Edward Hopper

He is one of my favorite artists for sure - anyone who knows me well probably knows this. As a painter myself, I have always been fascinated by his technique and use of color. I have tried to emulate his style numerous times obviously none of them ending up quite as successful. Below is a short piece I wrote in response to an article by my favorite art critic: Peter Schjeldahl. He writes for the New Yorker and is still active today even though this article is a few years old.

Hopperesque

“Hopperesque” is the title of an essay written by Peter Schjeldahl. Schjeldahl begins by discussing Hopper’s style, or truly lack thereof. In an effort to keep up with the more advanced European style, Hopper combined “formal rudiments of postimpressionism with a meager American store with pictorial authenticities.” The result is chilling. If one were to be in a museum gazing, in a line, at all the pictures on a wall, one would inevitably stop at the Hopper painting and recognize it immediately. However, Hopper does not have a distinct, innovative style according to professional opinion. It is his unique point of view on naturalism that is so characteristic of his work.

Hopper is not a true realist, as one might suspect. While he physically tries to portray his characters and buildings as accurately and realistically as possible, he is more of a naturalist. His work is not the result of careful observation, it is the work of “imagination-powered metteur en scene, a stage or film director blocking in the vision of a final effect to be reached through cunning labor.” Hopper acts like a film director in the sense that he chooses what is going to be depicted in his work, the nature of the human gazes, and level of reality present overall. Realism doesn't involve artistic interpretation, which counts Hopper out.

The nature of Hopper’s work is seen differently among different individuals. The two most popular interpretations are that his work is filled with either loneliness (as much of his more important works were created during the depression era) or seclusion. Schjeldahl and I agree on our interpretations. Hopper’s work is not so much about loneliness as it is about seclusion. The reason is that no matter how alone these images may seem, there are always clues to indicate a somewhat upbeat environment. Take the windows for example. There is always light depicted inside indicating that someone is in there, that the house is not abandoned or empty. His structures breathe life. In addition, the light that exists in his paintings in general indicates an environment that would not be lonely. Schjeldahl ultimately suggests that we should “waste no pity on those houses.”