>>752029
i think anon is speaking to the perspective of the art world, rather than his own feelings toward Bob Ross
now it's fair to say that Ross had impressive technique, and he produced evocative imagery that sits well with most every audience due to the nature of his themes which were primarily concerned with idealised representations of landscapes which while inspired by reality, were most often drawn from the imagination
but it is precisely because they were imaginary, and didn't make any particular statement other than humans need to be surrounded by beauty, that cause the critics to dismiss them as folk-art of little relevance, and merely decorative rather than aggressive commentaries on the human condition
yet i think there is an argument to say that Ross' work which ostensibly avoided deconstructive polemics on existentialism, was in fact a very bold counter-cultural statement which lauded such basic needs and also met them; the simple beauty of such pieces alluding to the greater truth that the human soul must be nourished on that which is good, and rather than berate his observers for some perceived flaw which he the great illuminate would disabuse them of; he sought instead to equip them with an appreciation of the beauty around them, both with his own oeuvre and the encouragement to create their own - the act of reproducing their environment being a means to understand it all the more - and thus it is likely Ross' work will stand the test of time much more than some installation of discarded house bricks or a broken urinal; though i think such pieces most definitely have their place in their commentary on cultural values