Technique isn’t art.

Is Bob Ross more than a teaching method or approach? Is his approach a ‘technique’ in the academic sense or is he simply a businessman, making a living encouraging an activity that includes some of the greatest artists who have ever lived?

Does art have an objective definition (or component) or is the definition entirely subjective?

Technique isn’t art.

Does art have an objective definition (or component) or is the definition entirely subjective?

I think ‘art’ originally did refer to technique. The art of blacksmithing etc.
And it still can be used that way.
However, somewhere along the way, ‘art’ has been elevated to such a divine status, it no longer has any meaning. Anything displayed in a museum or gallery can be described as art. Invisible art. (Seriously). A glass half full in an otherwise empty room. Pretty much anything you can think of.
Art is so all encompassing, who can define it?
My definition is, ‘anything someone calls art is art’. :clear:

Today, a lot of paintings, sculptures etc.. are considered to be “art”, but it’s only within the next hundreds of years that history will define what is to be considered as “art” and what is not.

I am sure Bob Ross wil not be on that list.

Today, a lot of paintings, sculptures etc.. are considered to be “art”, but it’s only within the next hundreds of years that history will define what is to be considered as “art” and what is not.

I am sure Bob Ross wil not be on that list.

Considered by who? The Art critics. The mass media?
If we left it to them they would have discounted the Impressionists who they laughed at.

No. Art is in the eye of the beholder. Not anyone else.

Really? Then, in your opinion, is this also art? [URL]http://categorized-art-collection.tumblr.com/post/59777372314/keith-boadwee-untitled-purple-squirt-1995[/URL]

Yes, that is exactly my point.
The title of the page is “Categorized Art Collection”.
My opinion doesn’t make any difference, it is being passed off as art, and I have seen others similar that are high profile ‘artists’.
Eg, a woman placing paint filled eggs in her vagina, dropping them to a canvas to splatter. Performance art.
As I said, I don’t think the word ‘art’ means anything any more.

Re: Bob Ross/Alexander technique – what’s your opinion?

My opinion is that the techniques employed by both Bob Ross, and Bill Alexander are quite legitimate methods of painting, using the wet-in-wet approach. The only problem is that they didn’t use the technique to achieve the maximum result that they could have.

Now, there is a young artist named Kevin Hill, who uses almost the exact techniques as Ross/Alexander, but he brings it to a much higher level of expectations, and results.

Just Google “Kevin Hill Youtube”, and you will be amazed by the sort of paintings this guy creates, using much of the same techniques as Bob Ross, and Bill Alexander.

Nothing wrong with the techniques; it’s only about how you use them.:thumbsup: