I like to think of Rockwell doing this as the ultimate form of respect and approval. A statement that says "yes, I can do this too, but I'll stay in my own lane regardless" The guy was just a freakishly talented painter. I can't think of anyone else who could capture a moment in time so perfectly.
As a Buckley Republican in his late 50s, I see this grey-suited 1950s man (yes, it was painted in 1961, but we was most assuredly still 1950s) looking at it and thinking "We're doomed."
@@cleftturnip7774 were art critics old men in grey flannel suits, or were they artsy-fartsy beret-wearing snob? Given that the painting won prizes when not in Rockwell's name... I'd bet hard cash they were artsy-fartsy beret-wearing snobs.
In the late 1940s, Benny Goodman-the great Swing clarinetist-made a few masterful Be-Bop recordings to show the younger Bop crowd (who by then considered him old fashioned) that he could indeed play their new style as well as they could, he just preferred not to.
I absolutely loved this painting from the first moment I saw it. As a teenager, I thought it would have been funny to have a subsequent painting where The Connoisseur turns around only to have a green apple obscuring his face. 😀
I accidentally saw a Norman Rockwell exhibit at the Guggenheim museum. The main show was of medieval Portuguese art with a magnificent gilded alter from a Catholic Cathedral with cherubs and a life-like Mary holding a bloodied Jesus that rose up half way to the Oculus. Which along with the entire room was Blacked out! As I made my way up the dark ramp with art pieces spot lit along the way I saw a hallway leading to a gallery. All white like we find traditionally at the museum and my curiosity and the light drew me in. It was a display of all if Rockwell's Post covers that led to a gallery with his paintings 🖼 There in the flesh so to speak. Honestly, I've never been moved like that looking at paintings in a museum or anywhere! I kept having to step away from the paintings to keep myself from weeping uncontrollably. I had a lump in my throat the whole time. They were really beautiful. Much bigger than I had expected and much more "painterly" in person. The paint was thick and chunky with texture that you would never see in a print. But what moved me most was the life he imbued in his characters. You would have to be a sympathetic and compassionate person to do what he did. It's really magic! I get tears just thinking about it. I know many think it's kinda low brow but it is what it is. He's like the Mr. Rogers of paintings to me. I ❤ him.
Consummate skill is only Low Brow in an Business Art World designed for money Launderers and grifters, never apologise for having discernment, and the authentic ability to be profoundly moved, in a world of raw sensationalism, and thought stopping tweets "debates"
@C M So Abstract Expressionism was created by an Alphabet Agency to counter Soviet Realism. Oh the levels of irony about what fanboys are oblivious too. Disclaimer: I got thrown out of Art history Class by a marxist boomer for even mentioning Norman Cohn and the American Council to a friend, in a private conversation about Ray Eames, who l had been told to research, oh the double binds of Art Theory, it's almost as if it's designed as a confusion technique so profound that we would need a prominent Art Critic like Clement Greenberg to 'splain the double binds all away, with reverential art bollox. Rockwell is a great artist because if you scrutinise his work over time, you will never stop learning, you need increasing levels of skill to appreciate his consummate skill.
This painting reminds me of Banksy. There's not a lot going on -- a man, a painting -- but there's also a lot going on. I see it as hopeful. An older man is giving modern art a shot. He could have shaken his head and walked right past it, but instead he stops. His hands behind his back, to me, make it seem like he's allowing himself to be vulnerable. I love the added detail of his shirt being a little too tight around the neck. Since this type of artwork is so new, and Rockwell was older at the time, was he also saying that he was giving that type of art serious consideration as well?
That's the best thing about Rockwell - lots of his paintings are extremely mundane but at the same time give amazing, relatable context of what America was like at the time. I doubt he had anything but the utmost respect for Pollock. If he wanted to mock his work, he could've easily done so without making an actual action painting himself and hiding the expression of the man looking at it.
Just one thing. Hands behind ones back is confidence and invulnerability in body language. He is open but not vulnerable. Rather, in his sharp, well-fitted, crease free, and expensively tailored suit Conservative suit, he is contemplating Chaos, but he isn't consumed by it. Rather, he is consuming it and willingly so. And he looks, well off enough to buy it. But, Rockwell painting him all in grey, suggests that he an abstraction himself. A representative one, who isn't lit up by the emotion the abstract painting is trying to communicate. A man, all at once in, and out of the zeitgeist the painting represents.
I like your comment. I saw respect, like the man is standing there willing to give regard to the new thing. Like, yeah, he's not walking past, looking over his shoulder, nor being contemptuous, which Rockwell could have depicted engagingly if he wished. The tight collar is such a nice touch of characterization. I love abstract art, and I have started to enjoy not knowing what to make of it! I think abstract art makes us wonder who we are and what we are doing, like why we react to it strongly. I have never known someone to be indifferent to it.
This is such a great take on the painting. I think what's interesting is just how unreadable the figure is. What we know about him has little to do with his feelings, and almost everything to do with his identity. Face aside, we know he's older, white, well-off, and respectable. I think Rockwell's point wasn't to suggest how the painting was affecting the man, but simply to present to us a respectable audience to rule-breaking art. It wasn't about the reaction, but simply the contrast. Interestingly, the last video I looked at before this was Iggy Pop performing on the Dinah Shore show, and the same dynamic applied. It seems the 20th century was all about the struggle between convention and those who sought to escape its constraints. Those constraints could be artistic expression or social injustice. I think Rockwell saw a link between the two, and Canvas, by connecting this painting to "The Problem We're All Living With," emphasizes that connection. Conformity to convention may seem harmless, and dismissing Pollock for rejecting any restraint of craft or convention may seem like nothing more than a matter of taste. But the form of the dismissal can be telling. The effrontery at every step toward modernity and away from traditional convention, speaks not to an aesthetic disinterest, but a moral outrage. And I can't help see a marked similarity between the outrage against Pollock, Rothko, et al, and the outrage against equality. When I see anyone clinging to convention for the sake of it, without reflection or consideration, but simply because, "It's not what I'm used to," I see the beginning of a road that ends somewhere extremely ugly. We are all guilty of that knee-jerk reaction to the new. Sometimes we catch ourselves right away. Sometimes, it takes years. But I think we owe it to ourselves and one another to at least try and tell the difference between what has no value, and what we find uncomfortable, between aesthetic disinterest, and dread of the new. This is where art and morality meet. We can't keep them separate, but we can understand in ourselves the difference, and better understand what's changing.
This painting was made in 1962 at which time modern art had already been around for 100 years, even predating the birth of the man in the picture. If you are referring to abstract expressionism, even that had gained mainstream acceptance by 1962.
You can't see his facial expression but there is still body language. To me the body language expresses an interested alertness and contemplative calmness. Since Rockwell is a master of expression, I think he would have painted the man differently if he were angry or bored. I think it is an homage, maybe even a self-portrait. But to get to that point he had to question it, he had to mock it, he had to have this long and hard conversation with it. But he is too much of an artist to just throw this idea out. He pays his respects to abstract expression as an artist who is on a completely different path - and I respect that.
The man's expression is irrelevant. What is relevant is that he's standing too close to the painting to see the whole composition. Unfortunately, I don't think this video's author realised the importance of that, and he kept cutting the bottom (where you can see he's literally standing one foot away from the wall). Rockwell included his feet and the floor for that reason. The painting (and its title) is a dig at people who pretend to know a lot about art, but are really just borrowing someone else's opinion (hence the book he's holding), and focusing on irrelevant details (it's a drip painting; there's no brushwork to examine) instead of looking at the work as a whole. It's kind of funny to see people doing just that _with this very painting_ and not even realising the joke is on them.
In looking at Rockwell’s abstract, I feel like I can see the artist carefully composing and somehow shaping his splatters. The large blobs of white provide contrast needed to separate the gray suited figure from the canvas. Without it, he would be much lest distinct and almost camouflaged. These shapes of paint look more intentional to my eye than the thin drips and streaks of paint elsewhere, more shaped and soft as though applied directly by brush. The placement of the reds is likewise important, the directions of the red splatters lead the viewer from the outside of the canvas in ward to the figure, while the long thin red line of paint in the lower right hand corner leads the eye back to the center should it happen to wander down there. In the composition the man is carefully placed a bit to the right, much more dynamic than if he was placed dead center. He is respectfully holding his hat in his hands behind his back. A gentleman removes his hat when indoors, and one does not touch the art with hands or an accidental brush of clothing - that is accepted museum or gallery etiquette. The man is giving abstraction his attention in an attempt to understand it. I am in awe of how easily Rockwell attends to all of these minor details to support the narrative meaning of of this work, whatever the viewer interprets that to be. Rockwell painted his original oil paintings for the Saturday Evening Post covers 30 in x 60 in (76.2 cm x 152.4 cm) so that they could be photographed then reduced for reproduction. So yes, this is an original work on canvas. Makes me want to visit the Rockwell museum.
This is just a personal observation and i am in no way shape or form someone qualified to critique or try to interpret art on a level other than what it makes me feel. That being said: the way Rockwell painted the man's head in The Connoseuir feels to me like the lines between abstract and representation are being blurred. It looks almost like his white and black hair grow in a way that follows the black and white drips right above. To me i see it as a representation of how deeply the subject is thinking on the abstract art. His mind is so caught up in it that it looks like his head is actually in the painting itself.
I’ve been to the Rockwell Museum, definitely worth the visit in Stockbridge Massachusetts, it’s a two hour drive for me, but if you are in parts of New England or upstate NY, go for it
My professor used to say, " Painting is about paint."After having made paintings of many different syles; for 40 years; I've learned to see abstract paintings, as isolated paint sections, of possible narratively- representational works; macro- zoomed in on. The purely abstract work has paint, as it subject matter; how paint moves, marks, and textually laminates; becomes the content.
@@humongoushugo6986 Yeah. I understood at 18. But....the richness of the possibilities; and experimentation solidifies it, in ways one won't comprehend until..." seasoned". At least that was my experience.
@@RSSIPPEL.ART. Yes, I know what you mean. There's a big difference between a deep understanding of a subject, where the knowledge enters wild and unexpected terrains, and comparatively superficial forms where knowledge is still bracketed by more conventional borders.
The “art” of modern art is you digging around in your brain looking for a way to explain what is objectively mostly nonsensical shapes and colors. There’s a reason that modern art descriptions are often much longer and more bloviating than a masterpiece that speaks for itself
Norman is a master. There's always been hints of abstraction, or at least little tidbits of similar methods, in his works, if you look closely enough. He leaves no base uncovered, and knows how to make a painting remain interesting even with longer observation.
What interests me also is the man’s hat. At that time, a well-dressed man like this one, if he went to a museum, would have checked his hat. Instead he has it with him, and is holding it behind his back. It suggests to me that this man didn’t expect to come across this painting in a museum, but may have come across it somewhere he didn’t expect to find art. To me this suggests a surprising pull the man feels at this artwork he didn’t go to see.
I thinks this is a reach. The painting is clearly in a gallery. The name of the painting is “The Connoisseur”. The man is holding what appears to be a guide pamphlet. He also has one glove off and one glove on. What is there to read in that? I don’t think much. I think Rockwell was painting a well-to-do, older, conservative gentleman contemplating art. I don’t think there is vey much ambiguity in that situation. I think it’s just a way to represent the man as from an older generation (gloves, hat, well dressed). The ambiguity is in what the man thinks and feels about the art. We can’t see his face and can’t say much from his body language. That was deliberate. I don’t think any information was intended based on the man carrying his hat. Personally, I think the man appreciates the art.
I've loved Rockwell's art since I was a kid back in the "60s. I remember seeing this Rockwell/Pollock on the cover of Saturday Evening Post. At that time I didn't know who Pollock was, but I idolized Rockwell. He was a wonderful artist in his own chosen genre, which reflected a whole different America than the one we know today. Later I came to also love the work of Pollock and other Abstract Expressionists. When you see their paintings in museums, you get a much better appreciation of just how sophisticated these artists really were. Rockwell appreciated their technical skills in a serious way, and was paying tribute. Very few others could attempt to do this.
Norman Rockwell's paintings put you in the moment. A whole movie could be written around any one of them. His work makes you think and feel whats going on in the painting. You want to be there. The nerve to only call him an Illustrator !
In my first formal art class, I was asked who my favorite Artist was. I said Norman Rockwell and was promptly told he was not an artist but an illustrator. What? Anyone that paints as he did is an artist! So my next favorite artist is Vermeer. Both are and always will be artists in my opinion. So, there Rockwell proved it with this painting.
An illustration isn’t about self-expression. It is kinda like a person working at Sears in the portrait studio. Are they an artist? I guess a graphic artist makes money and an artist usually doesn’t..... what is the difference between a craft and art? Keith Herring subway graffiti criminal...now artist. Art is something that has never been done before while a craft can look exactly the same as another an not be original. A graphic designer uses images for a specific purpose, such as to illustrate a story. A quilt can become textile art, depending on the meaning behind it.
@UC9wPexSYTBbTElAckRlyRwA @Carissa Fisher. Consequences: Business Art/Contemporary Art. If being placed reverentially inside a building (Gallery), or, being endorsed by a curator/critic, or being owned by a wealthy collector potentially makes anything art..... Then what do we call what consensus once saw as " artful" and saw as "artists" (people who did "art" all day sometimes for money)? What are the consequences of this elitism and monetisation and power grab?
@@veronica_._._._ art has more to do with the meaning behind it. There is no elitism. If graffiti artists are true artists in our society it is something for everyone. Folk art, textiles, clay, photography, ect. Everyone can be an artist! Everyone can create. There are only a few who become world famous and makes lots of money but, I would say the same thing for architects. I think art is one of the few professions where you don’t need a degree, and you can have a great deal of success. We have had artists since the beginning and probably as long as there are humans. We even have computer graphics and digital design as art.
I'm fascinated by the juxtaposition of representation and abstraction. It almost feels pasted-together, and the homage to the Wanderer figure makes me think that Rockwell could've been taking an inspiration from the collage and irony aspects of pop art. For what it's worth, the abstract painting he did is actually quite nice; I like the color palette and he clearly put some vigorous energy into the active painting style despite his age. Great video!
Very true! A lot of the great artists of the late 19th and 20 centuries made major changes to their styles quite late in their careers, at the same time updating their style while still retaining aspects of their older work, such as Matisse incorporating aspects of his interest in simplified forms as seen in non-Western art into his cut-outs. Same with Mondrian - you can see his interest in primary color division as early as 1910 in one of the trees he did in an expressionist style.
@@stefanpredoi4564 well to be fair, Steve, if they hadn’t done these things, the art world would not call them “great” today. It’s all money and politics.
@@reginaldforthright805 I would disagree with you. The color of the abstract feels deeply striking in contrast to the representational part of the work. And of course, there are plenty of completely abstract pieces which carry such a unique vibrance and energy like Mondrian's "Broadway Boogie-Woogie". In my eyes, it's often the simplest approaches which do the most. Also, what's wrong with wallpaper, anyway? I'd argue that houses have become much more boring since we've gotten rid of it.
Norman Rockwell to me was a fine artist. His canvas was a magazine cover accessable to all people and that's what art should be, no matter if you like it or not. Norman Rockwell wasn't the only fine artist who wanted to make art that the common person could access. Thomas Hart Benton was a critic of Rockwell, but their goals were the same in making art available to to all. The art world is funny that way with all the internal fights, but on some level they could find something in common too. Just another perspective on this topic.
Are you any relation? Norms like my great great uncle or something like that. It’d be kinda cool if we were both descendants of them and we could get into an Internet blood feud over who’s the better artist. lol Edit: The funny thing is I live in Missouri and have been to the capital on many school field trips. I’ve been fortunate enough to see Thomas Heart Benton’s murals firsthand several times but haven’t seen any Norman Rockwell paintings in person.
Wow, I thought I’d seen every Norman Rockwell painting. He’s my great great uncle and my mom collects all the Norm paraphernalia and this is new to me. Thank you for this.
Thanks for giving props to Rockwell. I always liked his work but grew up in a time when he was dismissed as a propagandist for conservatism by those who obviously never considered his body of work. Reading Dave Hickey's essay in his book Air Guitar gave me new insight and appreciation as has this video (I didn't know he said he would paint like Pollack).
Thank you for that,the painting has been a favof mine since I was given a book of collected Rockwell artwork in the early 70s whilst living in America, I think it was for my 10th birthday! It obviously had the Post covers,but,also contained many of his sketches & actual 'paintings'. Around the same time my mother took me to New York for a gallery weekend, something we would continue doing for the next 20+ years. I saw my first Pollack & Edward Hopper. From that point on & thanks to the painting you discussed above,I've always loved both abstract & realism. I'm British & went to Art School in London & remember being surprised/saddened by the realisation that ,particularly in those days,Rockwell was hardly know outside the USA & then only as an illustrator. For a man born in the "Victorisn age",dying in 1978, he left behind a phenomenal body of work,which brought - still continues to do so - pleasure & elicited reactions from so many,who never cared what he was labeled,they just loved his work.
Very good commentary. Ive always thought the best art are ones that make the viewer either feel intensely or make them think. And to make a composition support opposing interpretations AT THE SAME TIME , is simply a great piece of art.
I love that Rockwell put the letters "J P" into the drips. I was going to be a great paint dripper but my ladder wasn't as tall as pollock's, so he got all the attention. btw, this terrific painting brings to mind Rene Magritte.
My perception of Rockwell has changed about 180 degrees since I went to art school. Being an ignorant snob at the time, I loathed anything representational, to the point where if you made anything that could be sold, you weren't radical enough. Vermeer changed that and Chuck Close's super realist pieces were interesting but when you saw Rockwell's studies and how he added humor to it, it became pretty clear that he knew the game and was telling you that you didn't. And a master technician like Vermeer, something we rarely see these days..
Rockwell created hyper real caricatures of the American Ideal and did it better than anyone. He defined his view of American life, and his work is that representation. His work is always appealing, it freezes moments of the American experience in strange and wonderful ways that are timeless and beautiful.
I love his reference to the “Wanderer Above The Sea Fog” painting, because in a way it could be argued that such a painting was the inevitable inspiration for abstract expressionism. Since we cannot see the expression on the man’s face - we cannot he certain as to what the painting is saying or how it is supposed to make us feel. All we see is the backside of the man atop the mountain. We don’t know if he feels accomplished, disappointed, lonely, lost, tired, invigorated, etc…because we cannot see his expression. It is the inverse of the ever so common portrait paintings before it - where we can see the expression clearly but have no idea what the subject is looking at. We are left to only project our own thoughts and emotions onto the man in the painting ourselves and decide what the painting ultimately makes US feel - not answer the question as to what the painting wants us to feel or is telling us.
I never in my life considered that Ruby could be interpreted as the antagonist of The Problem We All Live With, my jaw dropped. I can't imagine being so bitter and hateful.
Unfortunately, you don’t have to imagine being that bitter and hateful because - despite anyones lack of imagination or ability to see beyond oneself - reality does include people who are actually exactly that bitter and hateful.
My first encounter with this as well, I can get behind abstract art, but has it ever taken my breath away, not even once and I think that says a lot about it
Imagine living in a time where talent like Rockwell's was often underappreciated simply because his primary work was illustrating magazines... like how no one really appreciated the beauty of hand drawn animated movies until everything became cgi...
No, animation art was always popular and so was Rockwell. Elite art snobs are a small, insular group, mainly concerned with power, prestige, and money laundering - not art.
I disagree with that about animation. You know, there's a French comic artist named Jean "Mœbius" Giraud. He's underappreciated by everyone who isn't a reader of French comics (Mainly because the Europeans don't market their comics here very well. Or they're not translated.), but they see his influences everywhere in science fiction. His work influenced movies like Stars Wars, Tron, and Blade Runner. Videogames like the Deus Ex franchise. Dan O'Bannon known for writing the movie Alien, wrote this comic called "The Long Tommorow", while Mœbius drew it. It was printed in the pages of adult comic magazine Heavy Metal. It would influence the visual style of an entire sci-fi genre called "cyberpunk". Blade Runner starring Harrison Ford is cyberpunk and was based on a novel called "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" by Phillip K. Dick. It's a definitive film for the genre. I recommend it, especially if you like film noir.
Wow ! Thank you ! AWE is one of my favorites . . . and your discussion of Rockwell's juxtaposition with Pollock ... just WOW ! That's Way More than 7 minutes worth of AWE you packed in your video ! B-)
I have a simple rule of art appreciation. If I could have "painted" it, it isn't art. Thus all of Pollock's "works" are dismissed as simple random color splotches.
My first tentative step in the direction of being more tolerant toward abstract expressionism was when John and Dominique de Menil opened the Rothko Chapel in Houston. Standing inside it the first time was overwhelming (literally awesome, if that's allowed).
One of the major factors playing into Rothko's work (and others) is that experiencing that amount of color, on that scale, in that format has physiological and psychological effects. His paintings on the more red end of the spectrum have the capacity to raise heartbeats.
You can't help but note the man looking at the painting is an balding man with greying hair. Judging by his neck probably corpulent as well. He is dressed in a gray suit which is a statement within itself. Perhaps a homage to Sloan Wilson's book, The Man in the Grey Flannel Suit. This highlighted one of the the faceless executives who built the post war world. Abstract art challenges the "We're all in this together" ideology of wartime. Now past his prime he contemplates his confusion and a changing world around him. It's really a magnificent piece of art.
This reminds me of a scene from the movie "LA Story",starring Steve Martin, when he is in a museum speaking about a painting that a group is looking at in lurid detail and then show that it's a Pollock. My name is Bicycle Bob and I approved this message.
To me the man in front of the art work was most likely reminiscing of his younger days of having energy, life, passion and vigor, which is expressed in the painting. Since this man's face can't be seen he could represent any of us older ones recapturing that feeling. I love Pollock but I have to say this painting is better.
The painting I like most of Rockwell's work is his self-portrait, the most prominent feature of which is the artist's behind, which I interpret to be an invitation by Rockwell to the art critics of the world to kiss.
This channel deserves over a million subscribers, your voice is so calming and it’s so nice to listen to. I always listen to your videos while I’m painting and sometimes it gives me inspiration for them, coming across your channel has been the most awesome experience ever, thank you for your awesome videos :)
Rockwell wasn't putting Pollock down, he was just contrasting two different styles for an artistic purpose. The illustrator had an obvious admiration for the abstractionist's approach and made a witty statement with it.
My great grandmother is in a Norman Rockwell painting called “Roadblock.” It’s the July 9, 1949 issue. My great grandmother is the older woman screaming and grabbing her hair.
I really appreciate your content, I've never been able to appreciate art but now this channel change my way to see art, so thank you for your content :)
I was lucky enough to visit the apartment of a woman in NYC that had collected the original paintings of many famous “illustrations” we all know. It’s been years ago now so I don’t remember specific works but she had a lot of them and it was pretty special to see.
I would say I agree with you we are not clued into the reaction of the Comissar but I would also say we get the impression he is contemplating the piece
I'm sorry but from things like submitting the piece to art exhibitions under fake aliases to remarks like the one at 1:10 I don't know how anyone could take this as anything other than mockery in its' purest form Rockwell could paint like Pollock, but Pollock couldn't even dream of painting like Rockwell, the end.
most abstract artists could draw realistically just fine, you gotta pass drawing classes to get an art degree. also art isn't a competition, I find it cool when an artist is able to find their unique niche or mode of expression
I'm not talking about painting realistically in general, just specifically like Rockwell also art can absolutely be a competition, specifically a timed one, if you want it to be
Exactly that is the biggest truth about the painting. The first thing that an artist would think about. The true artist, the professional, mokes the one who just expresses himself through art, by making his style the correct way. And of course in the end, in a true comparison wins the rival in his own "field".
@@halguy5745 Blatant lie, my head of department who was an abstract artist never so much as wrote a line or put pencil to paper once, during his BA and MA he boasted. Been a norm for generations. It makes faculty very defensive. Imagine the equivalent at a Music Conservatoire? Busted! He was driven mad by the fact he could create an image every minute on his Mac .and they were all SO good.He had millions of images stored. Sisyphus. He tried to draw a teapot once when he was in a rage after arguing with admin, He dragged the whiteboard down a whole corridor to do so just because they said, don't use a white board! He had no idea what a teapot looked like and ended up with a "Klein teapot" There is no comedy club that can even come near art school. I'm so so blessed with these memories, comedy gold.
Interesting. I love abstract art AND I read this as a comedy. That man is extremely respectful of the painting, you can see it in his posture. He didn't just scoff and walk by. It has his FULL attention.
Every time I think I understand this painting, a new idea pops into my head. Unless the man is examining detailed brush strokes, he is standing too close to this type of painting to admire it. Therefore, Norman Rockwell is calling him a "Connoisseur" in a sarcastic manner. This gentleman is pretending to be a connoisseur of art in a public space where he will be seen by others. But obviously he is not a connoisseur because he is standing too close. If he was admiring brush strokes, he would be leaning in, not standing upright as if he is 20 feet away. This painting shows me that Norman Rockwell was far more talented than I thought and on many more levels than I thought.
I do not know much about art so I can't talk much but your analysis made me think more about the art. When you mentioned how an audience member can come to a conclusion about the man's feeling based off our own biases, it caught me. I thought that the man felt indifferent about the art because that's the way I feel about abstract art. Willem De Kooning's opinion on Norman Rockwell's art also has me in a spiral about weather he complemented Rockwell or insulted Jackson...
I like how the man is standing too close to actually see the whole painting…he is clearly too close to appreciate it. We can see his facial expression in his hands…a genius way of concealing the truth.
I've only found this channel recently and it has already given me a newfound appreciation for Rockwell, an artist I really didn't care for much before. Any time I look at his paintings now, it's with a completely fresh eye. It's just mad to think that a painter from the first half of the 20th century would find a new brand fan a century later - thanks to a UA-cam channel. Art is timeless.
I like to think of Rockwell doing this as the ultimate form of respect and approval.
A statement that says "yes, I can do this too, but I'll stay in my own lane regardless"
The guy was just a freakishly talented painter. I can't think of anyone else who could capture a moment in time so perfectly.
I think the man looking at the painting thinks whatever you think. I just assumed the man looking at the painting was an art critic.
Well said 👏
As a Buckley Republican in his late 50s, I see this grey-suited 1950s man (yes, it was painted in 1961, but we was most assuredly still 1950s) looking at it and thinking "We're doomed."
@@cleftturnip7774 were art critics old men in grey flannel suits, or were they artsy-fartsy beret-wearing snob? Given that the painting won prizes when not in Rockwell's name... I'd bet hard cash they were artsy-fartsy beret-wearing snobs.
@@RonJohn63 i think the would come in a variety of shapes and sizes. Ffs
Damn, dude just went out and said, yeah, I can do both, can you? legend.
In the late 1940s, Benny Goodman-the great Swing clarinetist-made a few masterful Be-Bop recordings to show the younger Bop crowd (who by then considered him old fashioned) that he could indeed play their new style as well as they could, he just preferred not to.
This. This is exactly what Rockwell was doing. And people just can't grasp it.
Anyone can drip paint onto a canvas and call it art, Pollock wasn't an artist he was a hack who convinced idiots that what he had made was art.
I absolutely loved this painting from the first moment I saw it. As a teenager, I thought it would have been funny to have a subsequent painting where The Connoisseur turns around only to have a green apple obscuring his face. 😀
that'd be amazing
Or an infinity mirror of connoisseurs.
you can still paint that take on the meme. let's call it... sampling.
That’s hilarious, I wish that existed
I was also reminded of Magritte.
I accidentally saw a Norman Rockwell exhibit at the Guggenheim museum. The main show was of medieval Portuguese art with a magnificent gilded alter from a Catholic Cathedral with cherubs and a life-like Mary holding a bloodied Jesus that rose up half way to the Oculus. Which along with the entire room was Blacked out! As I made my way up the dark ramp with art pieces spot lit along the way I saw a hallway leading to a gallery. All white like we find traditionally at the museum and my curiosity and the light drew me in. It was a display of all if Rockwell's Post covers that led to a gallery with his paintings 🖼 There in the flesh so to speak. Honestly, I've never been moved like that looking at paintings in a museum or anywhere! I kept having to step away from the paintings to keep myself from weeping uncontrollably. I had a lump in my throat the whole time. They were really beautiful. Much bigger than I had expected and much more "painterly" in person. The paint was thick and chunky with texture that you would never see in a print. But what moved me most was the life he imbued in his characters. You would have to be a sympathetic and compassionate person to do what he did. It's really magic! I get tears just thinking about it. I know many think it's kinda low brow but it is what it is. He's like the Mr. Rogers of paintings to me. I ❤ him.
Consummate skill is only Low Brow in an Business Art World designed for money Launderers and grifters, never apologise for having discernment, and the authentic ability to be profoundly moved, in a world of raw sensationalism, and thought stopping tweets "debates"
@C M
So Abstract Expressionism was created by an Alphabet Agency to counter Soviet Realism. Oh the levels of irony about what fanboys are oblivious too.
Disclaimer:
I got thrown out of Art history Class by a marxist boomer for even mentioning Norman Cohn and the American Council to a friend, in a private conversation about Ray Eames, who l had been told to research, oh the double binds of Art Theory, it's almost as if it's designed as a confusion technique so profound that we would need a prominent Art Critic like Clement Greenberg to 'splain the double binds all away, with reverential art bollox.
Rockwell is a great artist because if you scrutinise his work over time, you will never stop learning, you need increasing levels of skill to appreciate his consummate skill.
This painting reminds me of Banksy. There's not a lot going on -- a man, a painting -- but there's also a lot going on. I see it as hopeful. An older man is giving modern art a shot. He could have shaken his head and walked right past it, but instead he stops. His hands behind his back, to me, make it seem like he's allowing himself to be vulnerable. I love the added detail of his shirt being a little too tight around the neck. Since this type of artwork is so new, and Rockwell was older at the time, was he also saying that he was giving that type of art serious consideration as well?
That's the best thing about Rockwell - lots of his paintings are extremely mundane but at the same time give amazing, relatable context of what America was like at the time.
I doubt he had anything but the utmost respect for Pollock. If he wanted to mock his work, he could've easily done so without making an actual action painting himself and hiding the expression of the man looking at it.
Just one thing. Hands behind ones back is confidence and invulnerability in body language. He is open but not vulnerable. Rather, in his sharp, well-fitted, crease free, and expensively tailored suit Conservative suit, he is contemplating Chaos, but he isn't consumed by it. Rather, he is consuming it and willingly so. And he looks, well off enough to buy it. But, Rockwell painting him all in grey, suggests that he an abstraction himself. A representative one, who isn't lit up by the emotion the abstract painting is trying to communicate. A man, all at once in, and out of the zeitgeist the painting represents.
I like your comment. I saw respect, like the man is standing there willing to give regard to the new thing. Like, yeah, he's not walking past, looking over his shoulder, nor being contemptuous, which Rockwell could have depicted engagingly if he wished. The tight collar is such a nice touch of characterization. I love abstract art, and I have started to enjoy not knowing what to make of it! I think abstract art makes us wonder who we are and what we are doing, like why we react to it strongly. I have never known someone to be indifferent to it.
This is such a great take on the painting. I think what's interesting is just how unreadable the figure is. What we know about him has little to do with his feelings, and almost everything to do with his identity. Face aside, we know he's older, white, well-off, and respectable. I think Rockwell's point wasn't to suggest how the painting was affecting the man, but simply to present to us a respectable audience to rule-breaking art. It wasn't about the reaction, but simply the contrast.
Interestingly, the last video I looked at before this was Iggy Pop performing on the Dinah Shore show, and the same dynamic applied. It seems the 20th century was all about the struggle between convention and those who sought to escape its constraints. Those constraints could be artistic expression or social injustice. I think Rockwell saw a link between the two, and Canvas, by connecting this painting to "The Problem We're All Living With," emphasizes that connection. Conformity to convention may seem harmless, and dismissing Pollock for rejecting any restraint of craft or convention may seem like nothing more than a matter of taste. But the form of the dismissal can be telling. The effrontery at every step toward modernity and away from traditional convention, speaks not to an aesthetic disinterest, but a moral outrage. And I can't help see a marked similarity between the outrage against Pollock, Rothko, et al, and the outrage against equality. When I see anyone clinging to convention for the sake of it, without reflection or consideration, but simply because, "It's not what I'm used to," I see the beginning of a road that ends somewhere extremely ugly.
We are all guilty of that knee-jerk reaction to the new. Sometimes we catch ourselves right away. Sometimes, it takes years. But I think we owe it to ourselves and one another to at least try and tell the difference between what has no value, and what we find uncomfortable, between aesthetic disinterest, and dread of the new. This is where art and morality meet. We can't keep them separate, but we can understand in ourselves the difference, and better understand what's changing.
This painting was made in 1962 at which time modern art had already been around for 100 years, even predating the birth of the man in the picture. If you are referring to abstract expressionism, even that had gained mainstream acceptance by 1962.
You can't see his facial expression but there is still body language.
To me the body language expresses an interested alertness and contemplative calmness. Since Rockwell is a master of expression, I think he would have painted the man differently if he were angry or bored.
I think it is an homage, maybe even a self-portrait. But to get to that point he had to question it, he had to mock it, he had to have this long and hard conversation with it. But he is too much of an artist to just throw this idea out. He pays his respects to abstract expression as an artist who is on a completely different path - and I respect that.
This painting of a staid mid-century businessman scrutinizing a wild painting is more Wallace Stevens than Wallace Stevens.
The man's expression is irrelevant. What is relevant is that he's standing too close to the painting to see the whole composition. Unfortunately, I don't think this video's author realised the importance of that, and he kept cutting the bottom (where you can see he's literally standing one foot away from the wall). Rockwell included his feet and the floor for that reason.
The painting (and its title) is a dig at people who pretend to know a lot about art, but are really just borrowing someone else's opinion (hence the book he's holding), and focusing on irrelevant details (it's a drip painting; there's no brushwork to examine) instead of looking at the work as a whole.
It's kind of funny to see people doing just that _with this very painting_ and not even realising the joke is on them.
@@RFC-3514
That's some serious insight, thank you.
Rockwell was a lot sharper than most imagined.
Cool.
Rockwell’s piece is absolutely brilliant on multiple levels. Loved your analysis. I had never seen this before. Thanks for sharing.
The duality is incredible.
The connoisseur is also standing between the viewer and their view of the work of art, which could be said to be a criticism of connoisseurism in art.
I tend to believe that the title of this painting was a bit sarcastic.
In looking at Rockwell’s abstract, I feel like I can see the artist carefully composing and somehow shaping his splatters. The large blobs of white provide contrast needed to separate the gray suited figure from the canvas. Without it, he would be much lest distinct and almost camouflaged. These shapes of paint look more intentional to my eye than the thin drips and streaks of paint elsewhere, more shaped and soft as though applied directly by brush. The placement of the reds is likewise important, the directions of the red splatters lead the viewer from the outside of the canvas in ward to the figure, while the long thin red line of paint in the lower right hand corner leads the eye back to the center should it happen to wander down there. In the composition the man is carefully placed a bit to the right, much more dynamic than if he was placed dead center. He is respectfully holding his hat in his hands behind his back. A gentleman removes his hat when indoors, and one does not touch the art with hands or an accidental brush of clothing - that is accepted museum or gallery etiquette. The man is giving abstraction his attention in an attempt to understand it. I am in awe of how easily Rockwell attends to all of these minor details to support the narrative meaning of of this work, whatever the viewer interprets that to be. Rockwell painted his original oil paintings for the Saturday Evening Post covers 30 in x 60 in (76.2 cm x 152.4 cm) so that they could be photographed then reduced for reproduction. So yes, this is an original work on canvas. Makes me want to visit the Rockwell museum.
This is just a personal observation and i am in no way shape or form someone qualified to critique or try to interpret art on a level other than what it makes me feel. That being said: the way Rockwell painted the man's head in The Connoseuir feels to me like the lines between abstract and representation are being blurred. It looks almost like his white and black hair grow in a way that follows the black and white drips right above. To me i see it as a representation of how deeply the subject is thinking on the abstract art. His mind is so caught up in it that it looks like his head is actually in the painting itself.
I’ve been to the Rockwell Museum, definitely worth the visit in Stockbridge Massachusetts, it’s a two hour drive for me, but if you are in parts of New England or upstate NY, go for it
@@Drojah it’s definitely intentional. Norman Rockwell is way too good a painter to do that by accident
What a beautiful interpretation!
@@ecurewitz Right, he understood and reproduced what Pollack was doing far better than someone who dismissed Pollack's work is just "spattering."
Jesus christ this is the first time I've seen this painting and it literally gives me chills. Wonderful explanation
Thanks!
My professor used to say, " Painting is about paint."After having made paintings of many different syles; for 40 years; I've learned to see abstract paintings, as isolated paint sections, of possible narratively- representational works; macro- zoomed in on. The purely abstract work has paint, as it subject matter; how paint moves, marks, and textually laminates; becomes the content.
Surely it took you less than 40 years to realize this, right?
@@humongoushugo6986 Yeah. I understood at 18. But....the richness of the possibilities; and experimentation solidifies it, in ways one won't comprehend until..." seasoned". At least that was my experience.
@@RSSIPPEL.ART. Yes, I know what you mean. There's a big difference between a deep understanding of a subject, where the knowledge enters wild and unexpected terrains, and comparatively superficial forms where knowledge is still bracketed by more conventional borders.
The “art” of modern art is you digging around in your brain looking for a way to explain what is objectively mostly nonsensical shapes and colors. There’s a reason that modern art descriptions are often much longer and more bloviating than a masterpiece that speaks for itself
@@HieronymousLex Similarity here too.
Norman is a master. There's always been hints of abstraction, or at least little tidbits of similar methods, in his works, if you look closely enough. He leaves no base uncovered, and knows how to make a painting remain interesting even with longer observation.
What interests me also is the man’s hat. At that time, a well-dressed man like this one, if he went to a museum, would have checked his hat. Instead he has it with him, and is holding it behind his back. It suggests to me that this man didn’t expect to come across this painting in a museum, but may have come across it somewhere he didn’t expect to find art. To me this suggests a surprising pull the man feels at this artwork he didn’t go to see.
I see the painting hanging in an art gallery, where it would not be uncommon to not check your hat or umbrella.
I thinks this is a reach. The painting is clearly in a gallery. The name of the painting is “The Connoisseur”. The man is holding what appears to be a guide pamphlet. He also has one glove off and one glove on. What is there to read in that? I don’t think much. I think Rockwell was painting a well-to-do, older, conservative gentleman contemplating art. I don’t think there is vey much ambiguity in that situation. I think it’s just a way to represent the man as from an older generation (gloves, hat, well dressed). The ambiguity is in what the man thinks and feels about the art. We can’t see his face and can’t say much from his body language. That was deliberate. I don’t think any information was intended based on the man carrying his hat. Personally, I think the man appreciates the art.
An amazing new video! Thank you!
Very good post.
All art is good - when it speaks t you.
If it uplifts your human experience, it is God sharing his love.
I've loved Rockwell's art since I was a kid back in the "60s. I remember seeing this Rockwell/Pollock on the cover of Saturday Evening Post. At that time I didn't know who Pollock was, but I idolized Rockwell. He was a wonderful artist in his own chosen genre, which reflected a whole different America than the one we know today. Later I came to also love the work of Pollock and other Abstract Expressionists. When you see their paintings in museums, you get a much better appreciation of just how sophisticated these artists really were. Rockwell appreciated their technical skills in a serious way, and was paying tribute. Very few others could attempt to do this.
Norman Rockwell's paintings put you in the moment. A whole movie could be written around any one of them. His work makes you think and feel whats going on in the painting. You want to be there. The nerve to only call him an Illustrator !
In my first formal art class, I was asked who my favorite Artist was. I said Norman Rockwell and was promptly told he was not an artist but an illustrator. What? Anyone that paints as he did is an artist! So my next favorite artist is Vermeer. Both are and always will be artists in my opinion. So, there Rockwell proved it with this painting.
Left wing art tutors and critics are actually massive snobs!
Discuss:
But never discuss haha
An illustration isn’t about self-expression. It is kinda like a person working at Sears in the portrait studio. Are they an artist? I guess a graphic artist makes money and an artist usually doesn’t..... what is the difference between a craft and art? Keith Herring subway graffiti criminal...now artist. Art is something that has never been done before while a craft can look exactly the same as another an not be original. A graphic designer uses images for a specific purpose, such as to illustrate a story. A quilt can become textile art, depending on the meaning behind it.
@@carissafisher7514 So naked truth time, where does the power of naming and valuing lie? Who had been disenfranchised?
@UC9wPexSYTBbTElAckRlyRwA @Carissa Fisher. Consequences:
Business Art/Contemporary Art.
If being placed reverentially inside a building (Gallery), or, being endorsed by a curator/critic, or being owned by a wealthy collector potentially makes anything art.....
Then what do we call what consensus once saw as " artful" and saw as "artists" (people who did "art" all day sometimes for money)?
What are the consequences of this elitism and monetisation and power grab?
@@veronica_._._._ art has more to do with the meaning behind it. There is no elitism. If graffiti artists are true artists in our society it is something for everyone. Folk art, textiles, clay, photography, ect. Everyone can be an artist! Everyone can create. There are only a few who become world famous and makes lots of money but, I would say the same thing for architects. I think art is one of the few professions where you don’t need a degree, and you can have a great deal of success. We have had artists since the beginning and probably as long as there are humans. We even have computer graphics and digital design as art.
Wow, fantastic work of art! The process of Rockwell making a Pollock is intriguing and fascinating!
I'm fascinated by the juxtaposition of representation and abstraction. It almost feels pasted-together, and the homage to the Wanderer figure makes me think that Rockwell could've been taking an inspiration from the collage and irony aspects of pop art. For what it's worth, the abstract painting he did is actually quite nice; I like the color palette and he clearly put some vigorous energy into the active painting style despite his age. Great video!
It goes to show that one is never too old to learn and it pays off to try different things.
Very true! A lot of the great artists of the late 19th and 20 centuries made major changes to their styles quite late in their careers, at the same time updating their style while still retaining aspects of their older work, such as Matisse incorporating aspects of his interest in simplified forms as seen in non-Western art into his cut-outs. Same with Mondrian - you can see his interest in primary color division as early as 1910 in one of the trees he did in an expressionist style.
It feels like a character with wallpaper. The abstract always recedes to triviality in the face of the representational.
@@stefanpredoi4564 well to be fair, Steve, if they hadn’t done these things, the art world would not call them “great” today. It’s all money and politics.
@@reginaldforthright805 I would disagree with you. The color of the abstract feels deeply striking in contrast to the representational part of the work. And of course, there are plenty of completely abstract pieces which carry such a unique vibrance and energy like Mondrian's "Broadway Boogie-Woogie". In my eyes, it's often the simplest approaches which do the most. Also, what's wrong with wallpaper, anyway? I'd argue that houses have become much more boring since we've gotten rid of it.
Norman Rockwell to me was a fine artist. His canvas was a magazine cover accessable to all people and that's what art should be, no matter if you like it or not. Norman Rockwell wasn't the only fine artist who wanted to make art that the common person could access. Thomas Hart Benton was a critic of Rockwell, but their goals were the same in making art available to to all. The art world is funny that way with all the internal fights, but on some level they could find something in common too. Just another perspective on this topic.
Are you any relation? Norms like my great great uncle or something like that. It’d be kinda cool if we were both descendants of them and we could get into an Internet blood feud over who’s the better artist. lol
Edit: The funny thing is I live in Missouri and have been to the capital on many school field trips. I’ve been fortunate enough to see Thomas Heart Benton’s murals firsthand several times but haven’t seen any Norman Rockwell paintings in person.
Wow, I thought I’d seen every Norman Rockwell painting. He’s my great great uncle and my mom collects all the Norm paraphernalia and this is new to me. Thank you for this.
Your videos are absolutely amazing!
Well presented
Thanks for giving props to Rockwell. I always liked his work but grew up in a time when he was dismissed as a propagandist for conservatism by those who obviously never considered his body of work. Reading Dave Hickey's essay in his book Air Guitar gave me new insight and appreciation as has this video (I didn't know he said he would paint like Pollack).
What a beautiful voice you have!
Thank you for that,the painting has been a favof mine since I was given a book of collected Rockwell artwork in the early 70s whilst living in America, I think it was for my 10th birthday! It obviously had the Post covers,but,also contained many of his sketches & actual 'paintings'. Around the same time my mother took me to New York for a gallery weekend, something we would continue doing for the next 20+ years. I saw my first Pollack & Edward Hopper. From that point on & thanks to the painting you discussed above,I've always loved both abstract & realism. I'm British & went to Art School in London & remember being surprised/saddened by the realisation that ,particularly in those days,Rockwell was hardly know outside the USA & then only as an illustrator. For a man born in the "Victorisn age",dying in 1978, he left behind a phenomenal body of work,which brought - still continues to do so - pleasure & elicited reactions from so many,who never cared what he was labeled,they just loved his work.
Pollock was a hack, he managed to convince people his child like finger paintings were real art.
Very good commentary. Ive always thought the best art are ones that make the viewer either feel intensely or make them think. And to make a composition support opposing interpretations AT THE SAME TIME , is simply a great piece of art.
The Canvas now didn't posted every week. Nice. Keep up the good work.
Still more impressed with Rockwell than I can ever be with Pollock. Neither are my favorites but I can't abide Pollock.
I don't see how anyone could argue that Rockwell's output was not art.
I love that Rockwell put the letters "J P" into the drips.
I was going to be a great paint dripper but my ladder wasn't as tall as pollock's, so he got all the attention.
btw, this terrific painting brings to mind Rene Magritte.
Rockwell was indeed a popular commercial illustrator, but he also had a sophisticated vision that give his work lasting impact and relevance.
Norman Rockwell was a great artist … the world is just now catching up to realizing it
My perception of Rockwell has changed about 180 degrees since I went to art school. Being an ignorant snob at the time, I loathed anything representational, to the point where if you made anything that could be sold, you weren't radical enough. Vermeer changed that and Chuck Close's super realist pieces were interesting but when you saw Rockwell's studies and how he added humor to it, it became pretty clear that he knew the game and was telling you that you didn't. And a master technician like Vermeer, something we rarely see these days..
Always giving one pause, to think deeply about art.
The Hyper Realism of Rockwell juxtaposed with … well Pollock.
Impressively done. I was unaware of this piece.
Thank you.
Rockwell created hyper real caricatures of the American Ideal and did it better than anyone. He defined his view of American life, and his work is that representation. His work is always appealing, it freezes moments of the American experience in strange and wonderful ways that are timeless and beautiful.
I love his reference to the “Wanderer Above The Sea Fog” painting, because in a way it could be argued that such a painting was the inevitable inspiration for abstract expressionism.
Since we cannot see the expression on the man’s face - we cannot he certain as to what the painting is saying or how it is supposed to make us feel. All we see is the backside of the man atop the mountain. We don’t know if he feels accomplished, disappointed, lonely, lost, tired, invigorated, etc…because we cannot see his expression.
It is the inverse of the ever so common portrait paintings before it - where we can see the expression clearly but have no idea what the subject is looking at.
We are left to only project our own thoughts and emotions onto the man in the painting ourselves and decide what the painting ultimately makes US feel - not answer the question as to what the painting wants us to feel or is telling us.
I never in my life considered that Ruby could be interpreted as the antagonist of The Problem We All Live With, my jaw dropped. I can't imagine being so bitter and hateful.
Unfortunately, you don’t have to imagine being that bitter and hateful because - despite anyones lack of imagination or ability to see beyond oneself - reality does include people who are actually exactly that bitter and hateful.
Ruby?
Did you wander in through the wrong door?
Please exit through the gift shop.
@@idcook Unfortunately
@@duderama6750 lol
You have much to offer to a broad range of artistic appreciation among the viewers of your channel, sir.
Ironically, this is easily Rockwell's best painting.
Realism is what’s inside the artist, Abstract is what’s inside the viewer.
My first encounter with this as well, I can get behind abstract art, but has it ever taken my breath away, not even once and I think that says a lot about it
Imagine living in a time where talent like Rockwell's was often underappreciated simply because his primary work was illustrating magazines... like how no one really appreciated the beauty of hand drawn animated movies until everything became cgi...
No, animation art was always popular and so was Rockwell. Elite art snobs are a small, insular group, mainly concerned with power, prestige, and money laundering - not art.
I disagree with that about animation. You know, there's a French comic artist named Jean "Mœbius" Giraud. He's underappreciated by everyone who isn't a reader of French comics (Mainly because the Europeans don't market their comics here very well. Or they're not translated.), but they see his influences everywhere in science fiction. His work influenced movies like Stars Wars, Tron, and Blade Runner. Videogames like the Deus Ex franchise.
Dan O'Bannon known for writing the movie Alien, wrote this comic called "The Long Tommorow", while Mœbius drew it. It was printed in the pages of adult comic magazine Heavy Metal. It would influence the visual style of an entire sci-fi genre called "cyberpunk".
Blade Runner starring Harrison Ford is cyberpunk and was based on a novel called "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" by Phillip K. Dick.
It's a definitive film for the genre. I recommend it, especially if you like film noir.
Wow ! Thank you !
AWE is one of my favorites . . .
and your discussion of Rockwell's juxtaposition with Pollock ... just WOW !
That's Way More than 7 minutes worth of AWE you packed in your video ! B-)
You are an awesome art historian. Love your work
Somewhat surprised there wasn't commentary on the title. It seems part and parcel of the work, the dichotomy between haughtiness and knowledgeability.
I have a simple rule of art appreciation. If I could have "painted" it, it isn't art. Thus all of Pollock's "works" are dismissed as simple random color splotches.
My first tentative step in the direction of being more tolerant toward abstract expressionism was when John and Dominique de Menil opened the Rothko Chapel in Houston. Standing inside it the first time was overwhelming (literally awesome, if that's allowed).
One of the major factors playing into Rothko's work (and others) is that experiencing that amount of color, on that scale, in that format has physiological and psychological effects. His paintings on the more red end of the spectrum have the capacity to raise heartbeats.
Rothko personally denied any connection to Abstract Art...
His life and death is a cautionary tale.
I'm not sure which i like better... Your content or your soothing voice... I enjoy both... Keep up the great work!!!
Whats important about the man looking at the painting is that he's not indifferent to it.
You can't help but note the man looking at the painting is an balding man with greying hair. Judging by his neck probably corpulent as well. He is dressed in a gray suit which is a statement within itself. Perhaps a homage to Sloan Wilson's book, The Man in the Grey Flannel Suit. This highlighted one of the the faceless executives who built the post war world. Abstract art challenges the "We're all in this together" ideology of wartime. Now past his prime he contemplates his confusion and a changing world around him. It's really a magnificent piece of art.
Excellent video !! Thank you.
I can't believe I'd never seen this before, I love it!
I ❤ Norman Rockwell! Best American artist ever👏👍
This reminds me of a scene from the movie "LA Story",starring Steve Martin, when he is in a museum speaking about a painting that a group is looking at in lurid detail and then show that it's a Pollock. My name is Bicycle Bob and I approved this message.
Great video and analysis. Thanks for posting.
I was actually looking at it thinking, “Oh Pollock is better than I thought.” 😅 Of course, Rockwell made it
Rockwell captured a moment in time.
Maybe I'm a Philistine. But when I see Pollock. I see a drop cloth.
I would name this painting as "A confrontation of the technique and talent, against the lack of it"
Norman Rockwell is too good a painter to paint like Pollock.
To me the man in front of the art work was most likely reminiscing of his younger days of having energy, life, passion and vigor, which is expressed in the painting. Since this man's face can't be seen he could represent any of us older ones recapturing that feeling.
I love Pollock but I have to say this painting is better.
You would love my Rockwell painting it is the last unknown painting done by Rockwell himself in 1977 just a few months before he passed.
really brilliantly done piece. hadnt seen it before so thanks for sharing it and your thoughts.
The painting I like most of Rockwell's work is his self-portrait, the most prominent feature of which is the artist's behind, which I interpret to be an invitation by Rockwell to the art critics of the world to kiss.
What do I know about Rockwell? He was an artist. What do I know about Pollock? Rockwell was an artist.
Too much negativity in these comments! I want to appreciate art for what it is and what it does
Just want to say...you have an incredible voice.
I would much rather have a picture by Rockwell in my house than one by Pollock.
This channel deserves over a million subscribers, your voice is so calming and it’s so nice to listen to. I always listen to your videos while I’m painting and sometimes it gives me inspiration for them, coming across your channel has been the most awesome experience ever, thank you for your awesome videos :)
I like to imagine a sneer on his face. Rockwell was a genius - we can all project ourselves into this work regardless of our opinion
Rockwell wasn't putting Pollock down, he was just contrasting two different styles for an artistic purpose. The illustrator had an obvious admiration for the abstractionist's approach and made a witty statement with it.
Maybe this man is the kid from "Penny Candy" grown up.
Don't know a lot about art but this is coverpage is so cool
Great voice - sound editing!
My great grandmother is in a Norman Rockwell painting called “Roadblock.” It’s the July 9, 1949 issue. My great grandmother is the older woman screaming and grabbing her hair.
I really appreciate your content, I've never been able to appreciate art but now this channel change my way to see art, so thank you for your content :)
I was lucky enough to visit the apartment of a woman in NYC that had collected the original paintings of many famous “illustrations” we all know. It’s been years ago now so I don’t remember specific works but she had a lot of them and it was pretty special to see.
I love your videos man, so good
This has to be my favorite Rockwell
I would say I agree with you we are not clued into the reaction of the Comissar but I would also say we get the impression he is contemplating the piece
I'm sorry but from things like submitting the piece to art exhibitions under fake aliases to remarks like the one at 1:10 I don't know how anyone could take this as anything other than mockery in its' purest form
Rockwell could paint like Pollock, but Pollock couldn't even dream of painting like Rockwell, the end.
most abstract artists could draw realistically just fine, you gotta pass drawing classes to get an art degree. also art isn't a competition, I find it cool when an artist is able to find their unique niche or mode of expression
I'm not talking about painting realistically in general, just specifically like Rockwell
also art can absolutely be a competition, specifically a timed one, if you want it to be
Exactly that is the biggest truth about the painting. The first thing that an artist would think about. The true artist, the professional, mokes the one who just expresses himself through art, by making his style the correct way. And of course in the end, in a true comparison wins the rival in his own "field".
@@vgiannakos noone's making anything correct
you are trying so hard to get offended by nothing
@@halguy5745 Blatant lie, my head of department who was an abstract artist never so much as wrote a line or put pencil to paper once, during his BA and MA he boasted. Been a norm for generations. It makes faculty very defensive. Imagine the equivalent at a Music Conservatoire? Busted!
He was driven mad by the fact he could create an image every minute on his Mac .and they were all SO good.He had millions of images stored. Sisyphus.
He tried to draw a teapot once when he was in a rage after arguing with admin, He dragged the whiteboard down a whole corridor to do so just because they said, don't use a white board! He had no idea what a teapot looked like and ended up with a "Klein teapot"
There is no comedy club that can even come near art school. I'm so so blessed with these memories, comedy gold.
Interesting. I love abstract art AND I read this as a comedy. That man is extremely respectful of the painting, you can see it in his posture. He didn't just scoff and walk by. It has his FULL attention.
He's waiting to be told what to think and what to ffeel, in just a few decades he can rent an audio describer from the front desk, oh the relief.
Excellent and enjoyable.
Every time I think I understand this painting, a new idea pops into my head. Unless the man is examining detailed brush strokes, he is standing too close to this type of painting to admire it. Therefore, Norman Rockwell is calling him a "Connoisseur" in a sarcastic manner. This gentleman is pretending to be a connoisseur of art in a public space where he will be seen by others. But obviously he is not a connoisseur because he is standing too close. If he was admiring brush strokes, he would be leaning in, not standing upright as if he is 20 feet away. This painting shows me that Norman Rockwell was far more talented than I thought and on many more levels than I thought.
Great video essay. Also, I love the sound of your voice, so soothing!
Thank you for the video.
Anyone who paid to own a Jackson Pollock so-called painting,need to have their head examined.
Mockery is deserved and warranted. Bravo to Rockwell.
I do not know much about art so I can't talk much but your analysis made me think more about the art. When you mentioned how an audience member can come to a conclusion about the man's feeling based off our own biases, it caught me. I thought that the man felt indifferent about the art because that's the way I feel about abstract art.
Willem De Kooning's opinion on Norman Rockwell's art also has me in a spiral about weather he complemented Rockwell or insulted Jackson...
I like how the man is standing too close to actually see the whole painting…he is clearly too close to appreciate it.
We can see his facial expression in his hands…a genius way of concealing the truth.
I've only found this channel recently and it has already given me a newfound appreciation for Rockwell, an artist I really didn't care for much before. Any time I look at his paintings now, it's with a completely fresh eye. It's just mad to think that a painter from the first half of the 20th century would find a new brand fan a century later - thanks to a UA-cam channel. Art is timeless.
Great take on this work.
Chaos. I like your taste in paintings and your essays
Cudos! Well done.