>>7622490 (OP)>>7622529>>7622536For some people it may feel uncanny valley because the expressions are often subtly exaggerated, but not enough to the degree of a caricature. This is compounded by the fact that he typically puts almost everything in-focus and with loads of hard edges everywhere, which can be disorienting. If the OP image were recent you'd think it was actually painted over a photobash of multiple unrelated portraits. The detail and texturing of the cat is noticeably different from the dogs, and you can clearly see all the lines on each person's face. Oddly, the son's far hand has what looks like more clear detail than his near hand, despite it being in shadow and further away.
This isn't really to knock him, as this WAS indeed a thing that was popular in his time. He was indeed highly skilled and has plenty to learn from. The technique required to make all the textures look super real - the cloth look like you could reach out and touch it for example - and the individual expressions being well-pulled off.
Most importantly, you can learn that even for a great like him, he had many stinkers that we are only aware of because he was so prolific, did so much art for clients who kept archives, and much of his work was preserved as a result.
I'd argue that the ones shown here
>>7622536are better examples of Rockwell's art than the OP image, but there are loads of even better ones out there. The main contention is really just the composition of the OP, all things said and done.
