Posted on 05/23/2014 5:13:41 PM PDT by windcliff
Rockwell’s greatest sin as an artist is simple: His is an art of unending cliché.”
In that Washington Post criticism of a 2010 exhibition of Norman Rockwell paintings at the Smithsonian, Blake Gopnik joined a long line of prominent critics attacking Rockwell, the American artist and illustrator who depicted life in mid-20th-century America and died in 1978.
Norman Rockwell was demonized by a generation of critics who not only saw him as an enemy of modern art, but of all art,” said Deborah Solomon, whose biography of Rockwell, “American Mirror,” was published last year. “He was seen as a lowly calendar artist whose work was unrelated to the lofty ambitions of art,” she said, or, as she put it in her book, “a cornball and a square.” The critical dismissal “was obviously a source of great pain throughout his life,” Ms. Solomon added.
But Rockwell is now undergoing a major critical and financial reappraisal. This week, the major auction houses built their spring sales of American art around two Rockwell paintings: “After the Prom,” at Sotheby’s, and “The Rookie,” at Christie’s. “After the Prom” sold for $9.1 million on Wednesday; “The Rookie” for $22.5 million on Thursday.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I always thought his paintings are more “realistic” than reality.
I’ll take anything that Norman Rockwell painted over the junk that is called “modern Art”.Crap the NY Times promotes often.
Rockwell’s art had meaning at least and was very Pro-American.
More info is available here: VFW Mural
Why would you hesitate to call it art? What is your definition of art?
Good job!
There’s a difference between cartoons, illustration, graphic art and fine art. “Art” is fine art. It’s possible for cartoons to come to be regarded as fine art, see Roy Lichtenstein. It’s also possible for illustration and graphic art to come to be regarded as fine art, and perhaps this is happening with Norman Rockwell.
However, overt cuteness and sentimentality tend to put me off, with him just as much as Hallmark greeting cards or that guy who painted all those Snow White & The Seven Dwarves-looking cottages beside creeks with glitter in the paint, what was his name? Thomas Kincade?
Norman Rockwell did produce some fine art, perhaps inadvertently but intent does not matter, ultimately, His popular work was cartoons, illustration and graphic art, rather than fine art, however.
So what makes something “fine art”?
Mastery and critical acclaim, just as for music and literature.
Well, he clearly had "mastery", so I guess the acclaim he achieved doesn't count because it wasn't from the right people.
So it’s completely subjective? What might be fine art to me might not be fine art to you, for instance. Correct?
No, it’s not completely subjective, any more than classical music or great literature is. You will encounter disagreement among knowledgeable critics regarding anything, which is where museum curators and art collectors come in. They can and do vote with their feet and put their money where their mouth is. Perhaps this is what is happening with Norman Rockwell, or perhaps it’s all that stimulus money sloshing around Wall Street and they’ve run out of places to put it and things to buy? Time will tell.
“It documents a country which was lost long ago.”
Lost? Nope. Murdered.
bttt
“So what makes something “fine art”?”
It’s whatever you can’t afford, can’t understand, or can’t fit above your mantle.
The very same people who trashed Rockwell as "too illustrative" were hailing de Kooning and Pollock for their "genius."
The people you refer to run the "art" business in the very same way that the MSM runs the "news" business. In both cases you have an insular clique with utter contempt for the interests of those outside their ken.
“knowledgable critics”
See, that is where I take issue with this. Those critics are NOT knowledgeable. They are simply reflecting what they assume should be quality because they have been acclimated to those ideas.
The classification of artistic endeavors is a worthy and worthwhile endeavor. The issue arises when one tries to classify something as “fine art” or “real art”.
The implications are that anything not so classified is of less quality and appreciable aesthetics.
Not so.
It is only arrogance and the worst form of classism that creates the divide. Those “artists” who know how to manipulate that world of the elite, laugh all the way to the bank by producing drivel that hits the points of what “true art” should be.
That’s why you have “Piss Christ” held up as an artistic masterpiece instead of being flatly refused a place on a pedestal.
The incestuous nature of the “fine art” world have turned all artistic endeavors into a mad scramble for either cash or critical acclaim.
But you can’t have both. Nope. If something is too popular, then obviously it’s too simple for fine art. It lacks depth, it lacks sophistication, it lacks nuance. If it had those qualities, then obviously the common man wouldn’t appreciate them.
See how much of pseudo-intellectual circle-jerk that is?
So those who are in art either have to appeal to those who would not have them become popular, or they can appeal to the masses and produce things that people want to see, read, watch and hear.
There will never again be someone who can break out of the “true art” world and become popular and respected among the general population. Because to do so would be to betray their artistic community and they would be a “sell out.”
And the “art” community has done this to itself. They have constructed a wall of arrogance and snobbery so high and so ridiculous that they will drink a glass of urine before they will applaud a popular artist. And that is sad.
If you’re talking about overtly political “art” that relies more upon the bio of the artist than any aesthetic assessment of the work (Mapplethorpe, et al.), I’d agree with you.
However, there are subtleties that people who have not studied the matter in depth will not necessarily recognize, in color palette, materials, composition and choice of subject matter that validate certain works of art that are difficult to grasp for the general public.
Music and literature go through the same vetting process and generate controversy, but not nearly to the level of visual art. People who know nothing about the subject have strong opinions about what they “like” and what they don’t like. Others judge paintings by whether or not they’ll go with their furniture and draperies. These are perfectly valid reasons to buy something if an individual is so inclined. But, it doesn’t make it good and it doesn’t make it “art.”
That is political propaganda, not art. The intersection of leftist radicalism and visual representation has produced some interesting things, very little of which will be noteworthy in a hundred years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.