What does /ic/ think of Norman Rockwell?

eh a pretty cool guy. eh illustrates and doesnt afraid of anything

Seriously, do you think we have opinions for everything? His commissions look good and that's all I know.

>>2614574
He is shit. Didn't paint waifu's or lewds.
Ergo his art is shit.

>>2614700
>He is shit.
>Ergo his art is shit.
Anon...

>>2614574

The poor man's J.C. Leyendecker.

>>2614787
That's the point

>>2614787
Noo, I think he's equally good just in a different way. His painting skill is top notch.

Fun fact. I have a piece of Rockwell's fence.

sucks ass

"Dirty slut that uses too much reference for his art!"-/ic

Nah he's okay.

>>2614574
A great illustrator.

>>2614574
he perfected the bomber jacket.
no small feat

>>2614574
Better than that faghag J.C Lame-n-decker

old people art and not the cool kind

>>2614574
Beautiful compositions, extremely expressive characters while maintaining a great level of realism and believability

>>2615342
>old people art and not the cool kind
1. A window into a lost reality. Literally star gate.
2. People who are reading your post in 2066 are laughing at you. I’m glad I’m with them.
3. Newness is a shitty investment.
4. You probably confuse "new" with "ludic".

>>2614574
He made nice pictures, but traced, like, whole a lot.

File: image.jpg (59KB, 477x693px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 477x693px

>>2615436


>not knowing the difference between tracing and using reference

Rockwell's interpretation of his photographic reference was highly stylized to fit his vision. Even if he did trace some elements it's completely irrelevant since what he did requires a extremely high level of skill.

>>2614574
A masterfully skilled illustrator, but his subject matter was always pure kitsch.

File: 9946620-standard.jpg (77KB, 620x382px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 620x382px

>>2615474

>dat anatomy
needs more loomis
fucking xerox whore i bet he doesn't even have the ligaspark

>>2614574
He's the best choice for studying storytelling in pictures. Regarding the art itself, I prefer Leyendecker, 'cause there's more stylization and personality to it.

He's very good but I really don't like the way he draws expressions with that bowling ball shaped head, mouth wide open but thin, squinted eyes, raised eyebrows and tiny jaw, it's in so much of his art.

File: Loving Norman.jpg (38KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 512x512px

>>2614574
I fucking love him.

>>2615408
I've known enough people who look like his subjects in real life. I don't need to see it in art too.But maybe if you live outside the southern US it's charming

A shame we lost so much of his work in a studio fire. He's an artist I really look up to.

>>2614872
Like his house fence? How'd you get it?

File: Elvgren-righttouch.png (333KB, 556x356px) Image search: [Google]

333KB, 556x356px

>>2615465
>high level of skill

Lol, alright, bro

File: Rockwell_TheWarHero.jpg (472KB, 1819x2000px) Image search: [Google]

472KB, 1819x2000px

>>2616477
Kys my man

>>2616477
youre fucking retarded

>>2616513
Probably bait im sure it was intentional

>>2615482
It seems really inappropriate for those Marshals to be dancing at a time like this.

>>2616526
well everyone was having fun until some nigger showed up and graffiti'd her name on the wall

Certainly better than Mozart.

>>2615474
Isn't that the point though? I've always liked his stuff because of the huge amount of effort and creativity put into what are typically banal subjects. It's kitsch, but it's the best kitsch there is.