newcritics - Latest Comments in Defending Edward Hopper

Re: Defending Edward Hopper

herbal3 — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 09:43:24 -0000

Even if being prejudice is an issue to his pieces Cotter is really awesome and we can't definitely hide that fact

Re: Defending Edward Hopper

jazs5 — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 11:51:21 -0000

All I can say is that cotter has such an amazing talent, many people would love to have such talent but only few are
blessed to have it.

Re: Defending Edward Hopper

dude91x — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 05:52:53 -0000

I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t need my ticket validated.

Great line.

Is Holland Cotter part of newcritics? Then what the heck does he matter anyway?

:)

Re: Defending Edward Hopper

jazs36 — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 22:19:23 -0000

Cotter most people knew him for being such a prejudice, well his masterpieces are really awesome

Re: Defending Edward Hopper

Tom Watson — Tue, 15 May 2007 20:14:28 -0000

Great comments. It's true: no need to punch the ticket. That said, cultural snobbery in a venue like the front page of the NYT arts section should be called out. And you know, they love Hopper in Gloucester.

Re: Defending Edward Hopper

Kathleen Maher — Fri, 11 May 2007 18:20:26 -0000

Because a lot of beautiful art remains ignored, except possibly by certain aesthetes, it hardly follows that celebrated, widely appreciated art is less beautiful. Ultimately, I think the virtue of all art, painting, dance, music, etc, is subjective, and should be.

Re: Defending Edward Hopper

Kevin Wolf — Thu, 10 May 2007 12:49:09 -0000

I'll be seeing the show, I hope sooner rather than later. I do think the MFA tends to play it safe and with an artist as popular as Hopper I think that likely holds true.

The question will be whether the show invites any kind of reassessment of Hopper or his work or even a portion of his output. Maybe it plays it too safe and does not.

That would be a valid criticism in a review of the show. And if, again, true perhaps Cotter was disappointed in the show and felt he had to say something. Then he went after Hopper, not the exhibit itself.

I find too much in Hopper, painting after painting, to ever be as dismissive as Cotter.

Re: Defending Edward Hopper

blue girl — Thu, 10 May 2007 10:56:43 -0000

I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t need my ticket validated.

Great line.

Is Holland Cotter part of newcritics? Then what the heck does he matter anyway?

:)

Re: Defending Edward Hopper

OutOfContext — Wed, 09 May 2007 16:33:52 -0000

Sure it's all about social prejudice or, I would argue, cultural prejudice. It's a cognoscenti thing. I'm not going to preach about it, I get a pang of it (in reverse, and on a less exalteted leve, I guess) when I hear "Ever Fallen In Love With Someone" or "Pink Moon" on a commercial.
Hopper is a light magician and that's what I look for in the visual arts. I don't need my ticket validated.

Re: Defending Edward Hopper

Claire — Wed, 09 May 2007 12:15:30 -0000

I agree with estiv, there is definite social prejudice in Cotter's piece. It reminds me of people complaining that people read trashy books or something. It's good people are reading or appreciating art! Regardless of the content. People have to start somewhere.

But I love Hopper and would love to see this exhibit.

Re: Defending Edward Hopper

estiv — Wed, 09 May 2007 11:24:19 -0000

I think Cotter is also injecting a kind of social prejudice. His comments on "Second Story Sunlight" suggest that the lives depicted therein are either uninteresting as subjects for a painting or, perhaps, do not even really exist. While it's true that a petit bourgeois often knows little of fine art, devotees of fine art frequently return the favor by ostentatiously caring nothing for the lives of such people. Not that I have a personal stake in such matters, of course...
Now, when is "Hopper's Silence" going to be released on DVD?