[Alberta's Child]

The most interesting criticism I've read about Norman Rockwell was that he wasn't really an "artist" as much as an "illustrator." Maybe the difference is subtle, but the basis of this criticism was that there is less creativity in using real-life people and scenes to illustrate magazine covers.

Regardless of this, I've always had an affinity for Rockwell's style and his amazing attention to detail in his works.

"Shuffleton's Barbershop" is a great example of this. If it had simply been a painting of the interior of the building it would have been a great illustration on its own. But the window frame and pane in the foreground -- complete with a crack in the lower right corner -- really bring it to life.

[Yardstick]

I’ve always liked that painting. I don’t get the “illustrator” criticism, especially when it’s being put forward by a leftist critic. They accept all methods including the most banal and talentless. It seems arbitrary to reject him on that basis. Of course, in their minds you’re less of a free spirit, or something, when your art is for hire. The criticism is ideological — they’re hung up on capitalism as usual — and in my opinion can be dismissed.

[runfree]

I agree,"Shuffleton's Barbershop" is a brilliantly painted. The stove on the right is so beautifully done you can sense the weight and texture of it. What amazes me is he did these covers of incredible detail in weeks or months, not years. I did the mural below, but it took eight years. It's 20 feet wide and 6 feet high, done for my local VFW. It's called "Fighting for Freedom" and portrays the US military in the wars of the 20th Century. Appropriate for this weekend... More info is available here: VFW Mural