Talk:Edward Hopper
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | Class: This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group. | ||
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>
Contents |
[edit] 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.
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)
[edit] 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.
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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
-
-
[edit] 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)
[edit] Chart
Per aesthetics of page design, the chart: echh. JNW 10:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
