Seeing his work in person is a lot different from seeing it in books or on the internet. I saw an exhibition of his work, including the Helga pictures and it was pretty amazing.
http://www.andrew-wyeth-prints.com/helga.html
You're either into his art or art in general or you're not.
I've seen quite a few of his work in person. The detail is truely amazing (every blade of grass is painted, every hair,etc). The Helga pictures really capture a certain "feel" to them (for lack of a better word =?). Read my link posted above and get a better feel for the real story behind "Christina World" painting. The painting takes on a new meaning when you know the story behind it.
The whole family is full of painters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wyeth_family
Thanks for taking the time to explain what you're thinking.
I think what I was responding to was the difference between being an illustrator and a painter. If you appreciate the handiwork, but are not moved by the subject matter, is that fine illustration or fine art? Does the difference between the two even matter? Does art need to convey or provoke emotion?
Did you understand what Christina's World was about before reading about it? I didn't at all. I always thought it was about creating a pastoral landscape with a central figure.
Do you get a sense of what Christina was like. Without knowing the back story, do you feel what she felt or thought about, or what Wyeth felt when he saw her dragging herself from place to place? I can't say that I see or feel any of that. A vague sense of saddness, maybe. But is that for Christina, or pithy nostalgia for simpler times past?
I really don't know. In the end, I completely agree with you. I think art should be subjective, it should either hit you or not. I don't want to have to think about it, I just want to respond. I just didn't find much in the stuff I've seen of Andrew Wyeth's to get excited about.