Artist or Illustrator?

There is a longstanding debate amongst some members of the artworld over the art of Norman Rockwell. Rockwell provided social commentary of the American way of life with his art, often satirizing common social ills. Some claim, however, that Rockwell merely illustrated. They say that he did not create art, but merely took pictures, pieced them together on a canvas with a brush, and did not creatively express much of anything along the way.





Rockwell did a piece called "The Right to Know." In it, a moblike group of people stand before a desk. The chair of the desk is askance in a way that seems to say that a person had recently been sitting there, but left abruptly. The faces of the people are suspicious, grievous, agitated, skeptical, etc. The chair represents the government and the lack of information that it shares with its people. This piece in particular I believe was in reference to the Vietnam War.





Rockwell was clearly conveying a message here: the people of a country deserve to be informed by the country of its actions, especially when said actions result in the loss of life, compatriots or otherwise. His art is very realistic, almost photographic; he displayed great technical ability, but perhaps not abundant creative vision.





Is "The Right to Know" a work of art, or is it merely an illustration of a social theme? Must there be a level of creativity present in a painting for it to be art and not illustration?

The Right to Know

(Rockwell included himself in the painting/illustration. See if you can't find him.)