|Norman Rockwell has been listed as a level-4 vital article in People. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Biography assessment rating comment
- 2 Major Works
- 3 Artist or illustrator
- 4 Leyendecker?
- 5 Illustrators and Artists
- 6 Choice of Images
- 7 Warriors don't cry
- 8 Help
- 9 Spouses
- 10 Norman Rockwell: Art Deco?
- 11 Mary's Death
- 12 Spam
- 13 Addition of Album cover
- 14 Projector
- 15 Personal interviews and voice recordings as valid references
- 16 Mediums Used?
- 17 File:Save Freedom of Speech.png
- 18 Suggested venture with Al Capp
- 19 Religion?
- 20 Poor editing
- 21 Google hompeage pic of Norman Rockwell/Request for semiprotection
- 22 Lots of vandalism
- 23 Gallery
- 24 Norman Rockwell and American Apartheid-A Painfully Neglected Topic
- 25 photograph technique?
Biography assessment rating comment
I don't know how the list of Rockwell's major works is determined, but I've been to the Stockbridge Museum many times, I own and have read virtually every book published on Rockwell and I have never seen the Judy Garland painting. It is nowhere to be found on google images or the internet. I have seen images of a couple thousand Rockwell paintings. A few hundred at least would be considered without question to be more significant than his portrait of Judy Garland. It is probably listed in Moffatt's catalogue of Rockwell's work. As far as I know Rockwell would not have considered this work of any particular importance and no one else is likely to even be aware of it, so there's absolutely NO reason this should be considered one of Rockwell's major works, even if he did do it in the late 60's. He did a number of great works in the late 60's or early 70's. There is no reason to reference a painting like this in the Rockwell biography article.
- The Garland painting was unveiled by Rockwell on Television and he gave a lengthy interview about it at the time - he spoke of the composition and of Garland's 'winsome' face and that he doanted the picture to the Motion Picture Nursing Home where it currently hangs - I do not think anyone can say what Mr Rockwell considered an importnat work or what he didn't - this beautiful picture is in a private collection and for that reason has not like the vast majority of his work (other than illustrations and Magazine covers) been widely circulated - I beleive that given the ongoing popularity and classic nature of the Wizard of Oz film and Garland herself - that it is reasonable to acknowledge that he painted her as her name and image as Dorothy the "All American Kansas Farm Girl" is more relevant or appropriate to list in the article than some politicians whose names are not known or even remembered by the American Public and are not part of the "Americana" culture that NR was so keen to promote and memorialise - the portrait of Garland is a hidden treasure and I am sure if it ever is displayed would become instantly one of his most popular works. However I acknowledge that wikipedia is very much down to individual's opinions on what stays in or is removed from articles and I have no desire to debate the issue - you don't think it is relevant as you are a NR expert and I think it is very approprioate due to the ongoing poularity of the subject, Mr Rockwell's style and links to American culture of which Garland and teh film are well imbedded - the picture does exist and the NR Museum is aware of it but I am not going to get into an editing war over it.220.127.116.11 19:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- "No one else is likely to even be aware of it," that is no reason to delete the reference as isn't this type of articel an overview of individual's accomplishments and work? - as referenced in the above post, in my opinion Garland portrayed in the Wizard of Oz whether a 'major' work or not is an appropriate reference as much as any other individual mentioned in the article - perhaps more so. I have checked with the Museum and they are aware of the piece and have told me that it was reproduced in a publication only once - but that does not lessen its value or importance see the text of an email sent from the NR Museum in reply to my query:
Dear Inquirer: Thank you for your recent e-mail and your interest in the works of Norman Rockwell.
Yes, Mr. Rockwell painted the portrait of Judy Garland as Dorothy in "The Wizard of Oz". It was done in l969 and is now in the collection of the Motion Picture Country House and Hospital. It was reproduced in the DES MOINES SUNDAY REGISTER on March l5th, l970.
I am sorry we have never had a print of this work. You might want to contact the DES MOINES SUNDAY REGISTER to see if they can help you find a copy.
P Anthony Researcher
18.104.22.168 07:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Artist or illustrator
Rockwell considered himself to be an illustrator rather than an artist; of course this relates to the heart of the "what is art?" arguement which will not be solved by Wikipeida or anywhere else.
It would be very nice to see a more detailed mention of his relationship with the Boy Scouts such as his illustrating several of their Handbooks, especially the covers, and some of his famous scouting-related works. He was long-gone from the Boy's Life that I remember, but the other artwork was still around. Rlquall 18:53, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, this is needed. Basically, Rockwell got hired on as an illustrator for Boys' Life (covers and interior illustrations), and later became art director. This helped him get jobs at Saturday Evening Post, etc. Later on, he did the calenders, first as a 'thank you' for the BSA giving him his first job. Actually, most of the handbook covers (and Boys' Life covers) were really just reprints of his calender work. Only one Scout Handbook cover was original. --Emb021 21:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Terms like "patriotic" and "commericial" are really loaded when discussing the nature of an artist's work, so I took 'em out of the first para. While some of his paintings were commercial, and some of his paintings were patriotic, it doesn't reflect the body of his work accurately, and the debate over Rockwell's merits are covered nicely further down in the critique section, where it's appropriate.
Some artistic historians call him a Contract Artist, for he didn't do much actually illustration during his Satuday Evening Post time. (yes i do know he did work on several major story, such as Tom Saywer.)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 10:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
He is called an "illustrator" instead of an artist by some critics, a designation he did not mind, as it was what he called himself.
The way this is worded makes it sound like "illustrator" is inherently inferior (he 'didn't mind' being called an illustrator - personally, I'm proud to be called an illustrator!). While I'm sure that is what the critics are meaning, I feel the sentence could be rephrased. But I really can't figure out how to do so! 126.96.36.199 (talk) 10:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
This man was Rockwell's hero and a huge influence on his artwork. Should be mentioned somewhere.
Illustrators and Artists
For illustrators, the visual picture is a mere example of a verbal concept. If a mere word were to be displayed, it would serve the same purpose as a visual picture. The picture is a kind of hieroglyph.
For artists, on the contrary, the visual picture is the main element. Verbal concepts have little or no importance. 188.8.131.52 02:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)Braithwaite Prendergast
Hmmmm... I agree that for illustrators the verbal concept is important. But if we felt a mere word being displayed served the same purpose, why would we bother illustrating? Personally I feel the illustrator is the servant of the text. The text is the most important thing, but the illustration adds to it (except in a picture book or greetings card, where they can be equal, or the picture be more important). On the other hand, for the artist, the picture is all there is. It's what's important.184.108.40.206 (talk) 10:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Choice of Images
Of all the many stunning images of Rockwell's work that could be shown in the article, we have, instead, two views of the exterior of his studio.Lestrade 22:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
- Very good point. Can anyone post some examples of his art? Possibly a progression of his works?
- Rockwell's paintings are copyrighted material. At best, we might post photos of magazines with his art on the cover. --Tysto 15:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Warriors don't cry
One painting that should be included here is "the Problem we all live with." Art critic Richard Lacayo praised it highly. Das Baz 16:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC) Lacayo says that Rockwell "brings such a hard-lit, neoclassical calm to this moment that the remnants of a tomato smashed against the wall behind her are more shocking than a pool of blood." (Richard Lacayo, Time, December 6, 1999)Das Baz 15:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- I added some more representative images in, including this one. - AKeen 07:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
As someone allready may have noticed, someones edit in somekind of "I Heart Someone" text into the article, im new to Wkipedia and aint good at stuff, so please, someone more talented please take care of this
The names of his spouses in the sidebar are links to the article "wife" and not articles on those individuals. If someone really doesn't know what a spouse is shouldn't "spouse" be the text linked tothe wife article and not the individuals' names? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 05:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
Norman Rockwell: Art Deco?
I am totally mystified by the statement that some consider Rockwell's work to be part of the Art Deco movement. This is so odd a claim that I motion that it be removed from the article, unless textual citations can be found.Writtenright 02:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Writtenright
Agreed. I've removed the entire sentence, which is superfluous, anyway. JNW 03:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Judging from recent edits, there seems to be some confusion when Mary died. I personally found two contradicting articles on the net, viz.:
"Later, in 1953, his wife Mary died unexpectedly, which resulted in Rockwell taking time off to grieve." 
"Mary died in 1959 and a lonely Rockwell remarried in 1961." 
Anyone have an authoritative date? Orpheus82 02:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I've removed a substantial build-up of spam, most of it connected to one site which merchandises Rockwell memorabilia. If we wish to have links to his images, then non-commercial sites can be used. JNW 22:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The first three external links connect to sites that actually really are really commercial sites. Where they really do actually sell and license stuff. Why are those links still here? One would think they would have been removed in 2 years time.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Removed these and several others. As with many articles, there is a continuous addition of commercial links that needs to be addressed periodically. Thanks, JNW (talk) 18:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Addition of Album cover
There is no reference in the article to Rockwell's work as an album cover artist, in fact this is the only example I know; I've added it as readers may not be aware of this side of his work. --Rodhullandemu 08:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
He used a projector that would project an image on to the wall. You could take a solid piece of paper and put it in the machine. The name starts with a B. Anyone know the name of this machine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Personal interviews and voice recordings as valid references
Hi everyone, I've began my own quest to talk to artists, and attend live discussions about art and artists. I was wondering if Wikipedia accepts citations from recorded interviews? If so, how does one present it as a reference? Thanks for your advice -- Marcuslim (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I just listed File:Save Freedom of Speech.png used in this article at WP:PUI because someone changed the tagging to claim the image is in the public domain; I hope you'll join the discussion. Unfortunately, in order to not be deleted as a result of that if the result is "non-free", it will need a fair use rationale written for the articles it is used in; I'd do it myself but I'm not really familiar enough with the image to know what specifically the rationale is. Anomie⚔ 20:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Suggested venture with Al Capp
The following sourced passage was recently introduced:
Shortly after the war, Rockwell was contacted by writer Elliott Caplin, brother of cartoonist Al Capp, with the suggestion that the three of them should make a daily comic strip together, with Caplin and his brother writing and Rockwell drawing. King Features Syndicate is reported to have promised a $1,000/week deal, knowing that a Capp-Rockwell collaboration would gain public interest. However, the project was ultimately aborted as it turned out that Rockwell, known for his perfectionism as an artist, could not deliver material as fast as required of him for a daily comic strip.
- I think it's fine, esp because of the perfectionism part. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- NO. Read the article and start googling St. John's, Wilmot. A source is needed but there is nothing to indicate that he is Jewish.Cptnono (talk) 05:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
It ia i suppose OK to lock the 'pedia aginst vandalism, but my slef appointed task is to correct the thousands of typos that abound in it. I'm only talking about gross errors like this on ehere:
"given smaller,little less important" should read "given smaller, little less important", but I can't edit it.
It matters, Spelling, ytpos and bad punctuation, eccentric English from non-native speakers who have no idea of wiki language abound.
So bits could be corrected authomatically with a simple editorial too as in openoffice.
a) why isn't it done.
b) how can people like me who spend a lot of time doing this sort of thing get the powers to be properly recognised for what we do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 06:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- "how can people like me who spend a lot of time doing this sort of thing get the powers to be properly recognised for what we do?" - by registering with a username (click this text to learn more). Because most of the vandalism to articles is done by unregistered users, some articles that have suffered repeated vandalism are locked so that only registered users can edit them.Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Another example of poor editing: "In 1943, during the Second World War, Rockwell painted the Four Freedoms series, which was completed in seven months and resulted in his losing 15 pounds." A little tweaking and it could be in a Zippy the Pinhead word balloon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Google hompeage pic of Norman Rockwell/Request for semiprotection
Of course on Google, on the front page, it shows a pic from Norman Rockwell. Once clicked on the pic, it shows the link to the Wikipedia article of him at the top. This could be an easy target for vandalism. I would request semiprotection of the article right away. RYAN 3000 (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Lots of vandalism
This isn't really a question or issue with the information in the article, but I have noticed that this article was vandalized about 10 times in the past month (mostly by IPs, of course). Can anyone think of a reason why Norman Rockwell is the victim of so much vandalism, and maybe a solution to slow down the amount of vandalism the article receives? —Reelcheeper (talk) 22:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
IMO the gallery and list of major works combined doesn't work. IMO the List of major works needs to be separated from a gallery of images, and IMO the gallery itself is unnecessary, although I have added it pending other opinions...Modernist (talk) 02:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Norman Rockwell and American Apartheid-A Painfully Neglected Topic
Norman Rockwell did have a conscience when it came to racism in America. He recognized and tried to demonstrate its existence. He wanted to display works that included the presence of brown and black-skinned people in his work, but was told that this would only be allowed if the images were derogatory and he, Rockwell, showed them in a submissive manner. This is the same as it is on television and mainstream media today. Hollywood producers and writers only support works that show stereotypical myths, one-dimensional characterizations and demeaning presentations of Africans and African-Americans in particular today. This has been conveniently left out of the article as usual. The Washington Post ran a nice article about this topic this year and of course it was marginalized to avoid bringing the light of day to this horrific and vile continuation of Jim Crow in post 9-11 America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lookbackandlearn (talk • contribs) 16:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
You wish racism to go on forever. Without it your hatred has no meaning. There have been great strides to combat racism in the USA and you fight against them. For shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
i could be mistaken, but i read, then re-viewed the article, and there seems to be no reference here to rockwell's use of photographs when creating his works. i was curious to know just what his method was, just how he used the photos, some of which i was just looking at in the catalog for sotheby's up-coming auction of american art in dec 2013. if i missed something, i'm sorry, but if there's indeed no reference here to the photos, something fundamental is missing and the omission needs immediate correcting. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 02:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)