• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Obligatory Norman Rockwell Thread...

Aitch

Unregistered
A
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
2,723
As there hasn't been one for a while...

Anyway. there's an interesting article in the January issue of Artists and Illustrators magazine on how he used photography as a base for his paintings/illustrations.

The article is inspired by the fact that there is a book out on the subject and an exhibition at the Norman Rockwell Museum.

A quote from the book, via the article:
Ron Schick said:
I believe that Norman Rockwell's photographs possess the same gifts of narrative and character that defined his art. Perhaps it was inevitable that an artist with an imagination so rich would create brilliant photographs once he began to use a camera.
Click to expand...

Comments?
 
Last edited:
My wife has a degree in Art History and she is very fond of Norman Rockwell. When pressed she launches into a spiel about how he doesn't show shadows (easily debunked) and how that's why she also loves the movie, "Patton."

The key to remaining married for 33 years is to know when to fold 'em, no matter that you are holding a royal flush.
 
dropzone said:
My wife has a degree in Art History and she is very fond of Norman Rockwell. When pressed she launches into a spiel about how he doesn't show shadows (easily debunked)...
Click to expand...
I'd be curious to know what she meant by this. Maybe it's a valid analysis in the context of Art History?

I mean, Rockwell's paintings are often subtly (and even not-so-subtly) exaggerated. Some of them border on caricature. It may be that, unlike more realistic painters, he under-represents shadows in paintings as a part of achieving his signature effect.

Also, an author's body of work isn't like a law of physics. It's easy to debunk the claim that ultraviolet is a shorter wavelength than infrared, because that claim is always untrue, without exception. On the other hand, while it might be possible to find some (or even many) paintings in Rockwell's catalog where he does "show shadows", it might still be reasonable to identify lack of shadows, or understated shadows, as typifying his style.

It seems a shame to be in a close partnership with someone for over thirty years, without ever bothering to find out what they mean by such an interesting statement, simply because you can't figure out a way to do so without starting a fight. I hope this is not the case.

It also seems a shame to introduce such an interesting statement, without also offering some explanation of what it might mean.
 
dropzone said:
My wife has a degree in Art History and she is very fond of Norman Rockwell. When pressed she launches into a spiel about how he doesn't show shadows (easily debunked) ...
Click to expand...

Bearing in mind that it is impossible to paint/draw a three dimensional object without showing shadows/highlights that strikes me as a rather odd statement. Can you somehow (bribery? blackmail?) get her to expand on the subject?

Anyway, I had a stroll down to our local library to see if they had any books on Mr Rockwell. They had one - The Essential Norman Rockwell by Collier Schorr. From what I've read so far, it's quite interesting. Though I suppose some in this forum might quibble with the word 'Essential'.

Having had a quick leaf through it, I would say he does generally show shadows; however, a lot of his work is done in such a way that the subjects appear to be lit in such a way that there would be few shadows. Which is, I suppose, a bit un-natural.
 
Aitch said:
Bearing in mind that it is impossible to paint/draw a three dimensional object without showing shadows/highlights that strikes me as a rather odd statement.
.
Click to expand...

Of course its possible to depict an object without shadows/highlights - any pure line (non tonal) drawing does that.
 
Rockwell's artistic reputation is a victim of his own success. He is extremely popular, so when you you see an original Rockwell and your feeling is that of boredom; not because the art itself induces boredom (as much bad art does) but because you have seen it a million times before on anything from advertisements to Christmas cards.
 
Last edited:
Re. shadows..

It would seem the' no shadows thing ', might be referring to ' no traceable light source ' .... quite noticeable here..

http://afrocityblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/norman-rockwell.jpg?w=655&h=421

.. no shadows being cast on the ground or wall ..

There are clearly shadows that provide relief, such as the folds in fabric ..

A quick Google, shows this effect to be pervasive in his work ..
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
It's easy to debunk the claim that ultraviolet is a shorter wavelength than infrared, because that claim is always untrue, without exception.
Click to expand...

Way to lead with your chin.

(I see dasmiller caught it as well.)
 
Last edited:
I will participate in this thread as long at Alex Ross will also be compared to Rockwell!
 
Aitch said:
Start comparing... Now! ;)
Click to expand...

Oh... well... uh...

In fact my family were regular "Saturday Evening Post" readers and my grandparents had many of Rockwell's old covers. I have been a long time fan of his work since I was small.

It was Alex Ross that actually got me back into comics. I quit and sold off most of my collection back in the mid 90s because I was fed up with the saturation of titles and poorly done art and stories that was pervasive beck then. When I saw a copy of "Kingdom Come", I fell in love with the story and art. I've since become a huge Alex Ross fan and collect many of his pieces, comics and otherwise.

The style of the two artists are very close, but where Rockwell's borders on the comical at times, I feel Ross caricatures the the more "super" aspects. The hero's costumes look like costumes, not the vinyl and leatherette we've been used to the past 20 years.
 
Pinkymcfatfat said:
Alex Ross? I thought this would be a BOB Ross comparision...
Click to expand...

See that corner over there... a happy little tree lives there.

I kept expecting him to pull out a lit roach from his fro and take a puff whenever the camera cut away to him beating the devil out of his brush.

Now if anyone starts talking smack about Commander Mark and Tony Hart, we're going to have to throw down!
 
Just a follow-up on the book I mentioned in an earlier post.

Not a very deep investigation of his work, but does explain quite well why he worked the way he did and how (and why) his style developed over the years. It's written by, if not a fan, at least someone who is sympathetic to NR.

It also has some interesting trivia. For instance, all three of his wives were school-teachers; an the first studio he rented was on the top floor of a whore-house. :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom