Talk:Edward Hopper

Forgery?

How can a forgery of the famous painting be shown on this page. The real thing really looks different. Ellywa 12:29, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

artchive.com give free a scan of the painting. I'm sure they're not breaking copyright here, and even if they are (which I hghly doubt), it would be fair use... Dysprosia 09:29, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is not a forgery as it does not claim to be the real thing. Fair enough it is a rubbish copy of Nighthawks but is not a forgery.

Holden 27

Can't we link to the real thing instead?...Amelia Hunt 22:52, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

<Jun-Dai 23:07, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)> It helps give an impression of his work, though at some point it will be necessary to find a better solution. Anyways, isn't there anything from the early part of his career that's public domain yet? </Jun-Dai>

Usage

"Rockwell exalted in the rich imagery of small-town America" looks like an error to me. Probably the author meant "Rockwell exulted in..." (meaning he rejoiced in it). Actually, in context, "Rockwell exalted the rich imagery...." (meaning he glorified it) would be even more apt and less cliche', but I'm not sure if that's what the author meant.

A possibly controversial point

In light of the recent - and very welcome - additions by Scotwriter, here's a little point I'd like to ask about. I don't have any access to most books on Hopper, however, I've read in the Amazon.com review of Levin's "An Intimate Biography" that Hopper "ridiculed, degraded and occasionally beat or bruised his wife". Much as I love Hopper's work, I believe that - if the review is correct - this is something that should be mentioned in the article. This isn't pretty, but if a major biography makes explicit mention of it, well, shouldn't we follow? --Jashiin (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a valid point, but I didn't want to use that fact without confirmation from another source which I didn't come across.--Scotwriter (talk) 03:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I read the passages in Levin's biography years ago, and recall that they are pretty strong stuff--the descriptions of the battles, bloody affairs at that, with her fighting back, come directly from Jo's correspondence. It probably merits mention, but I can't see it getting more than a sentence or two, under his relationship with Jo. JNW (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

One or two sentences is precisely what I'm talking about. As for another source, well.. Levin's book is based on Jo's correspondence? And the book itself is, I take it, the standard biography? I mean, is another source really needed in this case? --Jashiin (talk) 14:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it deserves more than one or two sentences. I would say an entire paragraph. There's a lot here, particularly the primary animosity of Jo "hating" Hopper for his success while never (according to her) trying to help her succeed as a painter, even though she was partly responsible for helping him. The resentment is palpable. Plus, Hopper notably painted her into every canvas with a human figure, and he often made her ugly when they were fighting (according to her). Lots to write about here. Viriditas (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I read the book. From what I recall, the event in question mainly surrounds a car accident. Hopper was a bit of a sexist (he believed there was "no creative role for women, including his wife. His attitude towards women typifies most male artists of his generation. He was consistent in his disparagement of women artists in general, viewing them mainly as dilettantes who painted flowers, dabbled in other trivial subjects and caused trouble for men in the profession"). He actively prevented his wife from driving for many years until he finally gave in and let her drive. One time, she swerved to avoid a car, and normally, that would be that. But for some reason, Hopper grabbed the wheel from her as she was recovering from the near miss, and that got them into a real accident, although nobody was harmed except a sign. The next part is where the abuse allegations come in. After the car stops, he gets out of the car, goes around to the driver side, and literally drags his wife out of the car against her will and throws her in the backseat and then drives away. Obviously, that was pretty aggressive and he probably bruised her in the process. The thing is, this was done in full view of the townspeople, and it was a small town, so there were apparently a lot of witnesses and word spread.

Regarding the origins of Hopper's sexism, Levin goes into some detail trying it to trace it down here and there. One thing that sticks out is the one who got away, Hopper's first love, Enid Saies. Whatever the origin of his sexism, it seems to me partly a kind of self-hatred projected outward for never going after Enid and projecting his loss on to Jo. Just my opinion, of course. They appeared to be truly in love and were genuinely fond of each other in every way but Enid went on to marry someone else. Levin seems to insinuate that Hopper had time to intervene and put a stop to the marriage, but it never happened.

Throughout the book there's other skirmishes, with insinuations that his wife gave as good as she got. In one notable fight, Hopper insulted her as a woman regarding some weird notion about sex (and there's some very unusual insinuations about sex, sexual behavior, and from what I can tell, lack of sex in the book that I still can't figure out; there's even a strange, offhand comment about disfigurement which apparently alludes to something, but I don't know what it means). After that insult, she kicked him straight in the shins. If you've ever had someone do that to you, you know how much that can hurt. In her notes, his wife says something like "that's how you deal with Edward, it's the only thing that works". So it was an abusive relationship all around in many ways. One funny footnote to that incident: after Jo kicked Hopper in the shins, he suddenly became incredibly productive as an artist after a bout of artists block. So she seemed to be on to something. On that note, I remember when I accidentally slammed my finger in my car door a few years ago. The pain was so intense that my body released a massive dose of adrenalin, and it did feel invigorating, and in some weird way, I could see how a jolt of pain could get the creative juices flowing. I realize that sounds crazy, but there is some weird logic to it from the perspective of physiology alone. Is pain and suffering a part of the creative process? Some might argue that this old cliche still rings true, I don't know. Maybe it's an easy shortcut. Viriditas (talk) 06:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Skyfall house influence?

On the lastest Bond film, Skyfall, directed by Sam Mendes, you can see a typical "Hopper countryside" house. Maybe we should look for some references to this and, if true, add to the cinematographic influences? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.24.232.86 (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

One of the most interesting things about Hopper is how much film influenced his work. As for Skyfall, my memory is hazy, but it sounds like you are comparing a house in the Scottish Highlands to a house in Cape Cod. That's actually a fascinating observation, and it's not something that occurred to me. I will watch the film again and pay close attention. Viriditas (talk) 06:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

It looks like you're not alone. The colors and even the houses are reminiscent of Hopper's paintings, but I wonder if it is just a coincidence. Viriditas (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Curioser and curioser! You may in fact be on to something quite real, which surprises me. It turns out that the houses in question as seen in Glen Etive were built specifically for the film, mostly just exteriors, as the interior shots were all done at Pinewood Studios. Oddly, the structures in that scene closely resemble the house and barn seen in Hopper's painting October on Cape Cod (1946). Filming on Skyfall began in November 2011 and ended sometime in May 2012. Production design on Skyfall was by Dennis Gassner, who is known for working on films in the past where Edward Hopper paintings played a large role in cinematography. This is exemplified by Gassner's work on Road to Perdition, whose guiding aesthetic was Hopper. Both films, Skyfall and Road to Perdition, were directed by Sam Mendes! In other news, the painting sold at auction approximately one year after filming began, in November 2012. Might be interesting to see who bought it. Viriditas (talk) 23:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Ray Zone on Road to Perdition: "Director Sam Mendes finds the paintings of Edward Hopper to be a great source of inspiration. Like Hopper, Mendes strives to create a tableau in which the space surrounding a character is a visual key to the emotional meaning of a scene. With lighting, what is hidden in shadow may be even more meaningful than what is visible to the eye. Light and shadow do more than just create a mood; they harbor or reveal the thoughts and emotions of the characters depicted. "You look at an Edward Hopper painting and you can study where the light sources are," says Mendes. "Often, the key to his paintings is where he places the light sources." Mendes is haunted in particular by Hopper's 1939 painting New York Movie, an evocation of actions and emotions that are never revealed. The interior of a movie theater, rendered half in darkness, seems to house the isolated introspection of the human soul. Mendes offers, "In New York Movie, which shows an usherette standing at the side of a cinema, the lighting of the scene is absolutely the source of its poetry. The fact that her face is partially obscured creates a sense of loneliness and desolation. You begin to invent your own story from the imagination [depicted] in the world of the painting." Viewers of the painting are inspired to imagine what the usherette is thinking or feeling. The barely visible audience in the theater is also experiencing a film that is merely suggested by an abstract, black-and-white image. "Compositionally, Hopper constantly ensures that your imaginary eye is guided off the frame of the picture," Mendes says. "You begin to imagine what's on either side of the frame. In other words, what's important is what is off camera." In a way, Hopper's modernist instincts led him to visually convey the theatrical device of silence and the unspoken. "This is something that I feel Conrad Hall does brilliantly," Mendes adds. "Any great painter who uses light in a particular way is working off instinct, and Conrad is instinctive. If you show him a scene, he'll feel the atmosphere in a corridor and he'll light what he feels to be the atmosphere as opposed to how he thinks it ought to be lit logically or rationally." The modernist tenet that "less is more" applies equally to cinema and painting. Withholding information is often a very effective strategy for generating emotional impact. "Sometimes you know more about emotional states of characters if you can't see their eyes," Mendes submits. "That's quite a dangerous thing to say when you're dealing with actors who are speaking all the time, but people can underestimate the emotional articulation of a shot that isn't a close-up." ( 2002 American Society of Cinematographers)

Bitterness?

He continued to harbor bitterness about his career, later turning down appearances and awards.

Not quite clear what he was bitter about. Was it the long wait for recognition? If so, why would he turn down awards? Valetude (talk) 17:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I suspect that much of this article will have to be rewritten, however, if there was bitterness, it was due to him being basically ignored for 20 years early in his career, and for him also being ignored in favor of the abstract expressionists later in his career. As for turning down awards, this isn't unusual. Many people turn down awards for various reasons, often because there are unstated strings attached to them, but also because awards often mean nothing to them. There was also something unusual going on with Hopper in terms of his extreme frugality, inability to express himself verbally and emotionally (or just his refusal to do so), and the volatile nature of the relationship with his wife. One of the things generally unknown about Hopper is that he was a considered a great writer by his peers, but he found it too difficult and just gave up on it. He talks about being truly happy only a couple times, one of which was being in Europe in his early life, another about his enjoyment playing chess, and yet another about his ability to sell his older work. Apparently, Hopper was hyper critical about his own work, and didn't like to sell art that failed to meet his expectations. One of the themes in his bio is people coming around saying "why do you have that thing stored away, people will buy it", and Hopper expressing amazement that anyone would want it. His extremely high standards seemed to lead to a lot of his unhappiness, in my opinion. In his later career, he was only producing a few paintings a year, not because he couldn't, but because he only created what he thought personally mattered to him, and if he couldn't do that, he wouldn't produce anything. There's this sense that Hopper was producing a new kind of realism, an original kind, that nobody had ever made before, and you really get this sense when you read the bio, and it's not something that I realized until I read it. What drives this home is when you read about his legacy with the larger art world. It's almost as if there isn't a single major artist who hasn't been influenced by Hopper. That's amazing if you think about it. Viriditas (talk) 01:39, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Re: Late 1940s...period of relative inactivity

The sources from the late 1920s onward discuss this is as some kind of combination of depressive episodes, poor health, and relationship issues with his wife. Also his extreme frugality is somewhat unusual and unremarked upon. It's not clear if this is simply a typical reaction of someone from the middle class to the aftermath of the Great Depression, which would make a lot of sense, or something related to his mental state. OCD is famously associated with the fear of spending money, for example. Viriditas (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Something I only just realized

Any publications about Hopper's work before 1968 will inevitably contain some kind of minor errors because the bequest to Whitney went through after that time, after which many new details about Hopper's work became known for the first time. Viriditas (talk) 01:20, 29 November 2024 (UTC)