Post #1007 • May 23, 2007, 1:15 PM • 4 Comments
Visualize along with me: today, have a look at some straight ahead architectural works by Hopper. Tomorrow, I'll post the figure in interior works, and I want you to ask yourself whether the figures feel added into the architecture, or whether they've been worked into the whole cloth of the painting. I'm forming a thesis, likely incorrect, that some of the figures seem awkward not becuase (or not only because) of the usual complaints about their anatomy, but because they don't strictly need to be there from a formal standpoint.
It's probaly heresy to suggest it, but I generally find figural works by Corot to come off awkwardly, especially when compared to the bullseye certainty of his straight landscapes. That doesn't always make his landscapes superior, but I notice the tension - I get the sense that he could have painted little views of Rome all day with great pleasure, while his renditions of women, however loving, were at least somewhat of a pain in the neck for him. I'm going to suggest that the same was the case for Hopper - that he would rather be painting urban landscapes, but if any human drama was going to unfold inside the interiors, there had to be some goddamn humans in the picture.
In the meantime, these just coalesce like a good jazz ballad.
I lightly homaged Early Sunday Morning. Well, the hydrant.