This article by Miles Mathis criticizes Bob Ross, arguing that his painting techniques and materials were detrimental to artists and his art is not as valuable as mainstream perception suggests. Mathis, a professional artist with expertise in traditional techniques, contends that Bob Ross’s use of odorless paint thinner and quick, trick-based methods produced paintings that are not durable and lack artistic merit. He suggests that ross’s early death from lymphoma might be linked to his use of toxic art supplies, a danger he believes is exacerbated by odorless thinners that mask their toxicity. Mathis also critiques the broader art world’s promotion of “everyone is an artist,” arguing it devalues true talent and realism, which he feels has been systematically suppressed by Modernist critics and institutions. He posits that ross’s success and legacy, including his business dealings and family history, were heavily influenced by external forces, possibly including the CIA, and that the mainstream art establishment has manipulated the perception of art to favor Modernism over traditional realism. Mathis also delves into a controversial interpretation of Bob Ross’s family tree, suggesting connections to powerful figures and organizations.
Here is a list of subjects, names, references, locations, companies, etc. from the text, marked with double square brackets:
Miles Mathis argues that Bob Ross was WRONG in his artistic methods and teachings. Mathis identifies himself as a professional artist with experience in traditional techniques, contrasting his own approach with ross’s. He claims ross’s paintings, often stored by the Kowalskis, are likely deteriorating due to inferior materials. Mathis criticizes a Bob Ross painting being sold for nearly $10 million in Minneapolis, calling it a cash grab and comparing its quality to cheap finds in Goodwill stores. He points out ross’s large signature as a flaw.
A key point of contention is ross’s use of odorless paint thinner. Mathis explains that turpentine, derived from pine tree sap, is natural and compatible with traditional oil paints, lasting for centuries. In contrast, odorless paint thinner, made from naphtha, toluene, and acetone, is more toxic. Mineral spirits, derived from oil or gas, are even stronger and smell like “death.” Mathis advocates for hardware store turpentine (old gum spirits of turpentine) as a safer and more effective solvent.
Mathis suspects that Bob Ross’s early death at age 52 from lymphoma was due to a combination of factors, including smoking and the inhalation of odorless paint thinner. He cites the example of Spanish portrait painter Joachin Torrents Llado, who died at age 47 in 1993 from similar issues, using a medium based on mineral spirits and a special retarder. Mathis believes odorless thinners are dangerous because their lack of scent creates a false sense of security, leading artists to overexpose themselves to toxic fumes. He suggests even ross’s cameraman may have died of cancer.
Mathis offers practical advice for artists: use hardware store turpentine, keep it covered, change wiping rags frequently, and throw old ones outside. He personally has had no health issues at age 60 despite working with white lead grounds and using a respirator for sanding. He dismisses the need for masks for general painting, citing Covid concerns.
Regarding the availability of art supplies, Mathis questions why turpentine is purportedly outlawed in California, with Bing suggesting it’s due to its irritant properties. However, Mathis claims mineral spirits are the ones banned for containing volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and that turpentine is still available, while mineral spirits and odorless mineral spirits (which he finds worse than turpentine) are also available. He speculates that oil companies are phasing out turpentine to eliminate competition, using environmentalism or health as a pretext.
Mathis also critiques Bob Ross’s sermon that “everyone was an artist,” arguing that this idea has been distorted and weaponized against artists like himself. He notes that realism has been out of fashion and actively suppressed in the art world since around 1910, often equated with Nazi illustration and censored in universities. He contrasts this with portrayals in films like Felicity, where New York University students are shown painting portraits, a practice he claims hasn’t occurred since around 1940. He suggests aspiring artists must now go to places like the Art Students League for traditional training, though even there Modernism has infiltrated.
He contrasts the “everyone is an artist” idea with the criticism of his own “ego” by his online detractors, who he believes are incapable of addressing his arguments. He sees this as a tactic to leverage the American ideal of “all men are created equal” to shame and ostracize those who believe in their own expertise. Mathis compares this to the selective application of the “everyone is an artist” principle, noting that people accept that not everyone can be an NBA player due to talent, but feel entitled to artistic talent. He blames Jerry Saltz of New York Magazine for promoting a similar idea with “malignity incarnate,” aiming to eliminate competition for “Modern phonies.”
Mathis feels personally attacked by the art establishment’s dismissal of realism and artists like himself, contrasting his own struggles with Bob Ross’s widespread promotion. He highlights the suppression of realism in the Southwest Art scene and on the East Coast, with only a few exceptions like the Wyeths. He describes a resurgence of realism in the 1990s and 2000s that was subsequently coopted by Moderns.
He criticizes artists like Tim Eitel, who he claims benefited from promotion due to connections rather than talent, comparing him to Bob Ross’s Air Force background. Mathis argues that these artists, along with theories from figures like David Hockney suggesting Old Masters cheated with tools like camera obscuras, have contributed to a “complete misunderstanding and purposeful destruction of my field.”
Mathis accuses critics like Clement Greenberg and Adam Gopnik of attempting to erase distinctions between artists, including Leonardo, Wyeth, and himself, labeling realism as anti-intellectual. He suggests ross was given a pass for being “cute,” staying in his “lane,” and his Air Force background. Eitel is favored for being from the “social register” and Leonardo and Wyeth are beyond reproach as they are deceased. Mathis, being alive, is a target for continued suppression.
He recounts his own ambition in the Southwest Art scene in the early 1990s, where his galleries pushed him towards less challenging subjects. He discusses the destruction of classical art and the limited market for realism by 1990, sustained by cowboy artists and landscapists.
The article also touches on the perceived “ego” of Mathis as a tactic by his enemies. He believes the “equal-time rule” from Bob Ross is selectively applied, contrasting the acceptance of ego in celebrities with the suppression of those who believe in their own abilities outside the mainstream. He argues that the art world intentionally fosters resentment to prevent people from complaining about the decline of real art and real artists.
Mathis expresses fury at his field being “stolen” by “people with no talent,” and at art history being manipulated for “money laundering and propaganda.” He decries the control exerted by “old families” and the lies, slander, suppression, and censorship he and others like him have endured. He also claims to be targeted by “government and military trolls” online.
In an addendum, Mathis questions Bob Ross’s parentage, citing Wikipedia and IMDB. He suggests Ollie Ross’s marriages indicate Jack Ross was likely a stepfather. He notes Ollie’s potential connection to the Shockleys and Google, and Jesse Helms, whom he identifies as a cousin. He also links Bob Ross to the Presleys and Elvis Presley through family ties. He further speculates about Bob Ross’s second wife, Jane, being a Kennedy and Zanardelli, with links to the Hoffmans and the McKennas. He questions the identity of Jack Ross, stating his father was Benjamin Franklin Swindal. Mathis also questions the narrative of Bob Ross’s hair and the origins of his show, suggesting it was not a struggle but rather immediate success, potentially facilitated by the CIA given the Falls Church, VA production location.
He points out that Bob Ross wrote the Kowalskis out of his will due to greed, and they won a lawsuit claiming his work was “work for hire,” implying he did not own his art. He further investigates the business structure, referencing a 2021 Netflix documentary which suggests Steve Ross, Bob’s son, did not inherit his stake, implying Bob never owned it. Mathis identifies Annette Kowalski and her husband Walt Kowalski, suggesting Walt was CIA and that the CIA may have owned Bob Ross and his company from the start, explaining the promotion and “deadly” nature of the products. He notes the company was purportedly split among ross, his wife, and Annette Kowalski, but questions this given ross’s inheritance issues.