The Top 40

One of the first things about art, that is separating art from illustration which has it's place and crap is vocabulary. If the artist, in what ever media has nothing to say, it's crap.

Does the work capture an emotion, is it "painterly", a term meaning brush strokes have meaning, not just slapped on the canvas. Did the person catch the light to make you "enter the image", become part of the experience.

Enough, that is what one gets when you you get a B.F.A., a wrap of experience, like Gerard does when he chooses one word over a different one. They're close but not the same in meaning, very subtle but the text come alive rather than just informative.

Grandma Moses painted, Norman Rockwell illustrated, Rembrandt was a painter. Put them side by side to see the difference.

"Does the work capture an emotion, is it "painterly"
How true Woodchuck. Like watching a sunrise with the slowly developing hues and contrasting shades until the moment a chill spreads over you from the vastness of the canvass spread in front of you.
A well written story that envelopes you until you catch yourself being there or lose yourself in a classical selection that paints the music in your minds eye. I can't pity the person who does not see, feel or hear beauty but only hope they will at sometime in their life.

I always thought Rockwell's stuff was pretty emotional.

I never understood Edward G Robinson's fascination with that odd boat picture. If I was ever to have met him I would have asked him about that, right after I thanked him for his stunning monologue on suicides in "Double Indemnity".

From what I understand, if you see Rockwell's work in person, its jaw droppingly masterful. I've read account after account of people who were dismissive of his stuff as trite or popular illustration completely change their minds upon seeing the original paintings.

A lot of impressionist art works that way, it just doesn't seem as impressive in prints as it is in person.

@Chris, you're probably right. I sat back from the monitor and even squinted my eyes to try to see what Robinson seen in that impressionist boat picture and just couldn't see it. I'd have to see it in person, and find the right distance between me and it, to fully appreciate it.

Ghostsniper, I'm not putting down Rockwell's work; I'm calling it what he called it and it is true. That doesn't mean he doesn't capture something of the moment. He did.
Place his work next to one of the Barbizon School like a Corot, a Manet or a Courbet and the difference shows. The Hudson School took off from the French Barbizon but became 'stylized' later on losing the spontaneity.

Then we get down to the real nut of art; WHAT do you like.

@VT, your last sentence. Well there ya go, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

I wasn't getting on you, just stating what my eyes seen in NR's work.

Contrast even reproductions of Norman Rockwell's art with that of what's his name the guy who painted the Campbell's soup can.

For me, comparing a reproduction of the Mona Lisa with a Rockwell family or neighborhood scene, I see fabulous subtlety, artistry, beauty in the Mona Lisa and radiant life in Rockwell's homage to the extraordinary everyday ordinary.

For me, best to speak of equivalency rather than equality or better and worse in some respect.
'Different strokes for different folks.'
'De gustibus non est disputandum." In matters of taste there can be no [real] disputation.