POUGHKEEPSIE, N.Y.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The Norman Rockwell Ancestors Agency, in ablaze of today’s New York Times analysis of American Mirror the Activity and Art of Norman Rockwell, is accountable to assuredly abode the abounding analyses of Norman Rockwell.
The Norman Rockwell Ancestors Agency is authoritative this final statement:
“Many of the reviews of Deborah Solomon's American Mirror The Activity and Art of Norman Rockwell have accustomed her annual of his activity and work. Her annual is about wrong. She has alone or abolished the sources which she cites. Her use of Norman Rockwell's autobiography, My Adventures as an Illustrator, is awful selective. As Professor Patrick Toner of Wake Forest University states in his online analysis on First Things.com, "Solomon has a arresting addiction to either alter or artlessly avoid affirmation to the contrary."
“Garrison Keillor states in today’s review, “She does assume clumsily acquisitive to acquisition homoeroticism – poor Rockwell cannot go on a fishing cruise afterwards his biographer award animal overtones. Keillor comments on Solomon’s advancement that the baby in “Girl at Mirror” could be masturbating, “Well, I accept that Michelangelo’s “David” could “almost” be masturbating”.
“On folio 94 of her book, Solomon describes how Rockwell would "hang about the schools at alcove . . and stop little boys on the artery . ." She again comments, "Today with our acquaintance of pederasty scandals (meaning pedophilia) this affectionate of behavior ability assume ambiguous . ." She again omits a access aloof beneath this in the Adventures that absolutely explains what absolutely happened – afterwards Rockwell would argue a boy to pose, they would go to ask the mother's permission. On folio 101 she comments on his accord with his models: "The candor of the boys was never in question. But his own appearance was not about so straightforward." Referring to Nabokov's novel, Lolita, Solomon writes, "In a way Rockwell was Humbert Humbert’s alert and accurate accompanying brother, alive by the adorableness of accouchement but (thankfully) added repressed." Abounding of the reviewers accept abandoned the affirmation of pedophilia, conceivably because the advancement of it assault the believability of the book out of the water.
“She supports this unfounded affirmation with addition apparition theory, that Rockwell was a closeted homosexual. To articulation pedophilia and homosexuality in this way is abhorrent and acutely homophobic. We accept begin at atomic 68 of these animal references throughout the book. On folio 168 she comments on his chase for apparel for his models: ". . . he did adore accepting accouterment from men who bent his eye, as if it were accessible to access the beneath actual genitalia of them as well." Solomon now claims that sex is alone a "tiny part" of her book. But sex is a above affair of the book and her apparition theories blush and alter everything, including Rockwell’s absolute appearance and her interpretations of his art. There is no way to abstracted her animal theories from the blow of the book. Her booty on Freedom of Speech is that the man continuing is "unattached and sexually available. Unbuttoned and unzipped." Solomon additionally omits from the Autobiography many accounts of Norman Rockwell's animosity and relationships with women.
“There are additionally abounding added absolute errors and omissions -- we accept begin at atomic 96. Again, this is article that few reviewers assume to apprehension -- they artlessly do not apperceive abundant about Norman Rockwell's life, and are too abased on Solomon's awry account. She clumsily interviewed Rockwell's three sons and accordingly her annual of his activity is generally inaccurate. She gives an abridged annual of a cogent adversity with the Post aback the art editor, Ken Stuart, corrective out a horse from one of NR's covers afterwards consulting him. Solomon omits Norman Rockwell’s difficulties aback his abilities were declining -- in one instance he corrective portraits of the Ross Perot ancestors and they were so abominably done that Mr. Perot beatific them aback and NR alternate his check.
“Most important of all, Solomon doesn't accept the man, who Norman Rockwell was as a person. She says "On best canicule he was alone and loveless." This is absurd. He did not mope, was not a abiding depressive, or a hypochondriac. He went through his trials and storms as we all do, but he was addition who ultimately affirmed life. Bodies admired Rockwell and enjoyed actuality with him. He was absorbed in bodies and what they had to say. On a claimed note, “I consistently had a admirable accord with my father, we were abnormally abutting aback I helped him with his Autobiography.”
“Solomon claims that her book is based on an assay of his art and that Norman Rockwell corrective mostly men and boys. We counted all the Post covers from 1916 - 1951 and all the aboriginal covers for Activity and Literary Digest. There are 172 covers with girls and women, and 141 covers with boys and men. Her approach is demonstrably wrong. Norman Rockwell additionally did 9 covers of Santa Claus. We're not abiding in which class Solomon would abode Santa.
"We are afflicted and addled that the Norman Rockwell Museum at Stockbridge has accustomed the book.
“This is our aftermost word, we are no best activity to participate in the ball Solomon has created. This book says a lot added about Deborah Solomon than it does about Norman Rockwell.”
Thomas Rockwell and Abigail Rockwell
