![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Dec. 3rd, 2013 05:01 pmAt Powell's I grabbed up a book on Norman Rockwell for $2.50. It's actually a 1971 reprint of a 1946 book - so this predates Rockwell being depressed in the 50s and 60s, painting stuff with NASA and the Civil Rights movement, and when he moved away from Arlington so he could get better psychiatric care for his second wife. There's this contrast between the wholesome-homey-small-town-whitebread-America-thru-rosey-lenses tone of the writing and much more hard-nosed little bits of discussion with Rockwell about actual technique.
The impression I get is that a 1930s/40s/70s public had some self-images which Rockwell played to, both in his painting and in how he tried to maintain his own public facing image. One example is there's a picture of the stagecoach image that he did for the Society of Illustrators, in situ at the bar, next to a Black barman whom Rockwell's little caption describes in pretty warm terms - and yet there's only one painting which shows a Black person (as a servant boy). Even if his art editors weren't specifying wholesome WASP Americans as subjects, and even if they weren't the easiest models to come by in Arlington, I suspect Rockwell knew what was making him money. I suspect the wholesome-warm-friendly-artist image he cultivated was what he felt people wanted and that might not have been great for his own emotional well-being.
It used to be that I loathed Rockwell as this guy who painted all the not-necessarily-true archetypes of Americana that were held up to me as ideals as a kid. When I got older and started drawing more I went the other direction, awed by how the guy could caricature (and some of his stuff manages to be just right, sentimentally - it's perched right on the edge of being saccharine, but doesn't go there). Right now, I feel that he was a truly masterful artist, and that a lot of what he painted was trite, schmaltzy, viciously whitewashed bullshit even by 40s standards because that's what sold. That he created a lot of trite mawkish bullshit doesn't in any way lessen his mastery.
The impression I get is that a 1930s/40s/70s public had some self-images which Rockwell played to, both in his painting and in how he tried to maintain his own public facing image. One example is there's a picture of the stagecoach image that he did for the Society of Illustrators, in situ at the bar, next to a Black barman whom Rockwell's little caption describes in pretty warm terms - and yet there's only one painting which shows a Black person (as a servant boy). Even if his art editors weren't specifying wholesome WASP Americans as subjects, and even if they weren't the easiest models to come by in Arlington, I suspect Rockwell knew what was making him money. I suspect the wholesome-warm-friendly-artist image he cultivated was what he felt people wanted and that might not have been great for his own emotional well-being.
It used to be that I loathed Rockwell as this guy who painted all the not-necessarily-true archetypes of Americana that were held up to me as ideals as a kid. When I got older and started drawing more I went the other direction, awed by how the guy could caricature (and some of his stuff manages to be just right, sentimentally - it's perched right on the edge of being saccharine, but doesn't go there). Right now, I feel that he was a truly masterful artist, and that a lot of what he painted was trite, schmaltzy, viciously whitewashed bullshit even by 40s standards because that's what sold. That he created a lot of trite mawkish bullshit doesn't in any way lessen his mastery.