Airborne


Heading to the Left Coast for some unexpected last minute work and also a possible meeting with the Campello daughters in LA. Meanwhile, the comments about the list of 100 Washington Artists book is still fast and furious here.

So predictable, so predictable...

Way back, when I first announced the Rockwell exhibition now at the Smithsonian American Art Museum I wrote:

Now for some easy predictions: the high brow elitist critics will all unite in one front and all hate this show. The public, being far more progressive and democratic in their acceptance of what is art (without silly obsolete notions of "high" art and all other art, and without ingrained notions of "illustration" versus "high art") will line up to see the exhibition and continue to love Rockwell as they have for decades.

Boom! Then the first shot came across the bow of the exhibition a few weeks later when the Washington Post's chief art critic, Blake Gopnik wrote in an otherwise quite good and interesting article on the future of photography that "It's not that art museums never show "low" painting. The Corcoran has shown Norman Rockwell..."

Gopnik exposed his hand way back in that piece about how he (and most other art critics, I think) feel about the work of Norman Rockwell. It is the classic and antiquated and uniquely American traditional cliche-ridden critical view of Rockwell and his work; it's their key example as offerings of a critical perspective of high art and low art.

Separate everything; label everything, put everything and everyone in a box with a label: high art, low art, fine art, illustration, Hispanics, Latinos, Scots-Irish, Jewish-American, Cuban-American...

The problem is that the world has moved on since that critical perspective of Rockwell was a mandatory regulation to be obeyed by art critics in years past. And thanks to other sources of information, and thanks to the spectacular popularity of the Rockwellian legacy, that dog doesn't hunt anymore, and people like Blake Gopnik just don't get it that when they write in such "traditional" party line ways; it doesn't stick anymore.

Today, anything and everything can be art, and to the horror of the old-fashioned critical cabal, Rockwell has managed to sneak in museums as a key "fine art" figure, perhaps one of the most important, historical fine arts figures in 20th century American art.

And so it was no surprise that on July 4, Blake Gopnik, in his WaPo review of the show wrote that:

Norman Rockwell is often championed as the great painter of American virtues. Yet the one virtue most nearly absent from his work is courage. He doesn't challenge any of us, or himself, to think new thoughts or try new acts or look with fresh eyes. From the docile realism of his style to the received ideas of his subjects, Rockwell reliably keeps us right in the middle of our comfort zone.

That's what made him one of the most important painters in U.S. history, and the most popular. He had almost preternatural social intuitions, along with brilliant skills as a visual salesman. Over his seven-decade career, that coupling let him figure out what middle-class white Americans most wanted to feel about themselves, then sell it back to them in paint.

Gopnik then goes back to an antiquated anti-Rockwell weapon: that he painted a "homogenized vision of the country," in other words, Rockwell is a white bread painter who only painted... ahhh white America.


Norman Rockwell. The Problem We All Live With. 1963.
But there's a huge fly in that old ointment; in fact a lot of flies. Because Rockwell's popularity continued to grow after his death, countless documentaries about his life, coupled with mega retrospective exhibitions, showed us that Rockwell, along with the many in rest of the country, discovered his social activism and conscience in the early 1960s. In fact, historians point to his marriage to Molly Punderson (a retired school teacher) in 1961 as the key event that lit his social conscience on fire. Punderson's influence on Rockwell's painting activism has been well-documented and had a huge influence on what the painter painted over the next 17 years. Together with Rockwell's close friends Erik Erickson and Robert Coles, both of whom were strong advocates of the civil rights movement, Punderson's profound influence over Rockwell's artistic involvement in the Civil Rights movement yielded Rockwellian paintings that don't fit the mold that Gopnik wants us to believe, because it would destroy his entire flawed argument.

Gopnik does a drive-by shooting of this subject (he has to) when he erroneously reports that "toward the end of his career, Rockwell got Look magazine to publish a few heroic scenes from the civil rights movement -- at just the moment when such subjects had moved into the mainstream of American thought." Note the way in which the above is written to minimize this huge contribution by Rockwell to American art history.

I say huge because Rockwell didn't do this "towards the end of his career" (he painted for another 15 years) but in 1963, just precisely at the moment when the civil rights movement needed it and the same year that Dr. King's march on Washington took place (not years later).

Only Nixon could have gone to China and only Rockwell could have convinced America's leading magazine at the time, Look, to carry his artwork about the Civil Rights movement. And indeed it was Rockwell who convinced Look magazine (not the other way around) to publish his historical paintings celebrating the emerging civil rights movement in America. It was Rockwell who put a painting of a little black girl being escorted to school in a magazine laying on the breakfast tables of millions of American homes, and it was Rockwell who painted lynchings in the South, and "New Kids in the Neighborhood". He did this while no other major white painter that I know of, even remotely addressed the civil rights movement in such depth and historical candor as early as he did.

Gopnik also selects words carefully and tells us that "The Saturday Evening Post, for instance, for which Rockwell painted 323 covers, forbade him to depict blacks except in subservient roles." That was true, and a gross sign of the times. But what Gopnik doesn't tell you, is that Rockwell quit the Saturday Evening Post and moved over to Look precisely because of artistic freedom issues and his desire to paint the events in America which interested him, such as the emerging Civil Rights movement.


Norman Rockwell. Southern Justice. 1963.
This powerful painting depicts the murder of three Civil Rights workers who were killed for their work to register African American voters in the South.

But to admit that would seriously undermine the main critical argument against Rockwell. You see... Gopnik's greatest sin as a critic is simple: His is a critical perspective of unending clichés. The reason we so easily recognize the flawed points of anti-Rockwellism in his writing is because they reflect the standard critical image we already know from countless other critics' reports. His negative viewpoints are so familiar because they are the stories that we've been told by art critics a thousand times before.

But now they fail to stick with all of us. On Saturday, July 10th, David Apatoff, from McLean, VA responded to Gopnik's article and writes in the Post:

Norman Rockwell's work is no longer a cliché ["Afraid to make waves," Arts & Style, July 4]. He has been replaced by a new cliché: dogmatic, postmodernist art critics who believe that anything may qualify as legitimate art (including a belch or scribble) as long as it is not a painting by Norman Rockwell. When Blake Gopnik dismissed technical skill and traditional technique in his quest for "new acts," he failed to realize just how much of a tired stereotype he has become.

The taint of Rockwell's commercial sponsors has dissipated over the years, so the artist can now be viewed more objectively by those with an open mind to do so. If Gopnik had some of the "courage" that he claims Rockwell lacked, he would see beyond his personal grudges with Rockwell's content and recognize a contemporary art scene that is self-indulgent, decadent and listing toward irrelevance. Time for "new acts," indeed.

And he's not alone, as Carl Eifert of Alexandria adds:

Those days of the late '30s and early '40s were times that Blake Gopnik obviously does not understand. His America is about "equal room for Latino socialists, disgruntled lesbian spinsters, foul-mouthed Jewish comics" and, we are to understand, critics like him.

Eifert's point is a good one, Gopnik is judging Rockwell's earlier work with the sensibilities of 2010, and failing to put it in the context of the harsh realities of the 30's, 40's and 50's.


Norman Rockwell. New Kids in the Neighborhood. 1967.
And what is also clear to me, is that if Rockwell were alive today, he would be probably painting Latino socialists (whatever that is, is he talking about the Castro brothers or Hugo Chavez?), disgruntled (and happy) lesbian spinsters, foul-mouthed Jewish comics, but probably not Blake.

And what is also clear, given the mounting evidence of growing Rockwell intrusion into the sacred and forbidden halls of fine art museums, and even his tiny advancements in being grudgingly accepted by the artcriticsphere as one of the key American artists of the 20th century, is that decades and centuries from now, when Gopnik's and this post and most other critics' writings will be a dusty memory in the archives of the Internets, the Rockwellian Empire will continue to rock and the Jetsons and their kids will continue to line up outside museums to see Rockwell's artwork.

Read 163 comments on Blake's article here.

Telling Stories: Norman Rockwell From the Collections of George Lucas and Steven Spielberg is on through Jan. 2 at the Smithsonian American Art Museum, at Eighth and G streets NW. Call 202-633-7970 or visit http://www.americanart.si.edu.

Smith on Academy 2010

DCist's Matt Smith reviews Academy 2010 at Conner Contemporary Art.

By the way, on July 31, Conner Contemporary will host an (e)merge discussion panel + party at the gallery, 4 to 8 p.m., sponsored by Pink Line Project.

MOCA to stay in Georgetown

A while back we learned that MOCA DC was being kicked out of their spaces in Canal Square in Georgetown. Just today I found out that Dave Quammen has been able to find some leverage and has renegociated their lease with the Canal Square landlord. And they are still having a Super Party Artists & Models Ball. Make your plans now:

July 30 - Friday Night - 6 pm to Midnight - $5 entry fee - includes raffle ticket for 3 major art pieces - do not have to be present to win

6 pm - doors open

7 pm - models for artists to draw - $20 all night

7 pm - photography models to shoot $25 all night

8 pm - Body Painting - Free all night

Models will be paid from fees charged

For more info check out www.MOCADC.org.

Lists

Good discussion about my first book list going on here, with the usual share of optimist and pessimist comments.

Wall Mountables return

The District of Columbia Arts Center (DCAC) has announced the return of 1460 Wall Mountables, DCAC’s annual open exhibition. On Wednesday, July 21 DCAC will open its doors at 3pm, beginning a three-day installation process during which artists can purchase up to four 2' x 2' spaces to hang their work.

Since the first Wall Mountables in 1990, the exhibition has become a celebrated summer tradition at DCAC. One of the center’s most important fundraising events, the open exhibition runs from July 23–August 29. On a personal note, I can tell you that since 1990 I've probably done this show 3-4 times, putting up all together about a dozen drawings in these shows and have always sold all of them.

Spaces sell on a first-come, first-serve basis. It’s not unusual to see returning participants lined up outside DCAC’s door by 2:30pm, patiently waiting for installation to begin with an eye towards grabbing the galleries prime wall space. All work is accepted from a wide range of media created by artists at various stages in their careers.

The exhibition provides a great opportunity for experimentation, as artists challenge themselves to make the most out of such limited space. The coveted $100 “Best Use of Space” prize is presented during the opening reception to the artist who makes the most innovative use of their 2’ x 2’ squares. Whether Wall Mountables is an artist’s first show, 59th show, or an opportunity to pull out canvases from their attic, 1460 Wall Mountables has spots ready to be filled.

General Guidelines
• Each 2' x 2' space is $15 for non-members (maximum 4 spaces)
• DCAC members receive one free space. Additional spaces are available for $10 each (maximum 4 spaces)
• Become a DCAC member at the event and receive four spaces for free! (regular membership starts at $30)
• Each piece must be 2' x 2' or smaller. Spaces may not be combined to accommodate larger pieces (larger pieces can be divided and placed in adjacent squares)
• All art must be wall mountable
• No painting or writing directly onto the wall
• No adhesive materials can be used for hanging (i.e.- spraymount, adhesive velcro, 2-sided tape or wallpaper glue)
• Artists must bring their own materials for hanging their work (hammer, nails, screws, wire)

District of Columbia Arts Center
2438 18th St. NW
Washington, DC 20009
202.462.7833

Mona Lisa Secrets Revealed

Specialists from the Center for Research and Restoration of the Museums of France found that da Vinci painted up to 30 layers of paint on his works to meet his standards of subtlety. Added up, all the layers are less than 40 micrometers, or about half the thickness of a human hair, researcher Philippe Walter said Friday.

The technique, called "sfumato," allowed da Vinci to give outlines and contours a hazy quality and create an illusion of depth and shadow. His use of the technique is well-known, but scientific study on it has been limited because tests often required samples from the paintings.

Read the article here.