NOTE: Be sure to check your e-mail this weekend, since I'll be grading your papers and e-mailing the rubric & grade for your paper. If you want a hard copy as well, let me know and I can bring it on Monday.
Answer TWO of the following:
Q1: Schemid writes that Hopper's paintings create "a world without a future. And perhaps the oddest thing of all--it includes no children. Hopper never portrayed a child. His is a world of adults condemned to extinction, and conscious of the fact" (54). Do you agree? And if so, which painting best seems to characterize this sense of doom and extinction? And if not, what other mood/philosophy might his paintings communicate to the viewer?
Q2: Another thing Schmeid notes in Hopper's paintings in that they "exclude everything that has come to be associated with the American cliche" (53). What do you think the "American cliche" would be at this time (or in our time)? What subjects or ideas does he never paint, and why might his works (though fictional) be more realistic than most paintings of the period? Esp. ones like Nighthawks, New York Movie, Hotel Room, etc.
Q3: How might two of his most famous paintings, "Office at Night," and "Nighthawks" be different versions of the same general painting or idea? What do they each have in common? What does each one seem to say about people, relationships, the city, and night?
Q4: Many of Hopper's paintings seem voyeuristic, meaning that it's like the viewer is spying on people who think they're all alone, doing normal, day-to-day activities. Hopper did this because he claimed, "the most mundane human situations can also be the most deceptive and revealing" (72). Which painting do you feel shows something normal and revealing? What do we see that his 'hidden' or surprising about this activity?
No comments:
Post a Comment