tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6693471143220681808.post5086678613629696142..comments2023-12-18T07:59:16.525-05:00Comments on Hats and Rabbits: Some Post-Stockbridge ThoughtsChris Matarazzohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17885109959459471509noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6693471143220681808.post-58144044184948031382018-11-21T12:50:35.557-05:002018-11-21T12:50:35.557-05:00For what it's worth, I think Rockwell's se...For what it's worth, I think Rockwell's self-deprecation was a variant of New England reticence. The art world has positively reappraised him in the past 20 years, and they've noticed things that Rockwell did consciously and with virtuosity: for example, the Mondrian-like way he uses square borders and apportions space in the painting of the old guys in the barber shop. And look at the reference images pinned to his canvas in his famous self-portrait: Durer, Rembrandt, Picasso, and Van Gogh! I suspect that explains, at least in part, the difference between what Rockwell said to keep stuffy art snobs off his back and what he knew to be true about the quality of his own work. Heck, his self-portrait pretty much tells us there are least three versions of himself, and you can't see the "real" Rockwell's eyes even through the opaque glasses in a reflection of his face.<br /><br />I started learning how to paint in oils around four months ago, and as I fumble to develop a different set of eyes for looking at paintings, I'm in awe of Rockwell's technical skill. But unlike some people who admire him for his technical skill alone, I enjoy his subject matter too.<br /><br />(Have you ever seen the work of J.C. Leyendecker? He was Rockwell's predecessor at the Saturday Evening Post, and one of his bigger inspirations, although Leyendecker's work was more stylized, his humor was more dark, and his depictions of children were a bit more grotesque.)Jeffhttp://www.quidplura.comnoreply@blogger.com