"Staying Up Too Late: Edward Hopper's Nighthawks and the Dark Side of the American Psyche" by Gordon Theisen

In 2008, I wrote a blog entry about Edward Hopper's "Nighthawks," the iconic painting of the late night diner and the characters inhabiting it.  I wrote my entry mainly directed at the composition of the painting rather than its overall symbolic meaning.  I've always felt lacking in my art appreciation skills; what little I can summon to make cross-examinations between literature and philosophy, I cannot translate to my interpretation of art.  I am not sure why this is so, since I have been widely accused of having a "gift for gab" when it comes to academic topics.  Nevertheless, I love visual art in all of its forms and writing about it here is a good exercise.

Back in 2008, when I was still within the safe confines of academia, a colleague found out I was writing an entry on "Nighthawks" and recommended a relatively "new" book on the matter.  I did not go out and purchase the book right away, but I read some reviews online and made a note to find it and read it eventually.  Fast forward to 2015... out of academia and slumming around used bookstores, I come across a hardcover copy of Gordon Theisen's "Staying Up Too Late: Edward Hopper's Nighthawks and the Dark Side of the American Psyche" for a mere $1.  The book was heavily annotated by someone who had obviously enjoyed it, and I took that as a good sign.  I found the book informative and passionately written.  The volume occupies itself with its title subject, but also delves into the works and lives of many other artists--it also covers a variety of overlapping topics, a broad swat of ambitious intellectual composition.  This, I respectfully believe, is what dooms parts of the book.

The introduction's pace is furious.  Theisen writes intelligently about American culture, history and folkore.  The problem stems from the fact that the author cannot conceal his politics (not that he is obligated to) and shows his bias a bit too forcefully.  Some of this authoritative bias is understandable enough--it is his book, after all, but at times even the most subtle instances of it strike the reader as obnoxious.  The fact that Hopper was "staunch Republican" strikes the author as odd, but it comes across as if Hopper, being an artist, was suffering from a type of intellectual or political leprosy.  I think Theisen's interpretation here is unfounded.  The so-called Republican Party "intolerance" of liberal arts, arts in general, etc. is a modern caricature conceived by pundits and political "experts."  Back in the late 1920s and 1930s, the Republican Party was not the iconic intolerant, conservative, super-religious, backward organization it is represented as today.  Both parties during the lifespan of Hopper's life had bigger "fishes to fry" other than engaging in petty "culture wars."  The fact that Hopper grew up in a conservative household may have more to do with his reserved, painfully conservative politics and ideas, not simply the fact that he "carried the label" of the Republican Party.  I am not defending a political ideology or even a party, but this type of what one can only assume to be "unintended bias" seems to have run its course during the Bush, Jr. years and now it sounds tiresome and only alienates those who see it for what it actually is.

I am sure Theisen did not set out to make it so, but the introduction is alarmingly depressing.  His treatment of American optimism from a historical perspective also shows his bias.  Our religious heritage has been damaging to American history; the Founding Fathers were blindly optimistic while ignoring the plight of non-white peoples; our economic system is based on optimism composed of thinly veiled lies, and so forth and on.

Once the book returns to the title subject, the core of its content is both entertaining and educational.  Biographical details about Hopper are well-researched and presented here clearly, and the non-chronology meshes well with the analysis of Hopper's work.  For the most part, the analysis of the art work is clear and informative; only in a few places does the language turn esoteric, and the analysis seems more like a stretch than insight.

I enjoyed the book tremendously.  Perhaps my negative comments come from the fact that life outside academia is different; one doesn't have the luxury anymore to believe that analysis and interpretation "matter."  Out here, a painting is just a painting and a late night diner just a late night diner.

Nighthawks by Edward Hopper: Themes & Meaning

In the interest of rounding up the major themes of this blog I am risking being taken for a "blogser" (meaning: poser). The fact that I took two courses on visual art appreciation doesn't qualify me as an "connoisseur" of sorts. I still, however, remember a great deal of the material studied, and how the mechanics of lines and direction makes the viewer understand the painting better. I selected Edward Hooper because I am interested in his exposition of the themes of isolation, meaninglessness and even nihilism. I could be making more of it than it is, but I've seriously given it a great deal of thought these days (despite my lack of time), and I have been hoping for a long time to open up with Hopper for my visual arts postings. The iconic picture, of course, would be "Nighthawks." Hopper painted "Nighthawks" at a very crucial time in the United States. The actual paining was completed in 1942--the shock of the United States' entrance into World War II not yet fully digested, and the memories of the Great Depression not long forgotten. A great book regarding this amazing painting is Gordon Theisen's "Staying Up Much Too Late: Edward Hopper's Nighthawks and the Dark Side of the American Psyche." This is perhaps the best known of Hooper's canvases, and maybe the easiest to examine in terms of where "the eyes go" when one looks at it. And looking at it, it seems that the two main lines of the painting are probably the easiest part to identify. The facade of the building at an angle guides the eye--but where? Doesn't it seem strange that the fast moving lines come to a screeching halt at the edge of what appears to be a curved glass window? Where do these lines then go? It took me a while to see the resolution. Lines B and A shoot down the painting too fast for them to be the first thing a viewer observes; the eyes immediately fall on the couple and the waiter. But let's look at it again. The viewer has to absorb the rest of the painting as it moves from right to left (an often used Hooper technique). And again, the lines lead to a "dead-end." So where do we go from there? Back to the couple and the waiter, pausing to question who is the solitary figure? He is like a thorn, dead center on the canvas, yet not telling a story, not allowing us to see the meaning as a given. He is the factor of isolation, the most common theme on this series of paintings Hooper developed into his trademark. It is about the man, I believe. His lack of visible facial features speaks to the fact that he is the "everyday" man, he who despite working hard, faces the incredible hardships of loneliness. He is only allowed to contemplate--across the lunch counter--what he is missing, lacking, or not worthy of. That leads to a larger social definition. The three costumers appear at the same socio-economic level, perhaps a bit higher than the service job worker (wage slave). Therefore, structure (lines), philosophy of isolation as catalyst for meaning and a socio-economic interpretation are all possible here.