4 ms·
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 paintin
by ahofmann 1y ago
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 1y agoWhat artist does though?
- warmedcookie 1y agoThe painter of light
- hn_throwaway_99 1y agoOn 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 1y agoThank you, I found this very insightful.
- dehrmann 1y agoI'd pay a decent amount of some of his darker paintings.
- egypturnash 1y agoAny 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.
- stevage 1y agoWarhol
- burningChrome 1y agoWhich is fascinating to think he wanted to mass produce art and then after he died, the same thing happened; all of his stuff that was still around ended up creating a scarcity and driving up the price of his stuff anyways.
- burningChrome 1y agoBanksy? Until it becomes apparent the people he loathes the most are the ones willing to pay him ungodly amounts of money for his "art"; so he relents and sells it to them anyways.
- qingcharles 1y agoI don't knock Banksy for making a buck here and there. I can't see he even licenses any of his art for merch. He says all his art is free for non-commercial use. I don't think there's any commercial aspect to his work. When I briefly knew some of his graffiti friends in the early 2000s they were struggling like crazy to try and make a quid or two from their art. They were all doing art-for-art's-sake. They were selling their best pieces on eBay for peanuts to pay their bills, or to buy other art they wanted to own. I just regret not buying one of his first pieces when he was selling them for about 100 quid a piece o_O
- jart 1y agoHe doesn't get to decide that. They belong to the people now. Let them have it.
- nkrisc 1y agoSeems like he does, because those who have them are honoring his wishes.
- jart 1y agoIf 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 1y agoAnd 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 1y ago[flagged]
- IncreasePosts 1y agoThen it's just handing them out to people who already are made and not normal people.
- jart 1y ago[flagged]
- nkrisc 1y ago
- paulnpace 1y agoI'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?
- eviks 1y agoUnless you listen to a scholar: > “He was always happy to donate his paintings to fundraisers, or sell his work at a reasonable price,” she says. “Many people who own one acquired it decades ago.”