Norman Rockwell

Unlike the political dissident artist Philipon against the infamous French ruler, King Phillippe, artist Norman Rockwell was a prolific artist whose work not only reflected American culture, but also greatly supported the (then) World War II effort, and his country. As described in “The Pear” article, French Graphic Arts in the golden age of Caricature, Government suggests that Caricatures are more dangerous than the printed word, in relationship to the abundance of recent political revolutions, and overthrown monarchies. And rightfully so, they were dynamic and their narration could be interpreted by both literate and illiterate alike. It was the La Caricature posted by Philipon that emanated the consistent rise of political caricatures… However, it was his later series, Le Charivari that gained more success. It was less costly, making it more accessible to the then (ruling) bourgeoisie class. Readers enjoyed the new issues, and the variety as well as political remarks. I couldn’t help but to think of the Le Charivari in parallel to the Saturday Evening Post. Through print, not necessarily printed word, Norman Rockwell displayed hundreds of pictures and paintings conveying the “everyday” of American life.

Except unlike Philipon, Rockwell’s paintings weren’t necessarily used in a disobedient manner. Rather, given as a way to “uplift” the then suffering bourgeoisie. His paintings supported the sales of war bonds, and ways to fuel the deteriorating economy.

One example is Rosie the Riveter. She is a fictional female icon, one that resembles strength and persistence. Norman Rockwell’s depiction of this character is almost a manly physique. Without the head, it appears as though we wouldn’t have even thought her to be a woman. This strength was given as almost a propaganda-esk piece, encouraging women to support their husbands, and support the country, by helping with the economy. At this time, helping meant to join the workforce! Come work in factories, because you are strong! Rosie, on her seemingly rough lunch break, looks almost unaffected by the ruggedness of her penny loafers, and the large machine that sits in her lap. As the text reads above, “Heart on Her Sleeve,” she cares about helping, and will do almost anything to support her country. The waving American flag in the background fortifies this. She is also an educated woman and in the spirit of the war effort, she is reading a copy of Hitler’s Mein Kampf.

I am curious about the impact of Rockwell’s paintings at the time of their creation, and publishing. Were they as cherished as those of Philipon’s time? Did people look forward to getting the Saturday Evening post for the narrations? These existed during World War II, where the questioning of the War as well as the government took place. Did these caricatures have the same effect as other wartime artworks during the French Revolution?

Paper Topic 2

hello everyone!

I am thinking of writing my paper on martin kippenberger (his paintings)

if anyone has any good resources that they know of let me know! They seem to be a bit scarce...

here's a link to his work if you want to check it out....

http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/artists/martin_kippenberger.htm

Kim Jong Il

Much like Hogarths experimentation with the pictorial genre, Mike Luckovich is also delving into graphic satire. “ Satirical engravings and etchings combined witty, vitriolic or propagandistic commentary on contemporary social and political life with a highly eclectic formal character as assemblages of very different kinds of pictorial and literary materials… they were often densely allusive and technically sophisticated, and appeared with particular frequency at times of crisis.” Much like Hogarth’s prints, Luckovich’s caricature is specifically making a social commentary about the current news of the South Korean “supreme leader,” Kim Jong Il’s death. A ruler of one of the world’s most repressive governments, people were both excited as well as terrified over his death, much of the anxiety was attributed to the anticipation over his successor.

In this caricature, many of Kim Jong Il’s physical features were exaggerated, such as his hair, skin, eyes, and mouth, to match the general physical traits of the iconic cartoon figure, Bert from Sesame Street. Along with the elementary “identical” characteristic and physical traits, the style of the caricature itself is also quite rudimentary, using minimal and stroke-like lines to draw the outlines of the figures. Unlike what was described in Hogarth’s prints, this imagery is seemingly underdeveloped formally speaking. Yet, we can still understand the concept of the piece itself. Because of the contrast of Kim Jong Il’s successor with Bert from Sesame Street, there is a bit of humor evoked in seeing the piece, especially if the viewer is informed of recent news events. Mixed with humor, is also darkness, for we know the character built around Bert was not only lighthearted in the setting he is placed in, but we also know that Bert was the one who didn’t laugh, the serious character when Ernie was being silly, Bert, oftentimes had an austere disposition.

In the article it mentioned that Hogarth was commissioned to make book illustrations. It said that the publishers as well as consumers saw these works as a pictorial relay, “ something that successfully passed on an extant image, than as a self-sufficient work of art.

I wonder if the same holds true for today’s standards, or is it merely contextual? Does Mike Luckovich’s caricature stand as a self-sufficient work of art?

The Head Ache

Top: Enrique Chagoya "The Head Ache: A print after George Cruikshank" (2010)

Bottom: George Cruikshank "The Head Ache" (1819)

I recently found (this) article in the New York Times about the Metropolitan Museum of Arts then new exhibition, “Infinite Jest: Satire from Leonardo to Levine.” Among the works on display, was the caricature created by Enrique Chagoya entitled, “The Head Ache: A print after George Cruikshank.” Created in 2010, Chagoya’s print reference’s that of George Cruikshank’s 18^th century print, replacing the characters head with President Obama’s. By employing satire into the piece, Chagoya exaggerates the recent healthcare headaches and trials that have beleaguered the President. Similar to Cruikshank’s approach, Chagoya keeps the socially critical image of grotesque demons attacking the authoritative figure.

“We have been taught by the artist to see him (the victim of the caricatures) anew, to see him as a ridiculous creature. This is at bottom the true and hidden aim behind the portrait caricaturist’s art... With a few strokes he may unmask the public hero, belittle his pretentions, and make a laughing stock of him. Against this spell even the mightiest is powerless.” - Caricature, E.H.Gombrich and E. Kris.

Here, the caricaturist is exemplified as having power. The power of laughter. It is with this power, that the artist is able to make a statement, in this case, about President Obamas recent healthcare reforms is “regarded by the dogmatic and loved by the public, it enjoyed a freedom denied to great art.” In this case however, it is almost as if the artistic freedom that Cruishank was denied, or oftentimes ridiculed for in the 18^th century, now has been embraced, or accepted as an art form. For Chagoya’s piece is appropriated in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Perhaps political pieces like the Pamphlet against Louis XIV by R. de Hooghe, are now embraced by the public and encouraged?