as a giclee painting. These are high tech printers that do an amazing reproduction job on a painting or print. These are usually done on canvas and can be touched up by hand giving them a layered effect like you would see on a painting. Brushstrokes are added to the painted print and voila, you have an "original". I had several of these done with an oil painting I had of my mom for family members when she passed away.

There are several articles about this technique online.
 
Last edited:
Snooker Theory said:
How does one plagiarize a teacher who taught a student a technique, did Bob claim he invented the technique? Not trying to argue, but you seem a bit more knowledgeable on this subject than I so would like to hear your opinion.

Also, I had no idea that Bill coined the term "happy little trees", hmmmm....
Click to expand...

It went well beyond just teaching Bill's technique. It went into the realm of selling Bill's brushes and all the supplies Bill invented for the technique as well as his 'way of putting things'. Ross made a side deal with a third party which 'surprised' Bill, if you know what I mean. A student that suddenly becomes your competitor that you're unaware of at first. To be fair, Ross was much beloved for his teaching that mellow way of his and deserves credit and people loved it. As an artist tho, Ross never made it past the 'mountain scenes'. Alexander was by far the artist and innovator. Hope people remember that. Alexander lived a storied and very successful life and was true inspiration to all who knew him.. canwin
 
Matt_24 said:
I didn't want to get too deep into the Bob/Bill controversy....but Bob had him on his show and gave him plenty of credit. Later, Bill just became...well....a bit of a hater.
Click to expand...

Actually Bill was talked into appearing at or near the first show but as time went on ..well you know.. you even stated it was Bob's wet on wet technique which is a natural mistake but that's what people are led to believe as time passes. Bill led a successful interesting life and things didn't quite pan out well for Bob. canwin
 
canwin said:
... Google Bill Alexander.
Click to expand...

I did and Wikipedia had this to say:

Art historians have pointed out that the "wet-on-wet" (or alla prima) technique actually originated in Flanders during the 15th century, and was used by Frans Hals, Diego Velázquez, Caravaggio, Paul Cezanne, John Singer Sargent, and Claude Monet, among many others.​

Would you consider this to be installation art or performance art?:confused: It looks like it has to be kept wet.:smile:
CropperCapture[267].jpg
 
Bob Jewett said:
I did and Wikipedia had this to say:

Art historians have pointed out that the "wet-on-wet" (or alla prima) technique actually originated in Flanders during the 15th century, and was used by Frans Hals, Diego Velázquez, Caravaggio, Paul Cezanne, John Singer Sargent, and Claude Monet, among many others.​

Would you consider this to be installation art or performance art?:confused: It looks like it has to be kept wet.:smile:
View attachment 515052

Alla prima is different than what we're discussing. Alla Prima is using all wet oils with one another to paint something in one sitting, without drying times between layers. You can paint anything this way, but it has it's limits.

What we're talking about is laying down a layer of essentially white oil paint....and then slowing building a scene using certain techniques developed by Bill Alexander to achieve some decent landscapes, etc, in a short period of time.

Normal oil paintings are done slowly building up layers, glazes, etc.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top