Really the most obvious thing that jumps out to one is the sense of loneliness and solitude and contemplation in Hopper’s paintings. Even when there is no human in the paintings, there is a tremendous sense of the artist or the viewer adding something to the room or landscape by viewing it. Hopper’s works often depict lone humans in different situations, and when we’re able to see their facial expressions, they’re never one of outright happiness. We see person after person in environments made by humans—buildings, cities, offices, movie theaters, homesteads, etc.—and what stands out is how lonely and solitary they feel. Anyone who has ever felt utterly, devastatingly alone in a crowded room can relate.
Rather than pick up on how Hopper’s works influenced things
like the liminal art/photography movement, I think it’s worth noting that to me
his paintings aren’t about the absence of things or being in an in-between zone/state
of being of some sort. Rather when there’s humans they seem resistant to their
current situation yet resigned to it. They’re still lost in thought or
rumination about their life but their look and auras are of one who has
accepted, perhaps capitulated to the situation they’re in, whether it’s an
unhappy marriage or a new suddenly unhappy job or a moment or realization you
know you can’t do anything about. When there are no human figures, we see
ourselves in the landscapes; we feel almost invited in to project our own
feelings of loneliness and alienation.
Yet in this last point I find there to be a feeling of
mutuality and invitation in Hopper’s works. Even if they make you feel lonely,
they also make you aware that other people have felt just like you have, even
if the details are technically different. I look at a work like Man Seated
On Bed (1906) and Summer Interior (1909) and especially Office
In A Small City (1953) and I can see flashes of my own life, and/or people
I’ve known, in these snapshots in time. With the latter work we see a common
technique of Hopper’s during this mid to late era, where we see a human figure
but also a bit of a voyeuristic angle were we see the exterior of the
building/setting the human figure is in. Perhaps another way to see it is
almost like an omnipotent viewer peering into dollhouses at the tiny lives
there.
The emptiness of the cityscapes with one human figure in
focus really underscores how many people over the years have felt alienated and
alone despite ironically living in large urban environments. Curious then that
the last painting I’m riffing off of should specify that it’s portraying a
SMALL city. Anyway, I imagine the person in this painting has just sat down for
their first day of work, and—peering across the cityscape that at first perhaps
is scenic and lovely but will soon become ordinary and repetitive—it dawns on
them that this is going to be the next however many years of their life.
You are just a cog in the machine of society; welcome home.
Interesting to me that some art critics back in the day
tried to associated Hopper’s later works with abstract art/surrealism, I think
this is just because of the vaguely dreamlike feeling his later human-less
landscapes/cityscapes/roomscapes can have. Certainly you can see Rooms By
The Sea (1951) and it can look a bit along the lines of a Renรจ Magritte b-side, but
this is another feeling the viewer brings to the work. If you visually engage
with this work you can explain away how the perspective makes it seem like the
door opens directly onto water, when in actuality this room may be up on a hill
overlooking a body of water, with the POV disguising the steps or slop just
outside the door. One could interpret this painting quite simply and just as
validly as: the open door to nature brings in water and light, crucial elements
to (most) life. While the room in the back has sunlight too, it’s less and
fainter than the open door to nature.
Much has been commented on, even by the artist himself, with
her focus on light and shadows. I feel this is mirrored in the focus on
loneliness/solitude and external forces. By which I mean, even in the
landscapes with no human figure, the viewer sort of substitutes in and is made
to reflect on their own feelings. The landscape can match your mood or you an
allow it to suggest one to you. When there are human figures, even more than
one, you still get the sense they are inside themselves and looking outward,
rather than imagining how they fit “into” the scene they’re in. For instance,
the earlier cited work Summer Interior depicts a woman who is in her
environment yet given the arrangement and her state of dress and look, she is
also a million miles away from her environment focused on something else. Did
she just get divorced? Is she depressed and thinking of the past? Or it is even
something good that has her so flustered?

,_by_Edward_Hopper.jpg)
