Quote:
|
Was Norman Rockwell a "fine artist" or "illustrator"? My biggest question was always, "Does it matter?"
|
He was a true artist. I recognize no distinction based on the whims of the art critics and dealers of artistic dribble. Yes, the worst of his art was mere commercialism but he was under the constraints of his profession the same as any commercial artist. But even those pieces he completed with integrity and commitment to do the best job he could under the circumstance.
His best work, however, was genius in its ability to speak the truth of the common man and lift it above its commonality to display the beauty in everyday subjects. Many feel his images displayed an idealized world that never existed. In some ways he showed us what we wished life was like as seen through the rose colored glasses of reminiscence. But much of the greatness of Norman Rockwell was his ability to tell you a story with a single image that brought the viewer in to that story and made you feel better for a moment, no matter what might have been going on in your life at the time.
That may not be a critic's idea of what an artist should do but I do not care. To me Norman Rockwell was a True Artist. He just happened to earn his income creating commercial illustrations.
Let's not confuse who we are (or someone else) with what we do to survive. It is how we live our life and the integrity we put into our work that matters. And, Marvin, IMO you have been successful - you need not worry. I of course have not seen every piece of illustration work you did, but from what I have seen IMO much of it was very good art, even if ADs had their way with it.
I feel we all must have a goal far beyond where we are today in order to grow. I would suspect that even Bouguereau, if asked during his career, would have said he still had not reached his greatest level and that he had yet to become the painter he strived to be.
[QUOTE]It