| | Looks like I'll have to fess up a thing or two...
One of the reasons I posted this (other than that I really liked it) is to get Newberry's take on it (seems he's busy in the meantime). I've read reviews of this work which I disagree with considerably and I wanted to see if I got something really wrong. The reviews have in no way changed my response to the painting.
For example, from this webpage:Text from "Sister Wendy's American Masterpieces":
.... It is easy to understand its appeal. This is not just an image of big-city loneliness, but of existential loneliness: the sense that we have (perhaps overwhelmingly in late adolescence) of being on our own in the human condition. When we look at that dark New York street, we would expect the fluorescent-lit cafe to be welcoming, but it is not. There is no way to enter it, no door. The extreme brightness means that the people inside are held, exposed and vulnerable. They hunch their shoulders defensively....
....Hopper described this work as a painting of "three characters." The man behind the counter, though imprisoned in the triangle, is in fact free. He has a job, a home, he can come and go; he can look at the customers with a half-smile. It is the customers who are the nighthawks. Nighthawks are predators - but are the men there to prey on the woman, or has she come in to prey on the men? To my mind, the man and woman are a couple, as the position of their hands suggests, but they are a couple so lost in misery that they cannot communicate; they have nothing to give each other. I see the nighthawks of the picture not so much as birds of prey, but simply as birds: great winged creatures that should be free in the sky, but instead are shut in, dazed and miserable, with their heads constantly banging against the glass of the world's callousness.... Obviously, this is not at all what I 'get' from the painting. Note that I'm no expert in art or art evaluation. This is one case where the opinion of a Newberry is very much needed. Of course, if anyone has their own take, well I'll certainly listen.
One of the many corruptions of the current post-modern art scene is that it introduces mush in someone seriously trying to find some validation from a response to an artwork.
From an Amazon description of Sister Wendy Beckett:Sister Wendy Beckett has been dubbed a "pop star" by the New York Times and "a phenomenon" by the Washington Post. She is certainly one of the world's best-known and best-loved art critics, familiar to millions from her wildly popular art series on PBS.
....Sister Wendy Beckett is a contemplative nun. She lives alone in a second-hand trailer on the grounds of a Carmelite monastery in Norfolk, England. She has a degree in English from St. Anne's College, Oxford, but she is a self-taught art lover. Her expert ability to critique and interpret art is recognized worldwide. I don't suppose that teaching oneself art should result in similar appraisals with other 'self-taughts,' but I certainly wonder at the reasons for her "worldwide" acclaim.
_______________________
Hong, I think that man's dress was just a typical uniform for a diner in 1940's New York.
Marcus, thanks for making "Boulevard of Broken Dreams" known to me. I still prefer the sans-celebrities-original though. :-)
Barbara, what can I say but "Great minds think alike"? LOL! I think someone just shot me for the presumptuous sacrilege (thank goodness the unsanction button hasn't made a return yet!). Your Majesty can call me 'Lanai Earl' or just 'Lanai.' It's still not my real name but it's very close (much much closer than say, 'Ayn Rand' to 'Alissa Rosenbaum'). I'll probably reserve exposing my real name for when I have something of my own art noteworthy enough to post here (I dunno if ever this is going to happen, though. I'm not exactly loaded with talent in art).
|
|
Nighthawks
