Nighthawks

Nighthawks-2

Nighthawks by Edward Hopper is one of the most recognisable twentieth century paintings. It’s an atmospheric picture of an all-night diner with three customers and a worker. What might we learn by absorbing a few facts and then looking hard at the work? What might be revealed by writing these thoughts down?

A little context: When Hopper painted this (1942) the war was still on and American art was yet to find its defining style. Abstract Expressionism was to grow out of a European tradition linked to Surrealism through dreamscapes and automatic writing (I’m being deliberately reductive), and Pop would follow that celebrating / reflecting the materialist excess available in post-war America. Rather than pre-figure either of these movements, Hopper simply documents the vernacular details of American life. Little in his oeuvre is spectacular and much is melancholy.

thirds
So how is this particular picture constructed? Formally, it’s easy to break the image down using the ‘rule of thirds’. The diner occupies the middle and right hand side of the picture, with all the occupants sitting more or less on the boundary between the bottom and middle thirds. The diner is set diagonally, which creates a large space to the left of the picture. This space is filled only with the light and shadows from the diner. The central section of the painting has only one occupant (ever so slightly off-centre), who has his back to us. The other three people are all in the right hand section. The couple – who don’t seem to have much to do with each other, though their hands might just be touching – are echoed by the two metal boilers to their left. The employee’s profile adds some detail and interest between these two pairs. None of the people’s eyes meet. A blank brown door acts as a ‘stop’ on the bright yellow wall, not allowing our eyes to drift away.

The yellow is worth noting as without it the picture would be entirely gloomy. The use of yellow on the internal walls and, crucially, on the ceiling brightens the whole picture, providing contrast and illumination, emphasising the bubble-like quality of the diner. Oddly, there are no visible lights. Hopper’s compositional coup-de-grace is the bright shard of yellow in the ceiling, reaching across two-thirds of the picture. If his viewpoint had been any higher it would be lost, any lower and it would dominate.

The shape of the picture is interesting. It’s not quite a double square (152cm x 84cm) and reminiscent of a cinema screen. The large plate window of the diner is in a similar proportion. There is no reflection on this large window. It’s almost like it isn’t there, which gives the whole scene a strange clarity. On the curved glass that forms the corner of the diner, there is some indication in a blue-grey of the glass. As an aside, I believe this is the only instance of such an effect anywhere in his work.

It’s worth noticing how much has been left out of the image. The only light is from the diner. No other building has a light on. The shop opposite appears to have nothing in its window and there’s no street furniture or advertising. The only text is on the diner itself. No posters, no litter, no cars, no street-markings. This emptiness (even the diner’s interior is blank), adds to the sense of isolation as there’s no reference to community or escape. These people are here, separate from one another, linked only by accident.

Turning to the way the paint is applied, we can see, even in reproduction, that Hopper isn’t using thick impasto or expressive, gestural, strokes. There’s something matter-of-fact about the way he paints, which ties in thematically with the subject.
So, having looked at what’s in, and not in, the painting, can we speculate on any ‘meaning’? Aside from the initial feeling of isolation (the diner within the city and the people within the diner), there isn’t much to divine or tell. All we have is a moment, captured by Hopper and refined and edited in the studio. We might speculate on a narrative involving the protagonists -and we wouldn’t be the first. (See songwriter Tom Waits’ pre-Swordfishtrombones career), but it would remain a speculation. Though this might look like a still from a movie, there’s no narrative here, just a glimpse into something that we can’t know.

9 Comments

  1. bryaneccleshall 7 January 2014 at 10:28 am

    Thanks for including a link to the Tom Waits album. His use of language puts mine to shame. ‘Looks like a yellow biscuit of a buttery cue ball moon, rolling maverick across an obsidian sky’.

    Reply
  2. Sharon 7 January 2014 at 2:26 pm

    One of my favourites! There is so much more to this (pregnant) moment to me than something we can’t know. I like the challenge of the viewer bringing something into the reading which is why I am such a fan of Hopper. He uses those mundane moments to speak of universal themes, not only loneliness and isolation but other human interactions or non-interactions. This is also achieved in one of my favourite photographs. Untitled by Hannah Starkey. http://www.saatchigallery.com/artists/artpages/hannah_starkey_may.htm The non-interaction between the two women is so absorbing for there being ‘nothing’ there!

    That’s also what I love about what is happening or not happening between the people at Nighthawks.

    Reply
  3. bryaneccleshall 7 January 2014 at 4:20 pm

    That’s an interesting photograph, but it’s a lot more self-consciously ‘artful’ than Nighthawks. Bringing in a mirror always makes the image much more complex (formally and intellectually), but it’s used well here. There’s a much more complex viewer/subject/object relation than in Nighthawks, which is basically a viewer and some unwitting subjects. Writing about the dynamics of the gazers (including the audience taking the viewpoint of the photographer), would reveal real complexity, without even going into any speculation about what they might be thinking. Worth a try…

    Reply
  4. oliviairvine 8 January 2014 at 9:42 pm

    I find it fascinating to study a painting in depth like this. We rarely take the time. The more you look the more you see. I like what you say about the proportions, showing how he used the rule of thirds, the fact that the window has very similar proportions to the picture plane and how the shape of the yellow sliver of ceiling plays such an important role. I find all the verticals fascinating as they contain both the emptiness and the action, having the effect of intensifying the inactivity. I remember once studying in depth ‘T he girl with the Pearl Earring’ by Vermeer. What fascinated me was the way her eyes were saying something different from her lips. If you cover the lips and look at her eyes they look innocent, afraid, startled. If you do the same with the eyes, her lips they look expectant, knowing, sensuous. Viewed together, they set up a complex shifting of emotions. The pearl, of course, could be seen as a displaced tear. I will try to post a picture to see if you agree.

    Reply
  5. oliviairvine 8 January 2014 at 10:01 pm

    Can’t work out how to copy with an iPad. Are we allowed to use Bridgeman images here anyway?

    Reply
  6. standickinson 9 January 2014 at 1:11 pm

    Bryan, I have a question about light in this image. You said that the only light is from the diner, but I feel that I can see evidence of another source, perhaps moonlight. There is another triangle of light besides the striking yellow that you highlight. It is on the wall inside the shop window across the street (and perhaps echoed, lightly, in one of the upstairs windows). The source seems to be high above the buildings – hence my assumption of moonlight. It sits right by one of your ‘thirds’ lines and it keeps catching my eye. I wonder whether its presence is important in re-affirming the sense of night, but also a touch of the ‘other-worldliness’ that moonlight can bring. What do you think?

    Reply
  7. bryaneccleshall 9 January 2014 at 1:26 pm

    Good point. When I said there were no visible lights, I meant that there were no visible light sources (i.e. electrical lights). However, I agree that there appears to moonlight shining down from high up.

    Reply
  8. Peter Haveland 9 January 2014 at 10:36 pm

    Just to show how complex this image is in terms of composition, try overlaying different grids, Golden section, and Golden Spiral are particularly informative. (Would post examples but cant seem to include images in the reply/comments)

    Reply

Leave a Reply