Good Faith, Bad Faith (You Know We've Had Our Share)
Cold War Steve recently appropriated Hopper's People in the Sun (1963) with a streaking Trump, alluding to what I assume is "the emperor's new clothes."
Parody, of course, is fair use under the copyright law, but is it fair to artists to not fully understand the artists' intentions? But then are artists' intentions consistent or "pure" to begin with?
Hopper was 84 when he painted "People", and was essentially politically agnostic.
"Conservative in politics and social matters (Hopper asserted for example that "artists' lives should be written by people very close to them"), he accepted things as they were and displayed a lack of idealism. Cultured and sophisticated, he was well-read, and many of his paintings show figures reading." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Hopper#Personality_and_vision
A good example of the shifting politics of an artist is Norman Rockwell. He was always a conservative, but then flipped politically in the 1960s and embraced the civil rights movement, and did many illustrations about it. But it is wildly ironic that he voted for Nixon in 1968, and had already done a few illustrations for Look magazine. He had said Nixon had a "mean eye", and was happy he never had to do a Nixon again. But he did paint him again as "good-hearted" in the presidential portrait. It was the last painting he ever did before a period of ill health until his death in 1978.
We shouldn't attach false depictions to artists before looking at who they were as individuals and what they valued in their lives. Arguably, it is easier to parody Rockwell, but Hopper seems to be the blank wall for political satire.
Also see: The awakening of Norman Rockwell
Comments