Cover Story

Rockwell rocks!

Fashionable art critics once had nothing but disdain for Norman Rockwell, labeling his idealized view of America as "Gee-Gosh-Shucksism." But Rockwell's work is enjoying a resurgence of respect; critics like him again-and even "admit it in polite society"

Issue: "Rockwell's resurgence," Nov. 24, 2001

The World Series this fall included three improbable ninth-inning comebacks, but one going on now in New York City is even more unlikely. Manhattan's artists, students, and critics are flocking to the Guggenheim Museum, a shrine to abstract art, and admiring an exhibit, 23 years after his death, of the 20th-century American painter most despised by the modern-art establishment.

"Norman Rockwell: Pictures for the American People" has already been on national tour for almost two years, but only now, as journalists wonder whether the Sept. 11 events have changed the way we look at America, is the exhibit confronting the arts cognoscenti on their own turf. Listen to the grudging admission of New York Times critic Michael Kimmelman: "Nowadays, in our flag-shrouded anxiety, the cornball sentiments ... seem less remote and contrived than they did before Sept. 11. [A Rockwell painting] can make you gulp despite yourself."

How striking is that acknowledgment? It's been 29 years since a Rockwell exhibit came within spitting range of the Times-the Brooklyn Museum had one in 1972-and at that time John Canaday, the newspaper's art critic, viciously denounced it. Mr. Canaday closed with a description of what a pleasure it was to "shoulder my way back to the [Times Square] office through the crowds of pimps, prostitutes, and perverts." The virtuous Americans Rockwell painted gave Mr. Canaday the heebie-jeebies, but Manhattan's Midnight Cowboy denizens had the right stuff.

We see you’ve been enjoying the content on our exclusive member website. Ready to get unlimited access to all of WORLD’s member content?
Get your risk-free, 30-Day FREE Trial Membership right now.
(Don’t worry. It only takes a sec—and you don’t have to give us payment information right now.)

Get your risk-free, 30-Day FREE Trial Membership right now.

For decades Rockwell produced the much-loved paintings that launched a thousand sneers among the lords of the painted word: To them, Rockwell was the "Rembrandt of Punkin Creek," the "prophet of mindlessness," the kitschmeister of "Gee-Gosh-Shucksism." Art critic Deborah Solomon notes that "As far as the modernists were concerned, Rockwell did everything wrong.... He was well-read, but he didn't read Sartre.... He had a vast following. He made money. He didn't wear black turtlenecks. These were all no-nos to people who defined themselves by their alienation from American life."

But what a difference several decades and a terrorist attack makes. Next Tuesday, Nov. 27, the Guggenheim has even scheduled a panel discussion titled "A Love Affair: Contemporary Artists on Norman Rockwell." The list of smitten discussants includes artists such as John Currin, painter of bizarre female nudes. Howard Kissel of the New York Daily News concluded, "It's OK to like Norman Rockwell. Really. More important, it's even OK to admit it in polite society."

Even more: Some contemporary artists see Rockwell's traditional values as cutting edge. Since insurance companies now run television commercials praising the "coming out" of homosexuals, one of the most rare and shocking things around is a committed, long-term husband-wife relationship. And what about a family Thanksgiving dinner? Weird-which means that a painter who depicts one is far out, and that's almost in.

Artists and critics are also belatedly appreciating Rockwell's emphasis on fine detail and the careful use of light; comparisons to Vermeer are now common. Rockwell's technique certainly is realistic, but those who say Rockwell's depiction of everyday life was realistic are in one sense as wrong as the disparagers of a generation ago. Rockwell painted not life around him, but an idealized life that he rarely saw.

In Norman Rockwell, a detailed biography just published by Random House, author Laura Claridge writes of Rockwell's insensitive mother, his uncle's syphilis, his "open marriage" with a first wife (and the adultery that predictably killed it), and his better second marriage that ended sadly. Rockwell and wife No. 2, Mary, had three children but aborted their fourth in 1938; she then drank heavily and received substantial psychiatric treatment until her death in 1951, at age 51. The official cause of death was heart failure, but many neighbors believed she overdosed on pills.

"Freedom from Want" (the picture of family togetherness on our cover) is famous, but Rockwell painted all the individual portraits in it separately. The realism of the turkey is actually unrealistic: Its huge size suggests at least a 30-pounder. The realism of "Freedom of Speech" is also more than meets the eye: Within it audience members reverently gaze at the speaker, but at the New England town meetings I once covered as a reporter listeners were more ready to pounce than to praise.

Rockwell (1894-1978) did not paint the life around him, but a vision of a better life. As a child he sang in an Episcopal church choir that required three rehearsals a week, a dress rehearsal on Friday, and singing at four services every Sunday. When his voice changed he became a crucifer, carrying a cross while leading the procession down the church aisle. He went through confirmation and then, perhaps having overdosed on churchiness, essentially dropped out. He became only a special-events churchgoer for the rest of his life.

Comments

You must be a WORLD member to post comments.

    Keep Reading

     

    Rocky rollout

    With problems emerging amid Colorado's marijuana experiment, how then shall…

     

    Stump of Stanford

    Without carrying a title, counselor wields great influence with Stanford's…

    Advertisement