Granted there is much to sneer at in Rockwell, but for some of us there is also much to admire and, indeed, to respond to. Go here, and scroll down to the cover with the two heads of Bertrand Russell (Rockwell? Doing a cover for Ramparts Magazine?!)
http://www.spd.org/2009/10/dugald-stermer-and-ramparts-ma.php Some of his later work is remarkably crafty and adroit. In part to jolt, I've often asserted that the three greatest illustrators are Hokusai, Al Hirschfeld and Rockwell. Leyendecker, skillful though he was, (also a Sat Eve Post cover "artist") feels lightweight compared to the best Rockwells. Dickinson wrote 1,800 poems. There are only fifteen or so that have given me what I'll call an "aesthetic experience", but I don't deny her greatness because she had a low batting average. In a message dated 10/9/10 5:59:04 PM, [email protected] writes: > In a message dated 10/7/10 8:25:04 PM, [email protected] writes: > > > > It won't do to simply discuss his complicated life or soulful > > struggles since there's no noticeable causal relationship between those > > facts > > (if they are facts) and the context he created for his work. The two > > realms of > > Rockwell, the man and his work, would need to have a truly integrated > > context > > to justify a reinterpretation or re-contextualization. > > > > There is no causal relationship between Rockwell's personal life and his > work. I read a biography-there aren't many and this was the thickest-and > it was clear that Rockwell was not drawing upon his personal angst for his > pictures. The closest he got was in the patriotic ones. > If he pasted a cereal box cover on a painting it was to save time. I > went to the Rockwell museum this summer. The quality of the paint > deteriorates > over his lifetime, the drawing is a little off-he was good at cut and > paste > but not brilliant and some of his figures are occupying each other's > space. There are surprisingly no remarkable still lifes in the array of > stuff > in > his paintings in the museum. I hope the good ones are somewhere else and > this was what remained to show in Stockbridge. > > Conger said: It remains to be seen if Rockwell's depth as a > commentator on life can withstand the stew of sentimentality and banality > that > soaks his work. > He isn't a commentator on life, he is a remarkable depictor of banal > sentiment. Where it might seem that he reaches any depth, it is his > subject > which overcomes his primary intent. > Kate Sullivan
