I have often said that the Pavilion’s greatest asset is its Visual Arts Center, because it is free. And while I have disagreed with the Pavilion’s management and board of directors for several years, I still felt it was important to give to the VAC through Arts Night because the center was free to the public, that is why it baffles me that the Pavilion is charging for this exhibit;
In Search of Norman Rockwell’s America*
In Search of Norman Rockwell’s America is a groundbreaking exhibition that pairs the work of American icon Norman Rockwell with images by award-winning photojournalist Kevin Rivoli.
* This will be a paid admission exhibit
What the little excerpt doesn’t tell you is that there is very few Norman Rockwell originals. I hope this isn’t a trend at the VAC. I find it quite ridiculous that they would charge admission to see ‘prints’ of a well known cartoonist when I can go to my doctor’s office and see them for free (the prints, not the doctor 🙂
Earlier this year I was in DC and at the Smithsonian you can see the real thing, no fakes for FREE! It is a very impressive exhibit. http://godc.about.com/b/2010/02/15/mark-your-calendar-for-this-norman-rockwell-exhibit.htm
I wouldn’t cross the street to see a FREE Rockwell exhibit.
Me neither.
Maybe they can have a Precious Moments exhibit sometime
They don’t have to worry about it, SculptureWalk already exists.
Kinda looks like the Pav is getting rolled on this one.
There is a $50,000 rental fee + shipping and only 17 originals will be featured in the show (15 paintings and 2 drawings). All the other works are giclee photo prints or offset prints (basically the same kind of prints you would buy of a Monet at Hobby Lobby).
http://www.artsandartists.org/exhibitions/normanrockwell.html
l3wis, you seem to have your facts wrong and Mitch there are no “fakes” in this exhibition – a lithograph is not a “fake.” the link you provided L3Wis shows the exhibition is comprised of 15 paintings and 2 drawings (17 ORIGINALS!). i also saw the exhibition firsthand and was so impressed with the extensive educational wall text, informative labels and other content of this significant exhibition and influential artist. $5 is an absolute bargain for the memorable experience it provided for me and my family and my art history class. i think you could both learn from Rockwell’s talent AND positive and optimistic spirit!
Thank you for the correction, I did notice that and changed my comment, BUT, only 17 originals out of 70 pieces isn’t worth $6 to see.
As for your ‘fakes’ comment. Where did I say there was ‘fakes’ in the show? For being an Harvard Art Historian, you really have no real grasp of what an offset print is, an offset print is a reproduction of an original, but it certainly isn’t a ‘fake’ just not an original.
I have worked in printing for almost 20 years and was one of the first to attempt giclee reproduction of art in Sioux Falls, trust me, I understand the difference between an original and a print.
Besides, this thread is about charging for a very weak exhibit.
I’ve been following this thread and actually I think the Harvard Prof was referring to the poster Mitch’s comments in regard to “fakes” which we know these aren’t. I personally loved the exhibition, and think 17 originals out of 35 is substantial. You need to consider 35 of the works are Rockwells and 35 are photojournalist Kevin Rivoli’s photographs of slice of life moments reminscent of Rockwellian events, that’s what makes the exhibition unique, comparing Rockwell’s America to present day America. And I think being amused, educated and moved is worth $6. Check out this link about one of the significant paintings in the exhibition from the Washington Post a couple weeks ago, very moving inspiring story about Ruby Bridges.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/12/AR2010111206509.html
I don’t mind paying $6 for an art exhibition, especially after the last election with funding for the arts being cut so drastically. Don’t we want museums to stay open!
You are missing my bigger point. The promise from the Pavilion has always been to NOT CHARGE at the VAC. Only one other exhibit charged, and it was 10x the exhibit this is.
Even the Rodin exhibit was free. That is what makes the Pavilion’s museum great, it’s free, anybody can experience visual art in a tax subsidized museum and not pay a dime. Don’t you see the signifigance of that?
Elitism is already at work in the rest of the building, let’s leave it out of the VAC.
December 20, 2010
Attention Sioux Falls residents:
Norman Rockwell -never- created a lithograph.
That fact was confirmed by the Norman Rockwell Museum in the Buffalo News’ published June 30, 2003 “ORIGIN OF ROCKWELL LITHOGRAPHS CAUSING CONTROVERSY” article that this scholar was the source for.
Late in his life, Norman Rockwell want to cash-in on his celebrity status, which was his right.
So, in late 1960’s, Norman Rockwell hired Circle Fine Art chromists (someone who copies another artist work) to reproduce his paintings. The problem was those thousands upon thousands of chromist-made reproductions were subsequently misrepresented by Norman Rockwell and his representatives, for sale (at $200 or more 1960’s dollars) as original works of visual art ie., lithographs.
As an artist who creates original lithographs, I speak from experience on what constitutes a lithograph but for those who require little more substantial documentation, as a scholar, I cite U.S. Customs Informed Compliance May 2006. In part, it states that a -lithograph- “must be wholly executed by hand by the artist and excluding any mechanical and photomechanical processes.”
Upon Norman Rockwell’s death, this “knowing concealment of the truth or misrepresentation of a material fact to induce someone to his or her detriment” which is one legal definition of -fraud- was continued by Eleanor Ettinger, their chromists and others with thousands upon thousands of posthumously forged editions misrepresented for sale as Norman Rockwell lithographs.
The dead don’t lithograph.
Therefore, all so-called -Norman Rockwell lithographs-, albeit non-disclosed chromist-made and/or photomechanical reproductions, became “something that is not what it purports to be” which is one legal definition of -fake-.
Finally as for the prior -Rodin, A Magnificent Obsession- exhibition held a couple years ago at the Sioux Falls Pavilion, 54 of the 63 so-called sculptures were non-disclosed 2nd-generation-removed forgeries with counterfeit “A Rodin” signatures posthumously inscribed between 1919 and 1996, some 2 to 79 years after Auguste Rodin’s death in 1917.
The dead don’t sculpt, much less sign.
In closing, without full and honest disclosure to these contentious issues of authenticity, the museum patrons will find it difficult if not impossible to give informed consent on whether to attend an exhibition of non-disclosed reproductions and/or forgeries at the Sioux Falls Pavilion, much less pay the price of admission.
Unfortunately, with the Sioux Falls Pavilion that seems to be the plan.
Caveat Emptor!
Gary Arseneau
artist, creator of original lithographs & scholar
Fernandina Beach, Florida