[blueblimp]

> 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.

[prmoustache]

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]

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]

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.

[LPisGood]

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]

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]

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]

2k I think could get you two paintings by some of the most famous current water color artists(going off memory)

[tanewishly]

Perhaps, but unless one of them is Walt Disney, I've never heard of them - therefore their fame does not impact my valuation of their work. I can see myself spend 50 bucks on a (to me) unknown piece of art because it is pretty. Spending more would require an additional connection - fame of artist, depicts something dear to me, seems like a good investment, etc. etc... only being pretty isn't enough.

[tayo42]

If you want to think about it as art as just a thing that's made

Canvas or paper will be a few dollars to maybe 10

Paints maybe another 10 per painting by the end.

Then maybe a professionals time for like 100/hr. Idk if you can even hire a plumber that cheap.

A 2 hour painting should cost maybe 400 by an unknown but professional.

[tanewishly]

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]

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.

[tanewishly]

The thing is: I'm not looking for an unremarkable painting. I sincerely am not interested in one. So spending my money that way would be counterproductive.

Related: if you feel this style of painting is so unremarkable, why are you advocating for others to support knock-offs? To use an analogy: I have zero interest in buying a Louis Vuitton handbag - but my interest in buying one of the far cheaper knockoffs you can get at touristy places from shady peddlers is a lot lower than that.

[moron4hire]

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.

[rxtexit]

They would certainly go for more than that. Ross didn't paint anything I find even remotely interesting but for $1k, I would buy 20 or 30 Bob Ross paintings right now and sit on them too.

I can't imagine them selling for much less than $20k a painting with a name that everyone knows.

[EduardoBautista]

It’s honestly not that much money. Paintings from artists who are not as famous as Bob Ross can go for thousands.

[mvkel]

1,165 of anything is not very much.

Rolex makes 1,000,000 new watches per year, and the wait lists are years-long.

There is definitely enough demand for all of those paintings to be sold for more than you'd think

[hn_throwaway_99]

> 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.

[hinkley]

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.

[bisekrankas]

Curious how they give that information away like this. Therefore I suspect it is bogus, or at least phrased in that manner just to make it sound more quaint.

"Oh heres several millons worth of paintings sitting in cardboard boxes in our Bob Ross Inc. nondescript office building in Herndon, Virignia -- please dont break in and steal anything!"

[MisterBastahrd]

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?

[margalabargala]

> given that there's demand for them.

Yes, just think of the commercial opportunity!

[ahofmann]

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]

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.

[FireBeyond]

And had threatened legal action towards his son for using his family name as a painter.

[tylrprtr]

Came here to make sure this point was made. Bob Ross Inc's only mission is to make money off a dead man and to ensure his family doesn't receive any of the proceeds.

[joquarky]

Thank you for posting this.

Many people assume it's his family that are the cut throats and don't know the fully story of how the company went to another family.