Most of us critique images at NPN by examination of image as an object (lines, colors, shapes, lighting, texture, etc) and rarely about what it expresses and how it expresses. I came across this video of Edward Hoppers work and it caught my attention. I thought it might be useful to post here to provide a different way of looking at images and critiquing them. This video concentrates on one aspects of Hopper’s work. Personally, I think he reads into an image more than the painter himself saw in it, or even meant. But the act of trying to look and understand art in this manner is, I believe, useful. Can this approach even be applied to landscape photography? Perhaps, not in this manner exactly but yes there are lessons here.
1 Like
I have not yet had the time to look at the video, but I very much like the Nighthawks painting. It was great for me when I got the opportunity to visit Chicago and see the painting at the Art Institute.
1 Like
Thanks for posting this video, @Igor_Doncov . In example after example the narrator recites his impressions of the paintings. These are his stories of the paintings. No doubt many others would agree with his stories/interpretations of these paintings…stories of alienation. I haven’t seen anything (but I haven’t looked either!) from Hopper himself, as to what his intent is with these paintings. Maybe it was exactly the theme that this narrator is discussing. It is interesting though, as you say, to consider expressing what story we all see in various photographs. Which may or may not be the story intended by the photographer! Very thought provoking!
I somewhere on the internet I found a video where an interviewer asked Hopper (not Dennis) that very question. “Do your paintings convey an alienation”. And he replied that if you read reviewers about him they do. So, he never answered the question. I find that most photographers don’t like to answer that question. I asked Chuck Kimmel what his photo is about just the other day and got a similar answer.
