It becomes increasingly difficult to read your writing when you contradict yourself so much. You continuously dig your art whole deeper and deeper. I’m not even sure what the point of your post was. Are you trying to prove to that Rockwell is relevant, or that people like him? Or something else?

I can make you a list of artists worth checking out if you like. It shouldn’t take that long.

It is the key difference why people call Norman an illustrator as opposed to an artist. Because many artists see his work as not a new creation, but simply as a redecoration of something that already exists.

They don’t call photographers, artists, either. Simply because, even though they create photos of beauty, they don’t create the beauty itself. I don’t really agree with that of course, not in the philosophical sense, but I do understand that others differ in their outlooks.

The abhorence artists have for depicting or using reality is integrated in the artistic belief that they must create something that does not currently exist. Therefore, they are always looking for the new thing. What is real, has already been created and thus is real. It appeals little to the artists. And no, not just abstract artists either.

But, Saltz will not be in your camp.

of course he isn’t, Saltz is an artist, and for an artist reality isn’t the point. For illustrators like Norman, reality is the point. That’s the difference.

Rockwell made his art for a magazine. They still feature his covers. That should tell you plenty. There are plenty of realist artists in the world today. Just peek into photography or (super) realism.

“One thing that Marxists developed was a tactic to destroy Christianity and convert people to atheism.”
With respect to Piss Christ, I think you’re missing the point. At least well-respected critics would disagree with you. Might want to watch out when you bring up Marx in relation to art, there are multiple meanings there. Just a suggestion.

“It is the abhorrence of artists to emphasize reality”
Could anything be further from the truth? Are you talking about the abstract artists? Contemporary artists? If people do not like these artists.. who are these people? If you area suggesting that people should like Rockwell because he was a “realist” who emphasized wonderful aspects of life, go ahead. But, Saltz will not be in your camp.

I think your trying to generalize too much.

Because life is so complex, Park, artists are not capable of portraying it as it should be portrayed. Norman doesn’t portray art, he illustrates human moments and it is not art in the sense that many mean art as. It is not an attempt to “create”, but an ability to “reemphasize”.

Much as a writer cannot create “patriotism” because patriotism was already invented. The writer, however, can phrase the justification for patriotism in flowery words that are persuasive and would stay in men’s minds.

It is the abhorrence of artists to emphasize reality, that many people dislike and disagree with. It is not part of any wish for “simplicity” as you termed it.

You constantly harp on the need to abandon this adolescent idea of “beauty of evil” work when your reply is Norman Rockwell. How many hundreds of years have paintings like these been idolized? Its nice that you casually dismiss the concept. But, it really drives home the multiple layers a work can have. Feel free to enjoy the simple pleasures of life with a Kinkade or Rockwell. But, one day, you may feel that life is more complex than just large Thanksgiving dinners (just how heavy is that turkey) and White folks praying. Further, there is a long (and detailed recent) history of people clamoring for what they can not have.

“pretty much unshockable at this point”. Really? You would be shocked to see what people, even art critics, are shocked at these days. There will always be some line “not to cross”. Ask other Young British Artists, like the Chapman brothers, what they think about shock value.

This is all to say that contemporary work can be “beautiful”. There are countless artist that are working to show this for gallery goers. There can be multiple layers to these works as well. Further, what does the word “beauty” mean? Anyway, something to think about.

Where exactly are the “Marxist politics” in Piss Christ? Are you not of the impression that the photo is just a crucifix in a jar of urine? Never mind that it was a dime-store crucifix or a jar of cow blood mixed with the artist’s urine. Or the historical context of Goya. Or that the work was not “funded by the NEA”, never mind the facts. There are many misconceptions about the work. A quick search on the web will provide you with a well-thought defense of Piss Christ. Please don’t fall into the mindless mind-trap of listening, exclusively, to people that agree with you.

One nagging question is how this work fits into the concept of free speech and our governments role in it. They spend $75 million+/- to promote “freedom” in Iran when the arts receive only a small fraction of this. Our art institutions are increasingly hampered by commercial sponsorship. Would not $75 million+/-, and no strings, serve very well to set Americans free from censorship in.. oh.. say… America?

The image of the purple fingered Iraqis is a good one—but I’ll bet you could think of a lot more, if you really set your mind to it. I suspect art, if it is going to survive, is going to have to be taken away from phonies like Serrano and Rauschenberg, and the snippy art critics that idolize them, and somehow returned to the people.

The only images I can think of would be of the voters in Iraq, ink-stained fingers and all.

Here is a story on the lefty-righty thing in England.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,585-2102721_2,00.html

Long Live the Bourgeoisie!

*burp*