I received this email today that I found interesting concerning Rockwell ‘prints’;

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

6 Thoughts on “Another perspective on the Rockwell exhibit

  1. anominous on December 21, 2010 at 2:15 pm said:

    Dang.

  2. Yeah, I was a little surprised by his statements.

  3. Then again – since the early 20th century – almost nothing else in Sioux Falls is “original” either. Houses, street designs, sprawl, food, music etc. etc.

    A few buildings/structures here and there —- a tune or two, sort of orginal – but for the most part……….nah – just knock-off culture. So, a knock-off copy exhibition? Par.

  4. R- That is kinda the point. I can see a knockoff print of a Rockwell in the corner cafe of any small town in this state. If I am paying 6 bones to see an exhibit, it should be ENTIRELY original, not just a couple of pieces.

  5. It’s surprising to see the WP take to showing second-hand art, ie the rodin and rockwell exhibitions, when our area is actually packed full of original artists and thinkers willing and able to show their work, perform, and looking for the opportunity to do just that. I do believe that the route to a stronger and more supportive WP base is that of advocating the local and regional arts scene, and building community with these talents, and thus building a base able to sustain the WP for yrs to come. I’ve been sarcastic too about such programs as rockwell, and honestly, I think such feedback is important to the wellbeing and success of their institution. Really, we’d all like the WP to be a mecca of all things great, but often, I feel that the programming choices made by the WP don’t reflect those desires we all have.

  6. They care about one thing. Making money. Did you know Merhib even tried to charge the artists who were participating in the ‘Take the Day’ exhibit.

    Let’s admit it. Rockwell is popular amongst midwesterners, because, as Ivy Oland said, “It’s relatable and unintimidating.”

Post Navigation