When Norman Adams was working at Charles E. Cooper Studio, in New York, he would paint Still Life paintings like this, often in his spare time. The other artists, illustrators, thought he was crazy.

At the time, in the late 1950's, “boy-girl” paintings were popular, the fashion. The boy-girl illustrators were supremely creative but their images lacked detail, which was the style. For these artists it must have been amusing to see the young Norman Adams spend hours if not days painting images in unfathomable detail ... it was an addiction. 

Once the likes of Playboy killed the subtle sexuality of the boy-girl style of illustration then these once very popular boy-girl illustrators had to find other jobs, because they never took the time and effort to adapt to the new styles of illustration, art, that the new, younger, and more motivated and more creative artists were creating and perfecting.

When TV Guide needed an illustrator for its moon-landing cover in 1969 they needed someone who could make the cover look “real.” Norman Adams was the one illustrator who could make anything look real, his still-life paintings, like the above, made it obvious. When outdoor magazines needed illustrators they picked the ones, like Norman, who could satisfy and stimulate the readers with the images of the outdoors. 

It was Norman's addiction to keep perfecting his painting skills that kept taking his skills and creativity to newer levels. He took the best of the artistic creativity the world had to offer, and with this foundation he then kept taking his art, creativity, to new levels, obsessively. It had to be an addiction because there certainly was no financial reward in painting images for days if not weeks just to make an image please the eye, or fool the eye, like it has never been pleased or fooled before.

His obsession to paint had to be an addiction because there can be no reward in spending days if not weeks driving around taking dozens if not hundreds of photographs just to get one image that will work for the subject of a painting  ... and then maybe even more days or weeks taking dozens if not hundreds of more photographs for backgrounds ... just for a painting that probably won't sell, and if it does it is likely that he will never see the money because many gallery owners have a nasty habit of losing paintings... and if he does get paid it might be enough money to cover the film and camera costs, and maybe the mileage ... so that the months of addictive planning and then weeks of even more addictive painting is for nothing, free. And to do this not for just a few years but for a whole lifetime.

If Vincent van Gogh was addicted to spending his time painting with little or no outside encouragement, let alone financial reward, then, more than anyone else -- now that his unparalleled  illustration career is over -- Norman Adams knows exactly what this addiction Vincent van Gogh had to keep painting regardless of the ridicule, let alone costs or consequences.