Every time I hear it on my local public radio station, it annoys me. There’s an Edward Hopper exhibit at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston. That’s good—I like a lot of his stuff.
The radio ad says that he painted the, “beauty of everyday things.” Grrr. I can understand why the ad copy is written that way—they think it will pull in more visitors. But I believe it completely misstates Hopper’s work. I don’t think he did that or tried to do that. He wasn’t really interested in beauty; if he had been, he wouldn’t have painted the way he did.
Hopper was trying to paint the way everyday things feel, which is by far a more difficult and worthwhile thing to do. He didn’t always succeed, but when he did (as in the brilliant “New York Movie,” for example) his paintings were fine indeed.
I read a recent article in the NY Times where the critic regarded his work as Kitchy. Considering the Gallery and Museum Establishment regard Odd Nerdrum as Kitch I can’t see that as much of a criticism. As far as I can see Odd Nerdrum’s content (which is what seems to bother the established sensibility) is revolutionary, profound, complex. Hopper’s is gentler, more domestic, it seems to me everydayness is deeply profound. I can’t see “beauty of everyday things” as critical or a media gaff.
Cementgirl,
“Kitsch,” seems to be a word for what the art establishment finds old-fashioned. I’m pretty uninterested in what most art critics think.
Nerdrum labels his own work “kitsch,” in an effort to preempt vapid critics. I like some of his work very much. Some of it is kind of sloppy, with unpleasant necrotic fleshtones. And maybe I’m sensitive, but I personally can do without looking at paintings of people defecating.