Warning: May Contain Art Criticism

Blake Gopnik, writing in this weekend's Washington Post, uses the opening of the Smithsonian's new Norman Rockwell exhibit as an excuse to write an extended critique of ol' Rocky. Now, lay aside the sportsmanship of kicking a guy who's been dead thirty-plus years. What exactly is Gopnik mad about? Rockwell is perhaps the twentieth century's least objectionable artist. Thomas Kincaid is more controversial, Kenny G more challenging.

And that's what irritates Gopnik. He writes: "The one virtue most nearly absent from [Rockwell's] 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." Gopnik makes three distinct charges against Rockwell in the Court of Art. From least to most damning:

1. Rockwell only illustrated one segment of American life. Gopnik blames Rockwell for excluding minorities like "Latino socialists, disgruntled lesbian spinsters, [and] foul-mouthed Jewish comics."

2. Rockwell gave the middle class what they wanted. His paintings pandered to their smug self-image; hence, he was a coward.

3. Rockwell never challenged authority. He was not a bold innovator like Emily Dickinson or Louis Armstrong. To quote Gopnik, "Rockwell panders, in the very substance of his pictures' making, to his public's fear of change."

Are these charges true? And even if they are, are they necessarily bad things? Let's take them one at a time.

Rockwell only illustrated one segment of American life. Yes, he probably is guilty as charged. But by Gopnik's accounting, this means any artist who fails to depict the totality of American life is a snobbish elitist. Sure, John Steinbeck might have written about Dust Bowl migrants, but what did he ever do for southern blacks? Yeah, Jacob Riis helped New York's urban poor, but he didn't even try to depict Chinese immigrants slaving away on Western railroads.

Rockwell gave the middle class what they wanted. Indeed he did. Just as Dickens before him gave the British middle and upper classes what they wanted. And just as Mozart gave the Austrian nobility what they wanted. Every successful artist gives his audience what they desire. Rockwell's sin is appealing to a "bad" audience--the white middle class--instead of a "good" audience consisting of highbrows like Blake Gopnik. Which brings me to the last charge...

Rockwell never challenged authority. So art is only legitimate if it attacks orthodoxy? But doesn't that create an orthodoxy of its own, the orthodoxy of anti-establishment? If the artist is REQUIRED to attack the status quo, than their attacks no longer reflect any vision or meaning, only a reflexive, spiteful, almost childish rebellion.

Heck, nowadays a truly rebellious artist would embrace authority. He would defend orthodoxy and stand up for things like liberalism, capitalism, and religion. And when you consider that Rockwell was painting at a time when those values started to go out of style among the culturati...you could argue that Rockwell was one of art's first rebels. So there, Blake Gopnik. I think you owe Norm an apology.