Selection and rejection

But that’s what makes the difference between an artist and someone who simply makes note of what they see. Not everyone who has a camera is a photographer. Not everyone who wields a paintbrush is an artist. It’s the picking and choosing and the combining of elements that makes a work of art. R.

This letter’s one you should run every three months. I have no problem with painters using reference photos, but it makes me wince every time someone defends their own painting by saying, “Well, it was in the reference photo I used.”

I too learned as a commercial artist: all that matters is the end result, how you got there makes no difference.

For Rockwell, and other illustrators, the camera is a valuable, efficient time-saving tool. It provides the basic foundation. The fundamental composition is quickly set up; from that point on, all the modifications and creative decisions will come into play.

I WISH that I had had someone steer me to learning the art of illustration when I was a child or teen. I think that is a savvy way for a young artist to get going … draw everyday, learn the classical skills to the point of quality work, learn how to connect with your audience, the discipline, meeting deadlines, and … did I say DRAW everyday? Really, I cannot think of a better path to take for a professional artist. That … and attending theatre (especially if one could draw during rehearsals).

Another reason I love to paint. It is my kingdom, which is not ruled by democracy, but a benevolent dictatorship. Like Rockwell, it is the world as I see it and as I feel it should be. If you don’t agree, go paint your own kingdom.

The very small digital camera is a great enabling device for artists! We can now capture the action when it happens. We don’t have to pose models as if they are in natural situations. The computer allows us to manipulate the figures into compositions which work, as Rockwell did with a little more tilt of the cop’s torso, more defensive placing of child’s arms and raising his feet, and simplifying the background. Knowing what to keep, to change and to eliminate make a more powerful tale. This knowledge is innate and can’t be taught completely. My bread and butter paintings are portraits of deceased pets. People want it all in the one painting! Recent case was Rosie. Client wished to have a sunset and sailboat in the background which was impossible since the photo’s perspective was looking down at the dog sitting on the floor. In order to enliven the comp, I asked about the things Rosie did and her favorite objects. Rosie apparently had a particular liking for her mistresses socks. So, I found an old pair of my fanciful socks to put on the ground surrounding her. It worked and captured both the dog and some angle which endeared her to her mistress.

Oh how I wish I could paint like Rockwell! He referred from the photos but didn’t copy. There is a world of difference.

Today’s letter was very special as I was able to see the exhibit in Washington DC at the Smithsonian this summer of the private collections of Norman Rockwell ‘s work–you are absolutely correct about the brush work and the attention to detail–he was a consummate painter. Thank-you for noting his techniques.

What else do you know about Norman Rockwell???? That was a fascinating newsletter!! Norman is my absolute favorite ARTIST!!

Norman Rockwell was a gentleman and a scholar when he said he was an illustrator and not an artist. As to him using photography as a tool was simply using the available technology of the day. I respect his self-description as being honest with himself. His true artistry was in the signature inimitable facial expressions of his subjects that were skillfully drawn by his adept hand. The important cue here is in the word skill. There are many skilled craftsmen but few artists. What I mean is the difference between those who execute art and those who create new directions.

I receive many art related emails, blogs, newsletters etc. in my inbox, but your letter is the only one I rush to open. Thank you for your insights and wisdom so eloquently put.

By the time I lived in Lenox, that little Stockbridge diner in the Rockwell photo had become the original Alice’s Restaurant — when she became a success, she promptly moved to a bigger place. My former high school English teacher, a friend of the Rockwell’s, was the Director of the Rockwell Museum for about 5 years in the 1970s. I helped him curate a few shows, and got to see the store room. Looking at Rockwell’s studies for his paintings, I could see that he was much, much more than an illustrator. But he was very modest and private.

If you read N.C. Wyeth’s Journal, he places a great distinction between illustrator and painter, declaring himself an illustrator striving to be a painter. He regarded himself eventually as successful, as well he should have. I believe this is a thought more common to the era common of these men, though I often wonder if I am more illustrator than painter. It’s a good question. I would hope to resolve it by having no doubts of myself as a painter.

A show of Rockwell’s work and photos is at The Brooklyn Museum in Brooklyn, NY until April 10, 2011 in the Robert E. Blum Gallery on the first floor. It’s a spin off from the Rockwell Museum in Stockbridge, Mass.

There’s a museum/gallery devoted to Rockwell on the island of Awaji in Japan. I hesitated before going in as this was after all Japan and I wanted Hokusai and Hiroshige and not some American illustrator. Once inside however I was soon under the spell of this man Rockwell . He saw things that many pass by and isn’t that just what makes the artist tick? As for his use of photographs. There is too much unthinking snobbery attached to criticism of the use of photography. Some can use the medium to turn out excellent paintings..Some can’t. There again some can confront an actual tree and make it look like a rootless stick.

If Mr. Rockwell could unintentionally intimidate you he was obviously as much a presence in life as his work has become to history. It strikes me that the photographs are really quite unremarkable . There isn’t much in the photos that really holds my interest but I can marvel at his `illustrations` endlessly. His work to me anyway, has a life of it`s own. In my journey to become a painter I`m finding out how inadequate my rather expensive camera is, or perhaps how inept the operator of said camera is. What I can paint, even with my limited experience, is so much more…or less as the case may dictate than any photograph I can produce. I find it a rush to be able to play God just a little bit, to alter reality, to select or reject, as my mood or whim dictates.

Several of us have remarked on the perceived difference between artist and illustrator. When I was in college in the ’70’s, illustrators, even Norman Rockwell, were looked own on as being mere commercially driven technicians. Of course, realism was considered to be unartistic as well. The tragedy of N. C. Wyeth was that this very compelling painter considered himself to be inferior to “fine artists”! We should all be so inferior. Anyway, about selection — that’s what it’s all about — choosing what to use, how to use it, and what to leave out so that we can communicate what it is we have to show.

The two photos of Rockwell’s selection and simplification, as the saying goes, “speak volumes”. Thank you for this wonderful analysis and commentary.

It’s kinda like this…a gemstone is just a rock until the artist cuts, polishes and places it into the perfect setting that will let its true brilliance show through… I love the brilliance of Rockwell’s art, making the ordinary extraordinary…

Beautiful…I think Rockwell is a grand example of an artist using tools to assist (but not aid) his skill level and great knowledge of his subject matter. I am forever telling students that any tool is fair game until the tool starts using YOU…then you must put it away! :)

Aaaahhh… Give me a break. I can’t stand it when ‘so-called experts’ (wherever they get that title from) or non-experts, for that matter, feel that they have the right to diminish an artist’s talent and creativity by trying to find something negative about their work. In the case of Rockwell they had to really grasp at straws. If he’d painted every item in the photo they would have complained about that too. Artists have the right to paint whatever subject however they choose. It is the ability to choose and interpret that gives them the right to be artists. Some artists are good at this process and some struggle. But no one should have the right to judge an artist’s creative decisions. It is such an personal/internal process. Sometimes that is why I think some artists go on to explore abstract art because it is harder for others to criticize… And then you get the Emperor’s clothes syndrome… Where if an artist is really good at rationalizing their artwork and can sell the concept to influential people then the artwork is considered ‘wonderful’. Aaaaahhh… The debate never ends.

Lets face it, some creative people have what Robert calls “the cultured ability to select” and others do not. Those that have achieved this ability are properly called “artists.”

What scares me is the unintended social impact of work like Rockwell’s. I see soda fountain and this idealized, perhaps romanticized, scene. Some people see this– or read something like it– and believe that’s the way the world is (or was). I see soda fountain, I think lunch counter. Unfortunately I know too many people whose view of the world was partially sculpted by Rockwell, who knew better. One of my parents adopted a world view that did not include the awkwardness of political polemics, seeing “the other” as dangerous as the ebola virus, and discounting its very existence. This isn’t Rockwell’s fault, and as long as the viewer understands what he was doing– his selections– the work is harmless in this regard. However, the washed and ironed world view can be a dangerous siren to so many that Rockwell’s work– despite having laudable qualities– makes me nervous.

And, in contrast to the “washed and ironed view,” which admittedly has its faults, there’s the “unwashed and un-ironed view,” which undoubtedly has more faults, one of which is that most people don’t want to look at it, let alone think about it. At least the previous shows an “ideal,” as Rockwell said.

The expression should not be “the cultured ability to select,” but “the inculturated ability to select.”

Notable is that Rockwell’s reference photos were in black and white. Relative gray scale is a very handy thing to have–colours, in many cases, are arbitrary. UK

enjoyed reading your comments on commissions as especially with portraits, it has always felt like a grey area just how much its my interpretation and the clients opinion. i mostly work from photos, often given by the client so attempt to get as close as possible but its sometimes easy to think that its just not good enough when someone asks me to change something.( sometimes it has been not right, other times it is just someones opinion.) and i do think that a little artistic cosmetic surgery is a good thing.

Since the solar panel does nothing to enhance the composition, and the commissioner does not want it, definitely take it out. This oughtn’t to be difficult: you can obviously paint precisely, and so there’s no reason you’d need to repaint anything but the roof itself, and you can feather any mismatched colour into the roof, maybe suggesting a little dappled shadow or something – something VERY subtle!

To webmaster: I cannot see the boxes to write in, which is why I neglected to put in my name in previous post. A very plain page looks nicer, perhaps, but is much harder to navigate. I opt for clear navigating markers over elegant simplicity in these cases; slightly darkening these boxes would make them visible without falling into my screeen.

I solve the commission dilemma by refusing them…too many years of trying to satisfy the client and being a mind reader. The requests that are made (by the client) are always legitimate. I prefer the freedom of interpreting a scene or figure rather than trying to make a buck. Difficult decision but I had to draw the line at some point.

Jennifer Twilley, you got it right. Every great power used art for propaganda. What we create touches people’s hearts, and that weapon never fails to be used. Artists are responsible for their work, same as scientists.

I really enjoy reading your letters. And although I’m a sculptor, I gain a lot from your insights about painting as they have a universal quality that applies to all art work. I especially liked the “cruising” of the Norman Rockwell photo and painting of “The Runaway”. In my opinion, Rockwell was a master illustrator whose ability to portray universal human emotions puts him in the class of major painters/artists of the 20th century. In my own wood sculptures (see http://www.jsauergallery.com/sagemoon/artistPages/BCardinale.html) which are inspired and guided by historic photos of church buildings, I attempt to capture the spirit, feeling and history of the structure. Many of my most positive supporters refer to my works as “models”. If appropriate, I gently suggest that they are sculptures as they are an expression of my emotion and strong feeling about an ecclesiastical structure. I use no scale, patterns or measurements and work totally by feeling. So in a similar way to your analysis of Norman Rockwell, as he went beyond illustration to expression of emotion, I hope that I have gone beyond being a “model-maker” to a sculptor of rather specific subject matter, churches, temples and synagogues. Do you have any suggestions about how to set up an atmosphere and scenario to help your art work be perceived and talked about in the way that it was conceived and produced.

I THINK THE PAINTING IS BEAUTIFUL ENOUGH , BETTER THAN THE PHOTO.. I WOULDN’T CHANGE ANYTHING .

The dictionary defines “Fine Art” as: “a visual art created primarily for aesthetic purposes and valued for it’s beauty or expressiveness”, The dictionary also defines Illustration as: ” ..Something that illustrates, as a picture in a book or magazine, to make intelligible with examples of analogies; exemplify.” Now in an age where we are breaking new ground in science and genetics and political correctness; where the secrets of life are being discovered and documented and finalizing everything and everyone; where history is challenged and turned upside down with new scientific information, exposing our origins and personal coding, I can imagine also questioning the correctness and validity of the Dictionary itself as not being current or correct in light of the way views are being altered on a daily basis by all these sciences. Television and movies greatly influence our thoughts and shape our opinions. Many see these mediums as the crystal ball where we now view our world. Mass media is dominating our very being so effectively it’s hard to know if I’m having an original thought or have my decisions been made by someone else. Art today has undoubtedly been undergoing a major change due to mass media and television in particular since most of us are more exposed to television than the movies. I’m intentionally leaving out the Internet…for now. I am going out on the proverbial limb I find myself so many times the older I get and the more I see, and say that much of what is passing for Fine Art is in fact Illustration. Or a version of Illustration that has little to do with fine art. This troubles me on many levels. I enjoy good illustration. I have nothing against it and I know it has meaning and value. What troubles me is Illustration passing for Fine Art. I am fully aware that today even Fine Art is having trouble being defined. This may be in part due to the fact that few are practicing Fine Art and are in fact creating Illustration instead, adding to the confusion. The line between each gets more vague with every passing day. Many current artist in the art community were illustrators and good ones at that. They have reached the pinnacle of there profession and have decided to make the move into fine art. One reason for this, I think, is Illustration is not as in demand as it was once. Another is photography. During the forties and fifties illustration had reached it’s Zenith and has been on the decline ever since. Norman Rockwell is the name most remember as well as Dean Cornwell. There were many more who made illustration what it was. I believe when you look at these artists you clearly understand what Illustration is. Thought you can say without doubt the work was fine, it was illustration in its execution, definition and purpose. To illustrate. I feel this transition into an illustrative mode is detrimental to fine art as well as fine artists and moves fine art further into the shadows. Art, especially in America, is not tops on everyone lips these day unless of course it has the word “Spectacle” attached. I love much of what is being produced today but worry that true fine art is being eroded by what is passing for fine art. If we don’t teach fine art and produce more fine artists, plus separate it from illustration, many future artists will be unable to produce fine art. What we will produce is what we come to know as fine art which will be illustration if the current trend continues. I may be alone here (I usually am) but I would love to see a resurgence of “true fine art” as defined in the dictionary “a visual art created primarily for aesthetic purposes and valued for it’s beauty or expressiveness…”, There are a few artists at the top of the economic market today creating “fine art.” Most other artists are trying to find their niche and in so doing create something between fine art and illustration. Partly because the influences today lean more to an illustrative form of art. There is little art, much less fine art being taught in public schools. Public schools teach students to interpret the world they live in. They teach what a student can relate to and not to how the student relates to the world. Art throughout history has influenced people and made them feel better about their lives. As we move into the future many increasingly find the art of the past old fashioned, antiquated and thus out-of-touch with what is happening now. The more art is turned toward illustration, the more fine art we lose. The more fine art we lose, the more humanity loses. Art is always in transition and fine art moves inexorably into the twenty-first century and may be made new again. The world is changing more rapidly than I remember when I grew up. Maybe it’s changing too fast. I hope there are those who feel that fine art is worth saving and needs to be nurtured and encouraged and developed. Lines are being blurred more and more with everything in our lives with the information highway. We watch the tube at home as entertainment and we watch the tube for work. All information is being transmitted via the “tube.” With that, information blurs. If the move to illustration helped fine art stay in the forefront of our conscience, I feel some comfort. Fine art is being taught and preserved in some private art schools. I see it happening. I hope the more will educate themselves to see fine art for what it is and not as Illustration.

By all means remove the panel. It becomes a focal point and takes away from the beauty of the house.(Even tho’ it is in the photo)