The Age of Norman Rockwell

[sackett]

The Art of Norman Rockwell show is currently at the Detroit Institute of Arts. My girl friend mis-read a billboard advertising it, from which we get the thread title. I think it's more fun that way.

Non-Americans may not get much out of this thread, buy anyway.

First, you can't fault N. Rockwell's technique. He worked in oils on canvas (a surprise to me), cutting no corners that I could detect, and he worked fast. He had a nearly flawless command of anatomy. His color sense was good. He could compose a picture using conventional academic principles, and almost always make it come out "correct," if that word means anything. The man knew his materials and how to use them. Is it art? Useless question! It's genre painting, and that's about all you can say.

And yet, he didn't create pictures, he created cartoons, or, if you like, little stories. A constantly-repeated theme of the show is "It's simple -- and it's complex." But it isn't complex; it's excruciatingly vapid and untrue; there's nothing there but technique of a kind that impresses the unsophisticated. It's telling that his influence on the American TV family is demonstrable.

Is it still kewl to find things in Rockwell that other people can't see? Hope not; I hate not being kewl.

[Piscivore]

The Art of Norman Rockwell show is currently at the Detroit Institute of Arts. My girl friend mis-read a billboard advertising it, from which we get the thread title. I think it's more fun that way.

Non-Americans may not get much out of this thread, buy anyway.

First, you can't fault N. Rockwell's technique. He worked in oils on canvas (a surprise to me), cutting no corners that I could detect, and he worked fast. He had a nearly flawless command of anatomy. His color sense was good. He could compose a picture using conventional academic principles, and almost always make it come out "correct," if that word means anything. The man knew his materials and how to use them. Is it art? Useless question! It's genre painting, and that's about all you can say.

And yet, he didn't create pictures, he created cartoons, or, if you like, little stories. A constantly-repeated theme of the show is "It's simple -- and it's complex." But it isn't complex; it's excruciatingly vapid and untrue; there's nothing there but technique of a kind that impresses the unsophisticated. It's telling that his influence on the American TV family is demonstrable.

Is it still kewl to find things in Rockwell that other people can't see? Hope not; I hate not being kewl.

I see some interesting things in some of his work, but those are not the pictures that get endlessly reprinted in dreadful insurance company calendars.

[sackett]

I see some interesting things in some of his work, but those are not the pictures that get endlessly reprinted in dreadful insurance company calendars.

To be sure, the show included one canvas from 1944 (not a Post cover or even an illustration) that was almost a respectable picture -- almost, but he spoiled it with a clownish face (one of his Massachusetts neighbors no doubt) painted into a crucial part of the design. He had abundant ability, hell, I'm willing to call it talent, but no taste.

We had a soda and a piece of cake in the Kresge Court, then strolled through an exhibit of 18th. century drawings. Not all of them were remarkable, but God were they a relief.

[Bikewer]

Most of the stuff Rockwell did as illustration for publications and magazines. Apparently, he had little intention of keeping these works, many of which were rescued by family or staff.

He was capable of producing potent works; I have seen a few in art publications. One from the Vietnam era was titled "Blood Brothers", and showed two dead GIs lying next to each other, one white and one black. Pretty powerful. Did not make the cover of the Saturday Evening Post....

[AStone]

While Rockwell is best known for his slices of small-town Americana, he has done a few pieces that are both respectable and moving.

This piece shows that he was not blind to the world's, especially America's, problems: http://www.artchive.com/artchive/R/rockwell/rockwell_mississippi.jpg.html

Another:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The-problem-we-all-live-with-norman-rockwell.jpg


He also did a painting for the cover of either Look or Life in the late 60's or early 70's about the Vietnam war. I remember seeing it in, I think, Smithsonian Magazine about a year ago, but I cannot find it now. It was terribly disturbing, and I could only tell it was by Rockwell by his signature in the bottom right. If I can find it, I will pm you a link.

[sackett]

While Rockwell is best known for his slices of small-town Americana, he has done a few pieces that are both respectable and moving.

This piece shows that he was not blind to the world's, especially America's, problems: http://www.artchive.com/artchive/R/rockwell/rockwell_mississippi.jpg.html

Another:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The-problem-we-all-live-with-norman-rockwell.jpg


He also did a painting for the cover of either Look or Life in the late 60's or early 70's about the Vietnam war. I remember seeing it in, I think, Smithsonian Magazine about a year ago, but I cannot find it now. It was terribly disturbing, and I could only tell it was by Rockwell by his signature in the bottom right. If I can find it, I will pm you a link.


Thanks for the links. Both of those pieces are in the show, along with background material, including the photograph he used for the Southern Justice painting -- a photo from the Spanish Civil War, oddly enoiugh.

He constantly borrowed figures and poses, famously for Rosie the Riveter. (Did he mine Michelangelo for that one? The physique has a Sistine look, i.e., just barely w/in the normal human range.) Fact is, he just plain distrusted originality, as I suppose the lower middle classes always do. Insipid is how they like it.

It bothers me that major art museums host this show, and not just as a curiosity. Maybe my problem is being old enough to remember the 50s, with all their falseness and make-believe, their hollowness of human relationships, their foolish moral rigidity. Believe me, even teenagers back then (I was one) were aware of the fakery of it all. Most of us didn't have the courage to cry Aw knock it off, Norman! Self-assurance was NOT encouraged in the young!

Rockwell's stuff doesn't actually smell bad; it's too dessicated for that.

[Aitch]

He constantly borrowed figures and poses, famously for Rosie the Riveter. (Did he mine Michelangelo for that one? The physique has a Sistine look, i.e., just barely w/in the normal human range.)

Lots of artists do that; some poses just work.
Fact is, he just plain distrusted originality, as I suppose the lower middle classes always do. Insipid is how they like it.
From what I've seen/read, he worked more as an illustrator than a pure artist. He would provide the pictures his employers wanted; if they wanted insipid, they would get insipid - they were paying the bills. The fact that he also slipped in a few less bland pictures suggest he may have wanted to be more.

And, as an afterthought, the Times is running a poll - advertised in the print version as the Greatest Modern Artist, but on the web-site as Your Favourite. You can vote here (http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/visual_arts/article5700435.ece), and Mr Rockwell is on the list.

One other thing, for some reason (possibly a loose connection somewhere in my brain:boggled:) his work always reminds me of Edward Hopper. Though possibly a more 'wholesome' version thereof.

[Bikewer]

I suppose one could say that the only "original" art might have been the guys doing the cave paintings at Lascaux.....
How many attitudes or postures can the human body make? Surely we can find earlier examples that mirror nearly any artwork that came later....
Mind, I'm not an enormous fan of Rockwell; his illustration work (which as Aitch points out was done at the request of the purchaser) did tend towards the insipid. However, it was beautifully drawn and often humorous as well...
I think most illustrators take shortcuts; I'm on the Frank Cho (comic artist) bulletin board, and one of the guys asked him if he used reference photos. Frank obliged with a whole series of his drawings and the photos he'd taken the pose from....

Not everyone can afford a model for every illustration, and illustrators are often under severe time restraints.

[ImaginalDisc]

Fact is, he just plain distrusted originality, as I suppose the lower middle classes always do. Insipid is how they like it.


Wow.

[alfaniner]

I think the only reason some people say what Rockwell did was not "art" is because a lot of people liked it and understood it. Critics couldn't get by with their pretentious BS when describing his work.

[sackett]

Wow.


Do I go too far? Maybe. But before we can talk about this to much purpose, we have to find somebody who'll admit to being lower middle class. Any volunteers?

[Aitch]

Do I go too far? Maybe. But before we can talk about this to much purpose, we have to find somebody who'll admit to being lower middle class. Any volunteers?

Well, I was born working class, but informed by an upper middle class friend at university that, by getting to university, I was now middle class. :covereyes

Does that count? ;)

[Elizabeth I]

I like Norman Rockwell for exactly the same reason I like Babbitt and The Serial: a Year in the Life of Marin County and the Lucia series: he perfectly grasps and expresses the idiom of a time and place. And some of his stuff just makes me feel good.

[sackett]

I like Norman Rockwell for exactly the same reason I like Babbitt and The Serial: a Year in the Life of Marin County and the Lucia series: he perfectly grasps and expresses the idiom of a time and place. And some of his stuff just makes me feel good.

"Idiom" I'll concede. He did much (although not everything) to define the visual idiom that 'umble folk of that day valued; he taught them to want the fake instead of the real; he made falsehood readily accessible -- and acceptable.

My point is that he didn't express the truth of his or any other time, and he knew it.

An example: One of his Post covers shows a grandmother and her predictably skinny-necked small grandson bowing their heads to say grace over their lunch in a low diner. The people in the diner contemplate them solemnly and reverently. Rockwell himself said that of course it wouldn't have happened that way; somebody would have cracked wise, or mocked, or in some way spoiled the Normal Rockwelliness of the moment.

Well goddammit, why didn't he paint that instead of the sickly fiction he rendered?

Highly representational art is never entirely out of fashion, and hasn't been since Old Kingdom Egypt. It's as valuable and has as much potential as any other kind.

Give me enough wordage, and I'll persuade you that you don't REALLY like Rockwell. Afterward, you'll thank me.

(I like the one of the travelling salesman who's stopped to go for a swim. Keep that to yourself, okay?)

[Elizabeth I]

No, I think there's something to be said for idealizing. There's something to be said for cold hard ugly reality too, so I'm not denying that. I just think there's room for both.

I like the one of the little black girl being escorted to school by the National Guard. I think it expresses the sweetness, the "unprecedentedness" and the wrongness (no little girl, of whatever color, ought to need an armed guard to go to school) of the event.

Too, I think you don't give enough weight to the fact that Rockwell was an illustrator.

[Hooloovoo]

You don't like Rockwell's illustrations. OK. Why did you go to the show?

[Pardalis]

He relied heavily on photography, which is one of the reasons why his pictures were so realistic (the other reason being that he was a genius at illustration to begin with).
http://www.normanrockwellmuseum.org/page63

Comparison between his photographed models and the finished work:
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a154/perdalis/Behind-the-Camera-DayLifeGirlsm_500.jpg
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a154/perdalis/NormanRockwell003.jpg

[sackett]

You don't like Rockwell's illustrations. OK. Why did you go to the show?

Because I think it's advisable sometimes to do something you wouildn't ordinarily do.

More importantly, I have a museum membership so I got in free.

[tomwaits]

There seems to be an implication by some here that art has to be disturbing or accurately reflecting problems in current events. If not, then the art isn't "potent" or legitimate somehow.

I would dispute such an implication.

[sackett]

... I think you don't give enough weight to the fact that Rockwell was an illustrator.

Yes, he illustrated things, but all those Post covers? They're complete in themselves, and I call them little stories for that reason: There's nothing to search for, nothing ambiguous, nothing a cultureless bonehead (my people) won't get.

They aren't very painterly, either. I'll insist on that because I spent two hours almost touching the canvasses with my nose.

After the 18th. century drawings, we spent a few minutes with van Gogh's The Diggers. Goddamn but he could paint! And draw; something I didn't appreciate until very recent years. See above re cultureless boneheads.

[Pardalis]

They aren't very painterly, either.

That wasn't his goal anyway.

[sackett]

There seems to be an implication by some here that art has to be disturbing or accurately reflecting problems in current events. If not, then the art isn't "potent" or legitimate somehow.

I would dispute such an implication.

I would too. However, go here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_of_May_1808

to see a painting that's both disturbing and reflective of then-current events (hell, it's current today; alas for our times), and eminently successful. And by a man who couldn't draw, and sometimes couldn't paint.

Mind you, it's not Norm Rockwell and his work that I object to; he was worth fully 25 cents; I hope my own work is worth that much. I don't object to somebody conceiving, curating, organizing, and promoting a Rockwell show; hell, it's a free country.

But a Rockwell show pains me.

[Pardalis]

to see a painting that's both disturbing and reflective of then-current events (hell, it's current today; alas for our times), and eminently successful. And by a man who couldn't draw, and sometimes couldn't paint.

One doesn't need to be disturbing to be moving.

Rockwell's art was fun and reflective (increasingly more reflective in the latter part of his carreer), which is what you probably mistaken with "genre" or"unsophisticated".

You don't like it, so be it.

[sackett]

...You don't like it, so be it.

Never! You must know why I don't like it! And you must defend to the death my right to say why I don't!

[Monketey Ghost]

Sinclair Lewis captured in words the small-town America far better than Rockwell's cheesy artwork. Enjoy it if you must, but would you frame a Rockwell and have it on your wall at home?

[Pardalis]

Never! You must know why I don't like it! And you must defend to the death my right to say why I don't!

You just compared Goya to Rockwell, it's like comparing Francis Bacon to Rubens. It's just silly.

Sinclair Lewis captured in words the small-town America far better than Rockwell's cheesy artwork. Enjoy it if you must, but would you frame a Rockwell and have it on your wall at home?

Absolutely. People frame art from Lichtenstein too.

[alfaniner]

Absolutely. People frame art from Lichtenstein too.

And Thomas Kinkade.

[sackett]

Well, come to that I hang mostly my own and my girl friend's easel art, because it's cheaper that way.

And while I'm comparing Rockwell to Goya (didn't think I quite was, but anyway), and while we all admit that R. was a genre painter at most, in the Detroit Institute of Arts you may stand in front of the Elder Brueghel's Wedding Dance, probably* the greatest work of genre painting, East or West, in all of history. It's a wonderful antidote to every bad painting you've ever seen. Your foot begins to tap in time with the music.

* I want to say absolutely, but there are no absolutes in this most difficult realm of human activity.

[ImaginalDisc]

Do I go too far? Maybe. But before we can talk about this to much purpose, we have to find somebody who'll admit to being lower middle class. Any volunteers?

I have a white full time collar desk job and make less than the poverty limit. I think I'd have to aspire to that.

[sackett]

...Rockwell's cheesy artwork....

Thank you. I wanted that word, but was too highfallutin to find it.

[Pardalis]

* I want to say absolutely, but there are no absolutes in this most difficult realm of human activity.

You sure act as if there is.

[Elizabeth I]

Sinclair Lewis captured in words the small-town America far better than Rockwell's cheesy artwork. Enjoy it if you must, but would you frame a Rockwell and have it on your wall at home?

An original? Absolutely. Even if I didn't like it, it would be worth a flippin' fortune.

And Thomas Kinkade.

Now that is schlocky.

[Travis]

Why does art criticism always become someone trying to prove how sophisticated they are by hating anything popular?

[Aitch]

Why does art criticism always become someone trying to prove how sophisticated they are by hating anything popular?

I think it's an old 'English' class-based thing - possibly from the days when most of the nobility was 'imported'; a matter of the taste of the ruling (outsider) few being better than that of the (native) proles. A sort of cultural shibboleth.

[Monketey Ghost]

Why does art criticism always become someone trying to prove how sophisticated they are by hating anything popular?

I for one am not sophisticated. Just hate the gawky cartoonishness of his work. Part of the problem is the same reason I didn't like Frank Miller's Spider-Man stuff: people don't remotely LOOK like that.

Elizabeth, so you'd hang something you didn't like on your wall simply because of its market value? Really?

[shemp]

We had a soda and a piece of cake in the Kresge Court, then strolled through an exhibit of 18th. century drawings. Not all of them were remarkable, but God were they a relief.

He didn't do reliefs, he painted. The reliefs are up on the 3rd floor.

As for Rockwell, my feeling about him: At least he's not Jackson Pollock.

[Monketey Ghost]

Which is a funny thing to say because if anything Pollock was a more visionary and, IMO, interesting artist.

[tomwaits]

Which is a funny thing to say because if anything Pollock was a more visionary and, IMO, interesting artist.

Oh boy, here we go again...

[The Central Scrutinizer]

By any measure, Rockwell was a great artist. As was Pollack, for the record.

[Basilio]

Anyhow, it's better than the art of his brother, George :D

Have to pop downtown to see it, and top it off with Roma Cafe!

[Pardalis]

I for one am not sophisticated. Just hate the gawky cartoonishness of his work.

Well, as I showed above, Rockwell relied heavily on photographs, and he is world renown for his extreme realism, so I'm not sure where you get "gawky cartoonishness" from.

[Monketey Ghost]

Well, as I showed above, Rockwell relied heavily on photographs, and he is world renown for his extreme realism, so I'm not sure where you get "gawky cartoonishness" from.

Because people don't really look like that. He takes the obvious features and exaggerates them like a caricaturist would. Is he really any different from a caricaturist who provides more detail?

[sackett]

Somebody said that comparing Rckwll. to Goya was silly. That's exactly right.

Which raises the question, Why is it silly? What makes Our Norm look such a
trifler beside almost any other painter?

I say that it's not his cheesey, gawky, cartoonish style (thankee kindly, Magnifico), but rather his subject matter. He didn't paint the truth. A dishonest representationalist, i.e., a realistic painter who candies over reality, is cheating both his art and his audience.

[Pardalis]

Because people don't really look like that. He takes the obvious features and exaggerates them like a caricaturist would. Is he really any different from a caricaturist who provides more detail?

Did you see Picasso's portraits? Modigliani? Munch? Giacometti? Did people look like that?

but rather his subject matter. He didn't paint the truth. A dishonest representationalist, i.e., a realistic painter who candies over reality, is cheating both his art and his audience.

You can pretty much say that about all painters.

[Pardalis]

Somebody said that comparing Rckwll. to Goya was silly. That's exactly right.

If you want to make an intelligent comparison, you should compare Rockwell to someone like Wyeth.

Both have the same realistic approach and similar talent (in the execution), but each aim for a different tone to their work.

[Hooloovoo]

I say that it's not his cheesey, gawky, cartoonish style (thankee kindly, Magnifico), but rather his subject matter. He didn't paint the truth. A dishonest representationalist, i.e., a realistic painter who candies over reality, is cheating both his art and his audience.

Rockwell wasn't hired to paint the truth. He was hired to paint the cute, idealized world that sold magazines. He was a commercial artist, not a fine artist. If an illustrator has a client that pays well and wants cheesy work, the client gets cheesy work. An illustrator who is hired to produce a certain look and produces something completely different than that look soon finds him/herself very hungry. Rockwell was a great illustrator. He might not have been a great fine artist, but he didn't earn his dinner with fine art.

And there are a few Rockwell paintings I'd love to hang in my house. And I'm not one for syrupy cuteness.

[Pardalis]

It's also all about the tone the artist chooses, Rockwell chose to represent the fun side of life, because that's who he was, while people like Bacon and Munch chose the ugly side, and that's fine too. This doesn't mean he is less of an artist as they were, his body of work is worthy of being called art and worthy of having his own show and recognition.

[Piscivore]

He didn't paint the truth.
No, he didn't paint your truth. This uncapitalised "truth" is a subjective thing. There very likely were, are, and will be people who's life experiences more closely mirror Rockwell's than yours- and to a resident of Darfur or a survivor of some other horror your "truth" may look candied over. It's all perspective.

The glasses through which we view life are all different, all individually unique. Just because some of them are rose-tinted and others darkly does not make the latter more objective.

[Delvo]

Well, as I showed above, Rockwell relied heavily on photographs, and he is world renown for his extreme realism, so I'm not sure where you get "gawky cartoonishness" from.He gets human shapes right, but not the dynamics. So people that are sitting still with little or no particular facial expression are perfect, but movements and some expressions are overdone. If they're leaning forward, they lean too far; if they're walking quickly or running, their feet are too far apart or their bodies are too low to the ground at full leg extension; if the picture's point has to do with their facial expressions, their facial features get pulled too far out of place; if they're gesturing, the whole picture will be centered around the gesturing hand and its joints will be at angles that went slightly too far or the speaker or audience or both looks at the hand rather than at the other person's face; if they're turning their heads to the side, they turn their heads too far; if they're reaching for something, they overextend so much they'd lose their balance...

The differences between how he has people move and how people really move are usually small, so they might not be spotted by some people, and some of those who do spot it might do so subconsciously and not realize consciously that this is why something feels unreal or unnatural about it.

He didn't paint the truth. A dishonest representationalist, i.e., a realistic painter who candies over reality, is cheating both his art and his audience.That's just too absurd to even make sense. It was just pictures of people living their lives. He showed kids playing baseball; kids really played baseball. He showed a mailman petting a dog; sometimes pedestrian postal carriers really do pet dogs. He showed a man reading a newspaper and ignoring something else that was happening nearby; sometimes men really do read newspapers and ignore the rest of their surroundings...

[Pardalis]

He gets human shapes right, but not the dynamics. So people that are sitting still with little or no particular facial expression are perfect, but movements and some expressions are overdone. If they're leaning forward, they lean too far; if they're walking quickly or running, their feet are too far apart or their bodies are too low to the ground at full leg extension; if the picture's point has to do with their facial expressions, their facial features get pulled too far out of place; if they're gesturing, the whole picture will be centered around the gesturing hand and its joints will be at angles that went slightly too far or the speaker or audience or both looks at the hand rather than at the other person's face; if they're turning their heads to the side, they turn their heads too far; if they're reaching for something, they overextend so much they'd lose their balance...

It is true that his mise en scène is intentionally comical, but in no way the physionomy and postures of the characters are unrealistic.

As I keep saying, he relied heavily on photography, his models were either drawn live or photographed. He chose carefully models that had peculiar faces and body shapes and had the ability to make certain facial expressions, he placed his models in certain poses in order to express as much as possible the intention and the character and then photographed them. They were painted faithfully, without exaggeration, that was their faces. His paintings are snap shots of moments taken in time, just like photography. The mise en scène may be caricatural, but the representation of the human body remains realistic.

I would like to see such an example where you feel the posture is humanly impossible, I can't think of any.

[Hooloovoo]

Because people don't really look like that. He takes the obvious features and exaggerates them like a caricaturist would. Is he really any different from a caricaturist who provides more detail?

Is it a bad thing to add a little caricature to an illustration? Al Hirschfeld was a caricaturist, one of my favorite illustrators, and just as relevant as any other artist, commercial or fine. Rockwell was a caricaturist too. He just used paint instead of ink. There's nothing wrong with that. Almost every artist exaggerates things in his or her work. Some don't, but those are usually the ones I find boring.

[bruto]

I find Rockwell interesting, because for the most part I really don't much like his work, yet it is undeniably well executed stuff of its kind. To do him some justice, we must not attribute to him the attitude of his fans. He apparently did not mind being considered an illustrator more than a fine artist. I imagine he knew the difference between a Saturday Evening Post cover and a Monet as well as anyone. He did have considerable technical skill, and every once in a while it worked at a higher level. I have a certain respect for someone who could create such a distinctive and instantly recognizable style, even though I generally care little for the social message, content, and storytelling of the work itself.

To criticize Rockwell for not being Pollack seems a little like criticizing Sinatra for not being Fischer-Dieskau, or Stephen King for not being Saul Bellow. They're not. They're good at something else.

[shemp]

Which is a funny thing to say because if anything Pollock was a more visionary and, IMO, interesting artist.

If you like "art" that can be reproduced randomly by 3-year-olds. I've produced better stuff at the spin-art booths at Hampton Beach.

[Seanette]

I suspect that I could get something more aesthetically pleasing than the average abstract "art" by dipping my pets' feet in paint and sending them toddling across canvas.

[Aitch]

Hmm, not sure comparing him with Pollack, Bacon and so on is that valid.

How about comparing him with some of Hockney's portrait work; for instance Mr and Mrs Clark and Percy (http://www.hubarts.com/photos/uncategorized/02_clark_percy_3.jpg), My Parents (http://eartfair.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/myparents_davidhockney.jpg), and to an extent Beverly Hills Housewife (http://www.artchive.com/artchive/h/hockney/hockney_housewife.jpg)?

The style is, in some ways, similar. However, Hockney is a 'proper' artist, not an illustrator, even though some of his work tends to illustration.

I think My Parents is probably the nearest to a Rockwell, but I'm not sure where I'm going with this; opinions being canvassed. ;)

[Kestrel]

It's also all about the tone the artist chooses, Rockwell chose to represent the fun side of life, because that's who he was, while people like Bacon and Munch chose the ugly side, and that's fine too. This doesn't mean he is less of an artist as they were, his body of work is worthy of being called art and worthy of having his own show and recognition.

Paintings like Southern Justice (http://www.artchive.com/artchive/R/rockwell/rockwell_mississippi.jpg.html) prove that Norman Rockwell didn't always paint the fun side of life.

[bruto]

Paintings like Southern Justice (http://www.artchive.com/artchive/R/rockwell/rockwell_mississippi.jpg.html) prove that Norman Rockwell didn't always paint the fun side of life.INdeed, he could, when he wanted, not only paint the darker side of things, but do it in a way that packed considerable emotional punch. It's still a matter of aesthetic judgment, though, whether this, or similar work such as "The Problem we all Live With" simply qualifies Rockwell, in addition to being a great illustrator, as a great political cartoonist.

[sackett]

about abstract painting.

I doubt that spin-the-disc or dipping an amimal's feet in paint will very often produce successful abstract work. That's the difficult thing about non-representational art: you get no help from subject-matter. If I wanted to please an unsophisticated viewer, I'd draw human figures or faces, or perhaps animals, not any sort of highly or completely abstract work. (BTW, I think that many people, if motivated, can achieve representational art; it's a skill, and used to be widely taught.) Since we want to talk about Pollock, I would estimate that about one in ten of his canvasses was actually a success, i.e., pleasing or troubling, or otherwise rewarding, to look at.

Somebody mentioned Modigliani. There's an anecdote about him that I hope is true; even if it isn't, it's a damned useful insight: At one of his few shows, after he had seen the African mask and had been awakened, a society dame was peering at one of his portraits. She observed, "I've never seen a woman who looked like that." Modigliant was standing near and heard her. He replied, "Madam, it's not a woman. It's a picture."

[Monketey Ghost]

Is it a bad thing to add a little caricature to an illustration? Al Hirschfeld was a caricaturist, one of my favorite illustrators, and just as relevant as any other artist, commercial or fine. Rockwell was a caricaturist too. He just used paint instead of ink. There's nothing wrong with that. Almost every artist exaggerates things in his or her work. Some don't, but those are usually the ones I find boring.

I'm not saying caricature is bad or wrong. I just don't think Rockwell's should be mistaken for great art, and I certainly wouldn't hang one in my home.

[Monketey Ghost]

Did you see Picasso's portraits? Modigliani? Munch? Giacometti? Did people look like that?

by golly you're right! :rolleyes: You say,"world renown for his extreme realism", I say, of course not. I'd make a case for "extreme realism" for Wyeth though. I grew up with a painting of Lorraine's World in my apartment, and can recall a length of time when I wasn't sure if it was a photograph or not.

[Piscivore]

about abstract painting.

I doubt that spin-the-disc or dipping an amimal's feet in paint will very often produce successful abstract work. That's the difficult thing about non-representational art: you get no help from subject-matter. If I wanted to please an unsophisticated viewer, I'd draw human figures or faces, or perhaps animals, not any sort of highly or completely abstract work. (BTW, I think that many people, if motivated, can achieve representational art; it's a skill, and used to be widely taught.) Since we want to talk about Pollock, I would estimate that about one in ten of his canvasses was actually a success, i.e., pleasing or troubling, or otherwise rewarding, to look at.

Somebody mentioned Modigliani. There's an anecdote about him that I hope is true; even if it isn't, it's a damned useful insight: At one of his few shows, after he had seen the African mask and had been awakened, a society dame was peering at one of his portraits. She observed, "I've never seen a woman who looked like that." Modigliant was standing near and heard her. He replied, "Madam, it's not a woman. It's a picture."

While I agree with you, this topic (abstract art) has been done to death in a number of other threads, let's not derail this one thusly.

[boloboffin]

Rockwell rarely painted the truth, but he always painted sentiment. At that, he was a master. And in several pieces, he used that power to reframe noteworthy events of the time (like the schoolgirl being escorted to school). This is the reason I like Rockwell.

ETA: Not quite "reframe noteworthy events of the day." He used his power to direct public sentiment into support of the civil rights movement. If he had not, I'd agree that he was nothing but insipid. But he used his power for good.

[Monketey Ghost]

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/schlocky

[joobz]

Sinclair Lewis captured in words the small-town America far better than Rockwell's cheesy artwork. Enjoy it if you must, but would you frame a Rockwell and have it on your wall at home?
I would. Some of it at least.

I think his self-portrait (http://www.auburnschools.org/carywoods/mawebb/intro-triple-self-portrait.jpg) is extremely cool. He at once draws himself a bit more honestly in the mirror while also showing the idealization of what he sees himself as. It's a direct honest admission of his idealization style.

Just because something is drawn as an ideal doesn't mean that the artist or his idea behind it is equally shallow.

[Hittman]

I think the only reason some people say what Rockwell did was not "art" is because a lot of people liked it and understood it. Critics couldn't get by with their pretentious BS when describing his work.

Why does art criticism always become someone trying to prove how sophisticated they are by hating anything popular?

That's a big part of it.

You see this in music, too. Someone is all excited about some obscure little band they've discovered. They love it, and want to tell everyone about it. Then the band becomes a success. Oh No! The ultimate sin! Now the same once-fan moans about how they've sold out and are now "commercial."

I like Norman Rockwell for exactly the same reason I like Babbitt and The Serial: a Year in the Life of Marin County and the Lucia series: he perfectly grasps and expresses the idiom of a time and place. And some of his stuff just makes me feel good.

The best art imparts a feeling. Most of Rockwell's art gives you a good feeling, which, evidently, some people consider a bad thing.

As for Rockwell, my feeling about him: At least he's not Jackson Pollock.

Pollock is crap.

Which is a funny thing to say because if anything Pollock was a more visionary and, IMO, interesting artist.

Pollock is crap.
If you like "art" that can be reproduced randomly by 3-year-olds. I've produced better stuff at the spin-art booths at Hampton Beach.

I suspect that I could get something more aesthetically pleasing than the average abstract "art" by dipping my pets' feet in paint and sending them toddling across canvas.

Especially if your pets are worms.

I'm seldom impressed by art that I could do. I can scribble like Pollock. I can paint as badly as Granma Moses. I'd have to work at being that bad, but I could probably pull it off. But I couldn't pull off a Kandinsky; I see something different in his stuff every time I look at it. (But I do like Mondrian, even though it would be easy to reproduce with a ruler and some tape.)

Just because something is drawn as an ideal doesn't mean that the artist or his idea behind it is equally shallow.

Certainly not as shallow as his critics.

[sackett]

Magnifico in general agrees with me about Rockwell, and is therefore quite possibly a genius, but

Schlock is a bit of a hard word for old Norman. I think of schlock as not only meretricious, but also trashy in terms of technique. It's cheaply executed, in my understanding of the word. You can't say that about Rckwll. His combination of speed and craftsmanship rises above anything exactly cheap.

[Pardalis]

Somebody mentioned Modigliani.

It's twice you've forgotten my name, are you doing it on purpose? :dqueen


by golly you're right! :rolleyes: You say,"world renown for his extreme realism"

You've missed my point, I was talking about his rendering of the human figure, not the mise en scène.

[sackett]

While I agree with you, this topic (abstract art) has been done to death in a number of other threads, let's not derail this one thusly.

This is the first thread I've ever started that's gone as far as two pages! I'll derail it if I wanna!

You'll note that in trying to talk about N. Rockwell we can't help bringing in other artists and other topics -- that is, deeper, wider, and more interesting things.

All I started out to do was lament that the Detroit Institute of Arts, a musem I support w/ taxes and a membership, has lowered itself to an exhibition of Saturday Evening Post covers. I repeat: the theme of this show is "It's simple...and it's complex." The complex part is what's embarassing. Christ Almighty! The DIA is a fine museum, with enormous holdings -- most of them stored in its basments (I've been down there; imagine Hitler's hoards). Goddammit, this town can do better!

I went to the NR show imagining that maybe there was something that the critics and I had missed. Alas. There's less than I remember from childhood.

[Seanette]

Quote:
I suspect that I could get something more aesthetically pleasing than the average abstract "art" by dipping my pets' feet in paint and sending them toddling across canvas.


Especially if your pets are worms.

:D. I have a cat and a bird.

I agree that art that matches my (lack of) skill level doesn't really impress me. Nor does anything deliberately ugly. My taste in art skews heavily toward something pleasing to the eye, and I fail to see how something that doesn't manage to be a visual wallow in depression and posturing angst is automatically not worthy to be called art.

[bruto]

This is the first thread I've ever started that's gone as far as two pages! I'll derail it if I wanna!

You'll note that in trying to talk about N. Rockwell we can't help bringing in other artists and other topics -- that is, deeper, wider, and more interesting things.

All I started out to do was lament that the Detroit Institute of Arts, a musem I support w/ taxes and a membership, has lowered itself to an exhibition of Saturday Evening Post covers. I repeat: the theme of this show is "It's simple...and it's complex." The complex part is what's embarassing. Christ Almighty! The DIA is a fine museum, with enormous holdings -- most of them stored in its basments (I've been down there; imagine Hitler's hoards). Goddammit, this town can do better!

I went to the NR show imagining that maybe there was something that the critics and I had missed. Alas. There's less than I remember from childhood.

I think they have mistaken detail for complexity.

[Monketey Ghost]

You've missed my point, I was talking about his rendering of the human figure, not the mise en scène.

As was I. His rendering of the human figure is as cartoon. Realism reflects reality, not an exaggeration for comedic/sentimental effect.

[Kestrel]

This is the first thread I've ever started that's gone as far as two pages! I'll derail it if I wanna!

You'll note that in trying to talk about N. Rockwell we can't help bringing in other artists and other topics -- that is, deeper, wider, and more interesting things.

All I started out to do was lament that the Detroit Institute of Arts, a musem I support w/ taxes and a membership, has lowered itself to an exhibition of Saturday Evening Post covers. I repeat: the theme of this show is "It's simple...and it's complex." The complex part is what's embarassing. Christ Almighty! The DIA is a fine museum, with enormous holdings -- most of them stored in its basments (I've been down there; imagine Hitler's hoards). Goddammit, this town can do better!

I went to the NR show imagining that maybe there was something that the critics and I had missed. Alas. There's less than I remember from childhood.

The Detroit Institute of Arts exists to serve the entire public, not just folks who share your artistic tastes. A Norman Rockwell exhibit will attract a different crowd to the DIA. Folks who are likely to look around at the other exhibits and perhaps gain an appreciation for artists that didn't do Saturday Evening Post covers. When DIA hosts some controversial artist, you can point back to the NR exhibit as proof that the DIA is not just for art snobs.

[Monketey Ghost]

"Art for snobs" = "I don't know much about art but I know what I like"

[Kestrel]

"I don't know much about art but I know what I like"

One of my friends used that line in a song he wrote about the Art Institute of Chicago.

[Pardalis]

As was I. His rendering of the human figure is as cartoon. Realism reflects reality, not an exaggeration for comedic/sentimental effect.

Again, you just don't get it.

This (http://medienkritik.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/graveevidencex.gif) is a cartoon.

[Monketey Ghost]

http://giam.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/051840.jpg


so is this.

[Pardalis]

but not this (http://chawedrosin.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/rockwell_want.jpg)
this (http://www.artchive.com/artchive/r/rockwell/rockwell_speech.jpg)
this (http://jamesbrantley.net/Norman_Rockwell-School_Fight.jpg)
this (http://www.michaelarnoldart.com/Norman%20Rockwell%20SEP.jpg)
nor this (http://www.wocstudios.com/tutorial/ties.jpg)

You've cherry picked the one where he went a little overboard, and that's dishonest, so I'm through discussing with you.

[rwguinn]

This is the first thread I've ever started that's gone as far as two pages! I'll derail it if I wanna!

You'll note that in trying to talk about N. Rockwell we can't help bringing in other artists and other topics -- that is, deeper, wider, and more interesting things.

All I started out to do was lament that the Detroit Institute of Arts, a musem I support w/ taxes and a membership, has lowered itself to an exhibition of Saturday Evening Post covers. I repeat: the theme of this show is "It's simple...and it's complex." The complex part is what's embarassing. Christ Almighty! The DIA is a fine museum, with enormous holdings -- most of them stored in its basments (I've been down there; imagine Hitler's hoards). Goddammit, this town can do better!

I went to the NR show imagining that maybe there was something that the critics and I had missed. Alas. There's less than I remember from childhood.
That post ought to be the dictionary definition of "Snob"
You ain't the only dude payin' taxes up there--or are you?
That's a lot like getting pissed because Carnagie Hall allowed Johnny Cash to play there, or PBS aired a Peter, Paul, and Mary concert (worse yet, those evil Canadians, Ian and Sylvia, or Gordon Lightfoot)

Get off your high horse. Believe it or not, the ego-centric theory of the universe is long disproven

[Monketey Ghost]

but not this (http://chawedrosin.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/rockwell_want.jpg)
this (http://www.artchive.com/artchive/r/rockwell/rockwell_speech.jpg)
this (http://jamesbrantley.net/Norman_Rockwell-School_Fight.jpg)
this (http://www.michaelarnoldart.com/Norman%20Rockwell%20SEP.jpg)
nor this (http://www.wocstudios.com/tutorial/ties.jpg)

You've cherry picked the one where he went a little overboard, and that's dishonest, so I'm through discussing with you.

The one? It was the first example I found! You're getting a bit defensive of someone else's work, son. Time to relax.

[Pardalis]

The one? It was the first example I found!

Yeah right, the first Norman Rockwell painting you've found with a google search is one detail from an obscure painting... Any google search about Rockwell shows countlesss examples of great detailed realistic representation of the human figure, and that's the one you found?

Wow, you're a liar too. Great. :rolleyes:

You're getting a bit defensive of someone else's work, son. Time to relax.

No, it's just I don't appreciate being lied to.

[Monketey Ghost]

I used google image search, "Norman Rockwell painting"...http://www.duvekot.ca/eliane/archives/Norman_Rockwell.jpg

You need to relax.

[Pardalis]

I used google image search, "Norman Rockwell painting"...http://www.duvekot.ca/eliane/archives/Norman_Rockwell.jpg.

Funny, you've just proved that by googling "Norman Rockwell painting", this (http://giam.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/051840.jpg), what you claimed was the first thing you found, is not what first shows up. You really had to look for it.

So you're a proven liar.

[Monketey Ghost]

Didn't say the search terms I used the second time were what I used the first time. Relax, your cartoonist sucks.

[tomwaits]

The one? It was the first example I found! You're getting a bit defensive of someone else's work, son. Time to relax.

I used google image search, "Norman Rockwell painting"...http://www.duvekot.ca/eliane/archives/Norman_Rockwell.jpg

You need to relax.

Didn't say the search terms I used the second time were what I used the first time. Relax, your cartoonist sucks.

Dude, you are not making any sense.

[Monketey Ghost]

Again, I used image google image search for the second quote, and said so. What doesn't make sense? Search1: Never said google, or what terms were used, or if it was an image or web search.

Makes sense to me?

[Pardalis]

So what did you do when you found the first picture?

[Monketey Ghost]

"...through discussing with..." me? You're doing it wrong!

Let's knock a bit of venom offa this. It's not that big a deal. I used google, and I think I typed "Norman Rockwell art" in, and it was /confession time/ down the page from an example of a windowcleaner leering at a pretty girl in an office highrise. A fine example of a pretty girl too... the text discussed Rockwell's love of young women as subjects... and that one was below, so I did cherry pick the one I used.

But it ain't hard to find cartoonish Rockwellery. Ain't hard to be forgiving though, the guy had a solid well-paying gig. I apologize for being rilesome.

[Pardalis]

Fine, but when you sorted through all his other work, you must have found he can also be extremely realistic (the great majority of it, actually).

[Monketey Ghost]

I will admit something. I'm a jerk, and was unnecessarily so. I guess we are talking about a beloved artist, Norman Rockwell fer godsakes, and to get worked up is silly, I'd guess he might say himself.

And another thing. He is good, but his good stuff is overshadowed by the simplistic stuff.

[sackett]

The Detroit Institute of Arts...is not just for art snobs.

Ain't no snob like a Rockwell snob.

[boloboffin]

Sometimes there is more going on in a Rockwell (http://www.tommcmahon.net/2009/03/the-art-critic-oedipal-norman-rockwell.html), and it's still lame:

A great example of Rockwell’s deliberate trickery is “The Art Critic” from 1955. In the painting, a young art student in an art museum holds an easel and paints as he leans forward to investigate a painting of a baroque woman, who humorously leers back at him with a raised eyebrow and strange grin. It’s a painting that anyone would find funny for the way the painting interacts with the art student. The picture takes on a completely new meaning when it’s discovered that the boy in the picture is Rockwell’s son Jarvis, and the woman is Rockwell’s wife Mary. In short, the entire painting is an Oedipal joke- one that his family found embarrassing.

The picture in question:

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/rockwell_critic.jpg

[Seanette]

Interesting how the painting on the right seems to be participating in the action too (check the expressions on the visible male faces).

[Father Dagon]

I think the only reason some people say what Rockwell did was not "art" is because a lot of people liked it and understood it. Critics couldn't get by with their pretentious BS when describing his work.Hear-hear! These days it's almost impossible to parody the so-called "artists". E.g. the antics of Anna Odell (35 years old going on 36) that tried to get herself into some psychiatric ward.

[joobz]

I'm confused:
Why are "cartoons" not art but colored blocks are?

[Seanette]

Because the "cartoons" are something the common masses can enjoy, and the colored blocks lend themselves to pretentious pontification about the artist's "depth" and "relevance".

[alfaniner]

"Art" is a presentation for which the viewer/listener has to do most of the work.