[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.