Tuesday, March 10, 2009

My Least Favourite Artist Ever

I'm in a class called 'Limits of the Avant-Garde' and it's amazing. If you're into various kind of crazy art movements and you like making creative projects rather than writing essays and you're in MIT take it next year. Anyhow, in said class we discuss why some art movements came to be; what fueled them (my favourite is the Situationists). Today we discussed post-modern art movements, and aggregator art. This got me thinking about meaning behind certain artists that are not necessarily Avant-garde. Immediately I thought of my least favourite artist ever. Norman Rockwell.Norman Rockwell, terrible art, douche bag
Why do I dislike him? Maybe it's things like this, “If a picture wasn't going very well, I'd put a puppy in it.” That's a direct quote. From what I have gathered from his website and work I have seen what drives him is innocence. He wants to portray an innocent America that is pure and whimsical. He paints the world as he would like it to be. I guess sure, fine, that's meaning... but I don't think it's very bold, or even original. I have no clue how the man became an icon. I don't really like the meaning behind it, and I really don't like the aesthetic appearance of his art. Forgive me for being rash or harsh, but it's just plain TACKY.


  1. I don't think anyone is gonna hate on you for finding Rockwell tacky looking. Isn't that the point?

  2. I'm SO buying you a Normal Rockwell print for your birthday.

    Along these lines.... have you heard of Thomas Kinkade?


    I leave you to form your own opinion!

  3. tacky indeed. holy puppies definitely don't make everything better...i mean they do make things awesome...but sorry Norman needs more than puppies to save his work. Plus, love how you love one of the most political artistic movements. PROPS

  4. agreed, norman rockwell = terrible

  5. If you're out on the market looking for something... fresh - why not take a look at this little gem? After all... you know what the carinians say


  6. Does art have to be bold and original to be good?
    I don't think so.
    Not that I'm a Rockwell fan but technically I don't see anything wrong with his desire to recapture innocence and portray the world in an idyllic manner. Maybe people don't want something with layers of thought-provoking meaning, maybe the average person just wants art that they can aesthetically enjoy, and appreciate the simple pleasures of its subject. I mean, who doesn't like puppies!

    p.s. mmmmmm.. puppies.