Wonderful article! I did not expect to read this on HN today at all.
I expect anyone with the undying love for Hopper’s work that I have to immediately imagine the harsh realities that produced these illustrations but alas I am mistaken.
Hopper was not a social artist! He was an embodiement of the eye, a conduit of visual experience. I would also argue Hopper was not a storyteller! He was more like a pornographer of light than a storyteller, and this is a beautiful thing.
Edward Hopper has always been one of my favourite artists. I’m no connossieur of art but I usually am very partial to abstract art because I am impressed by patterns and how it managed to induce an emotion in me without actually showing an obvious posed story (I’m speaking of the very abstract Mondarian, Kandinsky, slash-on-canvas Fontana, or Rothko, not the vaguely-screwed-up Picasso-style stuff).
Anyway, I’ve always been confused by the fact that I adore Edward Hopper above all of those, because the light is so striking and so ‘contrasty’ and stark and ‘photographically’ posted, and so inherently optimistic. So absolutely non-banal, so remarkable, so memorable, so... rendered?
And now up crops this stuff which strikes me as being absolutely run-of-the-mill almost-risible pulp.
It surprises me. It doesn’t at all detract from my amazement of those works of his I find so absolutely affecting and moving. It makes me feel... very protective of him, because he was pushed into doing these things in order to survive and provide for himself.
Sorry for the very confused comment. Thanks for posting.
I'm the same way about his paintings... I think it's genius.
I got to see a large collection of his paintings at the National Gallery in DC a number of years ago, and... wow. In person they're astounding. Go see them "live" if you can.
One thing that stands out compared with other modern painters of similar subject matter is the general blurriness of his paintings. I was a little surprised with that.
I expect anyone with the undying love for Hopper’s work that I have to immediately imagine the harsh realities that produced these illustrations but alas I am mistaken.
Hopper was not a social artist! He was an embodiement of the eye, a conduit of visual experience. I would also argue Hopper was not a storyteller! He was more like a pornographer of light than a storyteller, and this is a beautiful thing.
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/_MLACmwsxaww/RjtOQOTDtGI/AAAAAAAAA...
Anyway, I’ve always been confused by the fact that I adore Edward Hopper above all of those, because the light is so striking and so ‘contrasty’ and stark and ‘photographically’ posted, and so inherently optimistic. So absolutely non-banal, so remarkable, so memorable, so... rendered?
And now up crops this stuff which strikes me as being absolutely run-of-the-mill almost-risible pulp.
It surprises me. It doesn’t at all detract from my amazement of those works of his I find so absolutely affecting and moving. It makes me feel... very protective of him, because he was pushed into doing these things in order to survive and provide for himself.
Sorry for the very confused comment. Thanks for posting.
But these... Another side altogether. Thanks for the post!
I got to see a large collection of his paintings at the National Gallery in DC a number of years ago, and... wow. In person they're astounding. Go see them "live" if you can.
How cool is that.