Defending Norman Rockwell
Hate to bleg for my own site, but WaPo managed to piss me off this weekend, and (surprisingly) it was about Art. If you guys are horrifically bored, come on over and let me know what you think.
The Founders risked “powder and ball” so a painter could espouse the virtues of a communist printing pamphlets? I thought that a town hall meeting was exactly what this country was predicated on; being able to espouse whatever view you wanted in a public forum in an effort to advocate to our elected representatives?
I wonder if Blake would view Serrano’s “Piss Christ” which features a crucifix in a jar of urine as “courageous.” Or perhaps that mighty brave Robert Mapplethorpe who heroically published a picture of a bullwhip inserted into his anus? Which is more brave and courageous to you: a whip hanging out of a guy’s fourth point of contact, or a man who gorged himself on bananas and donuts just for the opportunity to serve his country?
Category: Politics
I don’t mind what any “artist” does on their own time, WITH THEIR OWN MONEY. They are free to express themselves however they wish. To attempt to control an artist’s chosen form of expression is a slippery slope. Once you start, where do you stop?
But what chaps my hide is when a non-Constitutional Gubbment agency (NEA) using MY tax dollars, stolen from MY pockets, is used to support and defend these profanity-expressing a**-holes.
If these so-called artists think their s**t is so hot, then let them express themselves in the free and open market. That way, those who like it, can and will have the opportunity to express their opinion and appreciation by purchasing that artist’s work. And those that DON’T like it, can do likewise by NOT purchasing that artist’s work.
And if NO ONE buys that artist’s work, then they need to find another line of work. Meantime, MY money stays in MY pocket, where it belongs until I decide to spend it.
Woodman you know that artists having to support themselves would be against what the great O and Princess Pelosi believe in.
As far as the douche who wrote the article I think that his nuts should meet my foot. His article has little to do with the paintings, but the values they represent. I don’t know how many times he wrote “art” like his judgement of what art is ultimate.
He is the kind of guy who tells jokes that aren’t funny then when you don’t laugh he says you just don’t get it. Like I told a friend it isn’t that I don’t get it it just isn’t funny. He wants you to know how cool he is because he is smarter than you.
Art isn’t about courage. Rockwell’s art mirrored America’s virtues at a time when hundreds of thousands of Americans were bleeding and dying in Europe and Asia.
Americans citizens — and not the artists — were the courageous ones, and his art affirmed our courage.
I wouldn’t expect the Washington Post or its writers to comprehend the notion that America is the apex of humanity and even if it isn’t quite there yet, we will always strive to be.
I like Norman Rockwell. His paintings and pictures are warm, sweet, thoughtful, and very human.
If artists wish to express their political/religious views on canvas, very good. That is their right. But they should understand that BEAUTY is my standard for what hangs on my walls.
Like work by Normal Rockwell.
The author’s last name says it all for me – “Gopnik” – it has only pejorative meaning in Russian and no self-respecting bum would own up to the last name like this but it actually fits the author to a T…
Also, I have never heard any art discussion using the words “brave” and “courageous” until I moved to the States…
Only someone with extremely limited life experience would refer to artists as “brave” and “courageous” without further explanation. Especially when referencing Jackson Pollock, who barely worked a day in his life, and without the intervention of the Guggenheims, would have been just another dead drunk driver whose friends briefly mused over his quirky penchant for splattering paint around, right before they tossed his collection of works in the nearest dumpster.
I’ll reserve the terms for people like Sal Giunta, even if he never paints anything for the cognoscenti to gawk at and swoon over.
The author of the article’s name is Blake Glopnik, and it is obvious from the article that he has never seen a Rockwell in person.
To even someone with a little art education what’s impressive if you stand up close to a Rockwell is that there is not a brush stroke that’s out of place. Rockwell is perhaps the most technically skilled painter in living memory. Since Glopnick doesn’t say anything about it even in passing, it’s obvious that it’s not a review of the Smithsonian show, but his personal opinion of Rockwell as an artist, and by someone who has never seen a Rockwell to boot.
But what he doesn’t even allude to, is that Rockwell himself didn’t call himself an artist, but an illustrator. Hired by magazines to document the American experience in the time he lived and not to challenge or push the boundaries of art. The lack of placing the show and Rockwell in this context is damning.
As criticism Glopnick’s opinion on Rockwell is worthless, and he has no business writing about it.
I couldnt run without some serious sports bras! The Nike Rebel and Lululemon Ta-Ta Tamer are my favorites!