> This will probably be a very unpopular opinion Not because of Bob Ross, but because it's based on the false premises of what is today (as in: last hundred ye

> This will probably be a very unpopular opinion Not because of Bob Ross, but because it's based on the false premises of what is today (as in: last hundred years) considered and accepted as art. In the previous and this century, not only the artist displayed objects that were extremely easy to produce, they were also able to display the objects even not produced by them as their art. 1917: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp) Not to mention that the "performance" and the items used in performances are also considered art. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_art https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_art A lot of text, articles, books, papers etc were written about all that during last 100 years. Of course there are many experts and books evaluating some specific works and their "artistic value" but nobody can claim based on the arguments you gave that something has "close to zero artistic value." A counterexample for the opinion of experts at the given point of time: https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2009/10/moma-owns-up-to-warhol-rejection-letter-from-1956.html https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2009/10/moma... These works could have low current "market" value, but I don't think that was tested up to now.