Norman Rockwell was more of an illustrator.....at least, that is the opinion of many......I do not agree. To me, he was a hell of an artist. I, still, say he is one of my favorites.
El Señor Benton was a painter, but more so, a hell of a muralist....He concentrated in what was know as "Regionalisms", or the collective actions of people within a specific region........His work was exquisite and very beautiful......I like him too.
Bob, had no idea you had such good taste....I am very impressed.
[ May 08, 2013, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: Ricardo Davila ]
Posted by Bill Lynch (Member # 3815) on :
I went up to Stockbridge for the Christmas recreation of Rockwells painting of Main St. It was fun, and of course we went to the museum also.
Posted by Dale Manor (Member # 4858) on :
I went down to the Rockwell Museum when I lived in Vermont and was in awe of his original paintings.
The high brow artist can tell me all day long that Rockwell was "only" an Illustrator....but to me, he was as good of an artist as anyone. His work has way more meaning than some of the gobbledygook they hang up these days!
Posted by DianeBalch (Member # 1301) on :
The little girl in the Rockwell "The Doll and the Doctor" (Rosemary Hunter) was the principle of our local elementary school. When my daughter was in first grade, I bought a couple of copies of it and she signed them before I framed them.
Diane
Posted by Jane Diaz (Member # 595) on :
I took my 8th grade art class (and Ben) to see an exhibit of his work in Peoria years ago. It WAS awesome and as you say, when you see the real thing, it really does change things. One of our favorites was the referee tossing the coin at a football game. He had such a knack for telling a story with everyone of his paintings.
Posted by Dan Sawatzky (Member # 88) on :
I've admired Norman Rockwell's work for decades. A got to see some of his originals back in 1981 and fell in love with his unique style of visual storytelling. I've worn the covers off the books I have of his work and he has without a doubt influenced my own work and style.
Thanks for the reminder.
-grampa dan
Posted by Don Coplen (Member # 127) on :
Rockwell was a great illustrator. This is not the same thing as a fine artist. Apples and oranges.
Posted by Dave Sherby (Member # 698) on :
I disagree Don. According to Education Portal:
How Artists and Illustrators Differ
Artists and illustrators are one in the same. That is, an illustrator is a type of artist. Illustrators are fine artists who specialize in illustration. The term artist, on the other hand, can refer to a wide range of careers. Just as there are many different types of artists, there are different types of illustrators as well.
An Overview of Artists
Artists use art to communicate thoughts, feelings and ideas. The types of tools and materials used by artists depends on their job title and description. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), there are typically four occupational categories that artists fall into, including art directors, multimedia artists and animators, fine artists and craft artists (www.bls.gov).
An Overview of Illustrators
Illustrators, as previously stated, are fine artists who specialize in illustration. According to the BLS, illustrators create images for use in publications, such as books and magazines. They also make images for commercial products such as calendars, wrapping paper and greeting cards. There are other types of illustrators, too, including medical, scientific and technical illustrators. The kind of work they do varies greatly.
My Mother was an RN at a clinic and all the doctors were paired in sections. The other doctor in my Mom's area was a spitting image of the doctor in Rockwell's The Doll And The Doctor. They had a copy of that print framed, hanging on the suite wall and was my first experience with Rockwell as a kid. Loved him ever since.
Posted by Bob Sauls (Member # 11321) on :
Ricardo I have a nice book of Bentons work. I bought it when I was very young. Something about his work jumped out at me. Which is unusual for me at that time. It was the cool stuff which drew my attention. Frank Frazetta, Roger Dean all things Tolkien etc. I guess Benton was my first grown-up artist. When you are young and discovering your own artistic development, those whom you admire have a great influence upon the artist you will eventually become. As far as the differences between fine art and illustration I think that it my come down to integrity and accountability. I see many (immature) artist who cling to total subjectivity which can be a giant excuse for never improving or facing ones self. This rejection of accountability to the marketplace simply will not fly in the arena that the illustrator must play in. Now the fine artist that is so dedicated to his art that he will not sell out, and is forever pressing on producing and growing is an exceptional person.
[ May 09, 2013, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: Bob Sauls ]
Posted by Rusty Bradley (Member # 6938) on :
Here is a Rockwell juxtaposed to a painting from the Dutch Golden Age...make changes for the different periods...clothing and such...and the Rockwell would have fit right in with the paintings at the show I recently posted about attending..."Rembrant and the Dutch Golden Age"...so is it "fine art"...I would say "fine" indeed
[ May 09, 2013, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: Rusty Bradley ]
Posted by Joe Cieslowski (Member # 2429) on :
Makin Chip$ and Havin Fun!
Posted by Don Coplen (Member # 127) on :
Dave, it's only semantics. Whatever he was, we can probably agree Rockwell was amongst the best.
PS. I worked with an illustrator back in the 80s. He did a lot of work for Playboy (clubs, not magazine), an early album cover for Jimmy Buffett and others, Bradford Exchange, etc, and is where I learned what an illustrator does and is. On a side note, Gib was the person who told me I should look into the Letterheads.
The debate of illustrator vs fine art is not a new one.
Posted by Ricardo Davila (Member # 3854) on :
Guys:
Found this segment of an article about Norman Rockwell......So, I would like to clarify, before anything, that I am just sharing it without any ulterior motive in mind...Just saying.........I love this man's work.
"Rockwell's work was dismissed by serious art critics in his lifetime.
Many of his works appear overly sweet in modern critics' eyes, especially the Saturday Evening Post covers, which tend toward idealistic or sentimentalized portrayals of American life – this has led to the often-deprecatory adjective "Rockwellesque". Consequently, Rockwell is not considered a "serious painter" by some contemporary artists, who often regard his work as bourgeois and kitsch.
Writer Vladimir Nabokov sneered that Rockwell's brilliant technique was put to "banal" use, and wrote in his book Pnin: "That Dalí is really Norman Rockwell's twin brother kidnapped by Gypsies in babyhood". He is called an "illustrator" instead of an artist by some critics, a designation he did not mind, as it was what he called himself.
However, in his later years, Rockwell began receiving more attention as a painter when he chose more serious subjects such as the series on racism, for Look magazine.
One example of this more serious work is The Problem We All Live With, which dealt with the issue of school racial integration. The painting depicts a young African American girl, Ruby Bridges, flanked by white federal marshals, walking to school past a wall defaced by racist graffiti.
In 1999, The New Yorker art critic Peter Schjeldahl said of Rockwell in ArtNews: “Rockwell is terrific. It’s become too tedious to pretend he isn’t.”
Rockwell's work was exhibited at the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum in 2001. Rockwell's Breaking Home Ties sold for $15.4 million at a 2006 Sotheby's auction......( No chump change! )
A twelve-city U.S. tour of Rockwell's works took place in 2008. In 2008, Rockwell was named the official state artist of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts."
P.S...I truly believe that his story telling abilities, as an artist, are incredibly demonstrated in this great piece: "Breaking Home Ties"....It does not need any explanation, at all.......Be curious and Google it, like I did!....Here is a link for you:
[ May 09, 2013, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: Ricardo Davila ]
Posted by Bob Sauls (Member # 11321) on :
This has been a good thread. Enjoyable. Rockwell's work touched a chord, moved our hearts to feel. That is a more noble skill than shocking and offending, which is all too commonplace with pushing the edge.
I am smirking at how Rockwell's body of work and public acceptance trumps the critics who would not consider him a serious artist until he painted harsher subject matter.
[ May 09, 2013, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: Bob Sauls ]
Posted by David Wright (Member # 111) on :
I always thought doing art for commercial work put you into illustrator or commercial artist category. Artist just the same, but to distinguish from the fine arts category.
He was a great technician of paint as well and could convey a story very well. A bit too exaggerated or maudlin sometimes for me but great to be sure.
Hey, he wasn't pouring paint on canvasses or using body fluids like some so called greats, so there is that.
Posted by Rusty Bradley (Member # 6938) on :
You want some "fine art"...I'll give you some "fine art"...Here is an example of what most art critics today define as fine art...Willem Kooning's "Woman III" sold for $137.5 million.
"No American painter of his generation— the generation that gave us the New York School—has been the object of more adulation, imitation, interpretation, and sheer unbounded admiration than Willem de Kooning"...Hilton Kramer
I pay little attention to art critics.
[ May 10, 2013, 10:39 AM: Message edited by: Rusty Bradley ]
Posted by David O'Hanlon (Member # 2754) on :
Norman Rockwell only ever considered himself an Illustrator so I won't argue about that. He was also an outstanding technician and master of his craft.
In many ways, that's better than being an "artist".
Posted by David Wright (Member # 111) on :
I'm with you Rusty.
Posted by David Harding (Member # 108) on :
Rusty,
That looks just like my hand lettering. Maybe I'm a great artist after all! Raymond should be proud.
Posted by Bob Sauls (Member # 11321) on :
I am getting freaked out down here in the South. Bradley, Davila and Sauls are agreeing about something. I am listening for the Great sounding of the trumpet from the eastern Skies!
Posted by Dennis Kiernan (Member # 12202) on :
I learned to paint mostly by making tight copies of Rockwell's stuff. His best pictures are really good. The only thing I didnt care for is the cuteness and artificiality he stuck in most of his pictures. I dont think his being "commercial" has anything to do with anything. A lot of the greatest artists were just as commercial -- Rubens, Velasquez, Tintoretto, etc. What could be more commercial than Diego Rivera's or THBenton's murals or Rubens' portraits, or Lautrec's theatre posters? Many of the artists in the museums concentrated on appealing to as wide an audience as they could.
Posted by Dennis Kiernan (Member # 12202) on :
However, to rate Rockwell as an artist, compare him with Breugel, a lot of whose pictures were similar to Rockwell's in subject matter. Rockwell was good, but Breugel was a giant.
Posted by bill riedel (Member # 607) on :
Rusty,Koonings work represents just how sick this generation is, total lawless and immoral society that worship rock stars. Those who call his work art are just as sick as he is, and would not know real talent, or truly beautiful art.
Posted by Dave Sherby (Member # 698) on :
I'm with you Rusty. When I saw that so called "art" of Kooning's, I thought it was a painting done by that chimpanzee before I read your comment.
Hey Don, the son of a friend of mine is Jimmy Buffett's cook.
Posted by Ricardo Davila (Member # 3854) on :
Ok, Guys,.....Allow me to add more fuel to this fire......Here is an excellent and extremely accurate comparison ( in my opinion ) of what is the difference, we seek to find, between Commercial Art and Fine Art:
Check it out and enjoy.....I, personally, agree with the author of this comparison:
P.S.-- I don't really care about the opinion of those, so called, "critics", who do not consider this man (NR,) an artist. Whether commercial or fine....You gotta love him.
[ May 10, 2013, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: Ricardo Davila ]
Posted by David O'Hanlon (Member # 2754) on :
I recently read that "Modern Art = I could do that + Yeah, but ya didn't".
Posted by Todd Gill (Member # 2569) on :
I agree that artist/illustrator is semantics...
I consider Rockwell both given the definitions bandied about here.
Regardless - I also consider him and his ability to tell a story in a single, wonderfully illustrated scene - simply masterful. Love the guy's work.
Posted by Dennis Kiernan (Member # 12202) on :
Ricardo, that atisticallyconnected article is a lot of bunk. If you take almost any sentence she wrote and stop and think about it a moment, it's obviously not true half the time.
Posted by Ricardo Davila (Member # 3854) on :
Dennis,
Like I said...."Allow me to add more fuel to this fire."
Dennis, one way or the other, I will always love his work.....Regardless of how it is called by the so called "critics".
Hey Dennis ( This does not have anything to do with you, so don't jump the gun, please. )
I just have too many unanswered questions about "critics".......
But, where do people go to "Critics School"?.....Do you know the name of a good "Critics" school or college....Is there a Pell Grant for those who wish to study to become a "critic"?.......Is there a Faculty of Critics in college?....Where do critics come from?.....Do their mothers know what they do for a living?
RD
[ May 13, 2013, 09:44 PM: Message edited by: Ricardo Davila ]
Posted by Joe Cieslowski (Member # 2429) on :
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ricardo Davila: [QB] Dennis,
Like I said...."Allow me to add more fuel to this fire."
Dennis, one way or the other, I will always love his work.....Regardless of how it is called by the so called "critics".
Hey Dennis ( This does not have anything with you, so don't jump the gun, please. )
I just have too many unanswered questions about "critics".......
Posted by Dennis Kiernan (Member # 12202) on :
Well, if there's a joke here, I must be missing it.
Posted by Don Coplen (Member # 127) on :
Dave, my old friend's name is Gib Foster. I know Buffett remembers him because he mentioned Gib in an interview awhile back.
About this topic...Rockwell would tell anybody who asked that he was an illustrator. I would think he would know best.
Posted by Ricardo Davila (Member # 3854) on :
Here is another take.....
Of course, he would be the first one to tell you he was an illustrator....He was,indeed.....One of the best, if not the best....That is what he did.....That was what he did to earn a living.
My opinion, about Norman Rockwell, will always be that he was a heck of an artist, who worked as an illustrator, to earn a living......You cannot eradicate the fact that he was an accomplished artist, from his resume, by attempting to reduce the importance of his artistic talent by saying or implying that he was "only" an illustrator....What does that mean?
Like some of the so many talented artists, who visit this forum.....who have chosen to paint signs, to earn a living, instead of pursuing other careers in the fine arts.....for whatever reason's they have.
Forget the "self proclaimed critics"....The man was an artist who made a living as an illustrator.
[ May 15, 2013, 01:53 AM: Message edited by: Ricardo Davila ]
Posted by David Harding (Member # 108) on :
However he gets labeled, he was very talented.
I love his artistration.
Posted by Joe Cieslowski (Member # 2429) on :
Dennis,
Sorry, it's the first time I tried to use the "copy the quote" thingie and of course I got it wrong. I thought the last part of Ricardo's post was funny........not the first part.
Again, sorry!
Joe
Makin Chip$ and Havin Fun!
Posted by Rusty Bradley (Member # 6938) on :
People seem to be easily intimidated by the so-called critics...as results many people are reluctant to voice a negative opinion about what they really feel is "crappy" work...they fear that they will be viewed as uneducated or less cultured.
Posted by Neil D. Butler (Member # 661) on :
Rockwell "Rocks!" He moved Many in so many ways... that is what Art Does....So he's most certainly an "Artist!
Posted by Ricardo Davila (Member # 3854) on :
Another take ....
If I had to choose to listen to critics of my work, I would, definitely, choose from my personal list of critics, which only contains TWO categories:
MY CUSTOMERS:- Who would, probably, say: "Wow!, nice work! ( Even if it isn't ). My wife is going to love it. Here is your check and thank you."
OR
MY PEERS: - ( MY FAVORITE ) Who, most of the time, would say: "Hey dummy, you put the shading on the wrong side of that letter....and while you are at it, fix that damn script......It looks like crap."
So, there you have it.....Those are my favorite categories of critics.......The others, well..........
![[Rolling On The Floor]](graemlins/rolf.gif)
