Greetings:
While I admire Rockwell's skills, and have no problem acknowledging that he was very good at what he did, the subjects he chose to depict, and--even moreso--the manner in which he depicted them, I--frankly--find repulsive.
The quaint, nostalgic sentiment and 'innocence' people try to apply to the 'America of Rockwell's day' has never existed. (In many ways, especially politically and metaphysically, Rockwell's work is far more 'fantastic' than my own.)
Life can be good, a fact which Rockwell, rightly, celebrated. But, life is not always easy--a fact which he--and I can only conclude it was done deliberately--ignored.
All too often, what makes life good is the fact that we have overcome--or simply endured--the types of hardships that Rockwell never depicted, in order to improve our lives. Even though he worked during the most morally challenging (Nazi Germany, the atomic bomb, Nuremburg, the Marshall Plan) war the world has ever faced, Rockwell--to my knowledge--never showed the aspects of life that make the good parts, by contrast, recognizeable as good.
I don't know enough about Rockwell to know if he was hired to depict the world in a 'rose-coloured' fashion, or whether he was hired because he truly held such a 'rosy' vision of the world, and painted from his own vision. If it was truly his own personal vision, then he was an artist. If he was merely depicting the world according to the guidelines of his art directors, then he was an illustrator.
Either way, he had immense talent.
But, either way, I cannot stand the ideas presented in his work.
Keith.
|
|
