Talk:Edward Hopper

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 March 2020 and 10 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Danshyguy.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

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>

Tate Modern

User:Sparkit asks Is there a specific link to Hopper at the Tate?

My impression is that the Tate doesn't have much of a collection of Hopper, but they had a retrospective last year. The online material for the exhibition is still available; Born on july 22, 1882 and died on may 15, 1967.

• Hopper exhibition at Tate 2004

In particular, the sketchbook viewer is interesting (probably requires flash and some of the pages took a while to load).

When that generic link to the Tate was added, the Hopper exhibit was probably on the Tate's front page.-- Solipsist 07:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Solipsist! I added it to the article. -->>sparkit|TALK<< 14:22, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

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.

John Squire

"Also in 2004 British guitarist John Squire (formerly of The Stone Roses fame) released a concept album based on Hopper's work entitled Marshall's House. Each song on the album inspired by, and sharing its title with, a painting by Hopper."

I added this as I thought it an interesting piece of trivia (respected musician influenced by Hopper) tying in with the Tate exhibition in the same year.

Interesting indeed. feydey 23:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The article may misrepresent Hopper's main interest

The article emphasizes the kind of objects that are represented in Hopper's paintings. These objects and their relationships are described with words such as "isolation," "eerily," "lonely mood," and "forlorn solitude." But there is another aspect of Hopper's paintings. This is the purely aesthetic effect of shapes and colors. He may not have been interested in communicating or showing isolation in human life. When he said "…that his favorite thing was painting sunlight on the side of a house," he may have been expressing his true interest: pure shapes and colors. The article compares Hopper with Norman Rockwell, who always emphasized the relationships of the depicted objects with each other. But with Hopper, there is no narrative, story, drama, or comedy. There are simply striking forms, lights, darks, and colors. It is possible that achieving an aesthetic effect was the main purpose of Hopper's work, not the representation of human isolation and solitude. Similarly, the article Automat (painting) decodes that painting into a symbol of urban alienation and depression whereas Hopper may have been simply fascinated by the contrasts of colors and shapes.Lestrade 02:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

It's not up to us to decide. Verifiable sources need to be found, used and cited on such matters. Otherwise it's OR and POV. This talk page is certainly not the place for editors to discuss their own views, per WP:TPG. That is not how articles are written. Tyrenius 11:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it true that the article's description of Hopper's art is OR and POV? To assert that his paintings represent urban alienation, loneliness, and isolation presumes that the writer knows that Hopper's chief interest was to portray or illustrate these concepts. I suggest that Hopper may have have another purpose when he painted his pictures. This is especially suggestive in view of his comment that his favorite thing was painting sunlight on the side of a house.Lestrade 14:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

I am in complete agreement. The article reads more like an interpretive essay than an encyclopedia article. Charlesreid1 (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Some of the images are defaced

The painting “Hotel Room” has a naked person sitting in a chair near the bed. This person was not in the original painting.

The painting “Automat” has an entire scene drawn in the window. This painting is famous partly because of the fact only the ceiling lights were drawn in the window by the artist, as a reflection, giving the painting some of its meaning.

Unless an encyclopedia can be regulated and contributions made to it by credible sources, I’m afraid this utility is not only of little use to people, but may also serve to induce inappropriate or incorrect actions on people due to incorrect information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.126.46 (talk) 03:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. Of course, you could have gone ahead and removed them yourself from the article...that's the beauty of Wikipedia. --Etacar11 13:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Chart

Per aesthetics of page design, the chart: echh. JNW 10:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

One image

Only one image? This gives the impression, as do so many art books, that this painter painted only one painting in his lifetime. Badagnani 02:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use restricts the usage of copyrighted images. Unless Wikipedia is willing to pay, we are content with even one image. feydey 11:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

A user had added some other images but they turned out to be manipulated/altered versions of Hopper's paintings (see above). --Etacar11 13:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Aaaah, ok. feydey 00:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Recent interpretation

I've reverted the addition of a recently published interpretation of Hopper's work [1]: the content seemed strongly promotional in angle, as devoted to the author as to Hopper. Nor was it clear that the cited publication was of notable scholarship--it might be, but all that was offered was a link to Amazon/Kindle. Reliability of source, beyond 'it's an artist's perspective' ought to be established, and tone would need reworking as well. Discuss.... JNW (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible fork

The page now contains a long list of Hopper's works. This started out as a list of his "principal" works, but I think it's pretty clear that by now, it's becoming a list of every print and painting that Hopper ever created.

For a painter as important as Hopper, such a list is absolutely essential (and it turns out that what appears to be an exhaustive list already exists on German-language Wikipedia). Perhaps English-language Wikipedia should emulate what the Germans have done, and create a separate page containing an exhaustive list. Then the list on the Edward Hopper page could be reduced to Hopper's genuinely notable works--perhaps only those works which have been judged by the Wikipedia community to be sufficiently noteworthy to have their own pages.

I'd love to hear feedback on this. If, over the next month or so, opposition is expressed, I'll abandon this idea. But if there seems to be support, let's:

1. create a new page devoted to listing all Hopper's works;

2. make it as exhaustive as the German page; and

3. pare back the list on this page to include only the most important works that would be of interest to a viewer who wants to start by seeing the best of Hopper first.

Seaside rendezvous (talk) 11:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like an eminently sensible idea to me. There should be little in the way of a "list" of Hopper's works on this page. This page should only mention works in association with specific comments on Hopper's work as an artist. Works should be mentioned on this page to illustrate points that are being made in the commentary. Bus stop (talk) 11:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I strongly agree. Charlesreid1 (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2012 (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)

'lottery dance pose'

'Tottery', maybe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.55.219 (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect picture attribution

The image on the Hopper page called "Night on the El Train, 1918" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Night_on_the_El_Train,_1918.jpg

I believe is not correct. It is actually Hopper's "House Tops, 1921". see: http://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/58887.html?mulR=465989250%7C1

I do not know how to change or correct the information.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.17.35 (talk) 06:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

FYI: "Night on the El Train, 1918" is seen here: http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/pd/e/edward_hopper,_night_el_train.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.17.35 (talk) 06:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edward Hopper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090803021127/http://americanart.si.edu/exhibitions/online/hopper/index.html to http://americanart.si.edu/exhibitions/online/hopper/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Introduction and Nighthawks

Terry Foote recently extended the introduction with a remark about Hopper's most famous painting: [2], [3]. I've fixed the latest edit but I am not sure if this material really belongs into the introduction. This is already much better covered in the section Edward Hopper#Subjects and themes. Per MOS:LEAD the lead shall give an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. I do not think that this is the right spot to discuss the influences about one of the subject's painting, even if it is a well-known one. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Early oil paintings

A change I made has been reverted but the source I provided is reliable, from a peer-reviewed article in the distinguished art historical journal The Burlington Magazine. This is verified new research correcting older information.--ljs90 (talk) 1 October 2020 —Preceding undated comment added 15:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I added this back, as the Burlington Magazine is the original article that all the reporting came from. I have also included a NY Times source, for verification purposes. This story (i.e. that several of Hopper's early works were actually copied done from magazines) is all over the web and easily verifiable at this point. Here it is in in The Times and also the Smithsonian Magazine. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2020 (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)