Posted on 07/05/2010 6:05:27 PM PDT by PJ-Comix
Artist Norman Rockwell's thought crime seems to be that he wasn't a kneejerk liberal. And for that, he has earned an angry leftwing rant from Washington Post art critic Blake Gopnik who claimed that Rockwell lacked "courage" for not glorifying leftwing causes. Rockwell's "Four Freedoms" series? It disgusts Gopnik because it "doesn't invoke a communist printing his pamphlets or an atheist on a soapbox." So if Gopnik can't stand the popular Norman Rockwell, just what kind of art does he like? You can find out below the fold but a warning: please be sure you are not consuming liquids while viewing an example of Gopnik art or you risk spewing it over your computer monitor when you burst out laughing.
However, before we take a look at Gopniks laughable taste in art, let us join him in mid-rant as he tells us how much he absolutely hates Norman Rockwell:
Norman Rockwell is often championed as the great painter of American virtues. Yet the one virtue most nearly absent from his work is courage. He doesn't challenge any of us, or himself, to think new thoughts or try new acts or look with fresh eyes. From the docile realism of his style to the received ideas of his subjects, Rockwell reliably keeps us right in the middle of our comfort zone.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Hello, Central Casting? Send us up a Gopnik...
Good one!
In 1999, The New Yorker art critic Peter Schjeldahl said of Rockwell in ArtNews: Rockwell is terrific. Its become too tedious to pretend he isn’t.”
Great one! I just made it my screen background (replacing another truly American icon/artist - the Grateful Dead).
Great one! I just made it my screen background (replacing another truly American icon/artist - the Grateful Dead).
Axis of Evil
Thanks SO MUCH for that link! I sent it on to grandsons, who are scouts. They all went to SeaBase this summer.
Certainly seems to knock Blake Gopnik out of his "comfort zone."
I guess I'm something of an odd duck as far as art. I'm a design school grad, have painted a bit, and enjoy Norman Rockwell as well more obscure and abstract Soviet Constructivism and Suprematism. There is beauty to be found in any number of styles, and abstract art is not just a jumble of colors and shapes if you understand color theory and have an eye for composition.
What passes for "art" in very recent decades, however, is purely political and highly reactionary. It's assessed as an acceptable artistic endeavor or not due to whether or not it pisses off the right people. It's crossed the line from the (perhaps over-) intellectualized, intentional break with realism of the early twentieth century, an effort to break with the past to create a "new" art for a new world, one that went rapidly awry as the best laid plans of mice and men are wont to do, and has gone right into what is tantamount to taking a dump on the front porch of people you don't like.
Matter of fact, there's a peculiar fascination with human excreta in today's political propaganda pawned off as art. It makes even genuine propaganda, from late fifties Cuba, or Soviet worker posters or even the forbidden yet oddly magnetic Nazi efforts, seem glowing and beautiful by comparison. You see that fascination with good design, deft use of color theory and good composition, popping up with great frequency in the oddest of places, particularly in popular entertainment.
Which brings us back to Norman Rockwell, whose art is experiencing something of a revival, especially among the very same leftist afficianados who formerly trashed him and detested his work. Rockwell was no conservative himself. He wouldn't have been, of course, working primarily as an illustrator for The Saturday Evening Post. The reason he's having a revival isn't quite what many of us conservatives might hope. Like the fascination with propaganda from elsewhere in the world, due to deft use of color theory, excellent composition and a certain magnetism that tugs at the emotions, this trait is recognized and coveted now in Rockwell.
It's coveted as memorabilia. Memorabilia of a world they believe to no longer exist, therefore it's safe to display artifacts from it. If you are acquainted with many southern black people of means, I'd compare it to their having begun to collect somewhat racist old paintings, statuary, ectectera that anyone else would deem unacceptable. Watermelon print fabric, Amos & Andy stuff, the stereotypical "yard boy" hitching statue. They collect it because they see themselves as past it. To own it is to have triumphed over it.
So, don't get too excited about some revival of Norman Rockwell. It doesn't mean what some may think it means.
Gopnik describes Rockwell lacking “courage”, and characterized by “unending cliche” presumably because it reflects mainstream American values. Well, an artist’s values are implied in the work of any honest artist.
In Rockwell the values implied are an affirmation of life in America. Gopnik, on the other hand, believes that “This country is about a game-changing guarantee that equal room will be made for Latino socialists, disgruntled lesbian spinsters, foul-mouthed Jewish comics...” and whataever personal problem he seems to be hinting that he has. The implication is that if you are NOT a neurotic malcontent bent on the destruction of civilization, not only are you a coward, but you are boring and not worthy of being taken seriously.
The work of deconstructionist artists like Gopnik is designed to destroy the values of the artist’s audience along with any nascent capacity for rational thought. The purpose of this psychological con job is to make them vulnerable to radical propaganda. What can be more dishonest than that, and since when does it require “courage” to perpetrate devious propaganda in a free society?
I recall Ayn Rand (like her or not) appearing on the Johnny Carson show during the 1960’s. Referring to the “Theater of the Absurd” fad, and it’s chief practitioner, Edwards Albee, she remarked “If Edward Albee really thinks that life is absurd, one must conclude that Edward Albee is absurd”. The audience roared at that one.
“They collect it because they see themselves as past it. To own it is to have triumphed over it.”
Interesting stuff.
Rockwell’s art is being criticized by people who aren’t talented enough to clean his paint brushes. What courage they have!!
“The greatness of Rockwell, like that of America, is lost on the Left.”
You nailed it. Norman Rockwell is to the art world what Sarah Palin is to the political word - not of the groomed elite establishment, but an honest, capable and loving representative of the American people’s hopes and aspirations and values.
Rockwell’s painting is inaccurate. It was the black guy (James Chaney) that was shot last. The guy with the slight beard who is holding Chaney, I assume is Michael Schwerner. But Schwerner was shot and killed first.
In the afternoon we had an art exhibit by the town artists. Musicians played throughout the day. Flags everywhere. And...Great fireworks in the evening, of course.
Norman Rockwell would have had plenty of material to work with in our town.
I too initially was drawn to his work because of the nautical themed works as I worked and played in and on the oceans of the world. However, some of his Civil War work for Harper’s Weekly is also good.
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.