The work of Hopper and Crewdson

[Nathan Milford]

Simmer down folks.

 

I happen to adore Crewdson. Earlier someone knocked on Vettriano who I find absolutly fantastic in his ability to tell a short story in a single frame and draw focus from one object to another to guide the observer (which is why I tied him to Crewdson). I got over it. I like them both. You don't have to, but it would be nice if people would channel thier dislike for a particular artist in a form other than vituperative nonsense.

 

David isn't a moderator for this forum, but, unfortunately I am. If we keep going back and forth flinging negative crap and sarcasm I'll close the thread as it will have become a waste of bandwidth and space on Tim's server.

 

Lets stop flashing our credentials as artists and stop playing the 'I'm more of a sensitive intellectual than you are' game and get on with meaningful conversation.

 

Oh, and Happy New Year fellas.

[Stuart Brereton]

I think it's interesting that Sam Wells brought up the Photo-realist painters in this context. If you look at the work of Ralph Goings, you can see an evolution of stylistic concerns from Hopper, via Goings, to Crewdson, even if thematically they are different.

[Stuart Brereton]

Simmer down folks.

 

I happen to adore Crewdson. Earlier someone knocked on Vettriano who I find absolutly fantastic in his ability to tell a short story in a single frame and draw focus from one object to another to guide the observer (which is why I tied him to Crewdson). I got over it. I like them both. You don't have to, but it would be nice if people would channel thier dislike for a particular artist in a form other than vituperative nonsense.

 

David isn't a moderator for this forum, but, unfortunately I am. If we keep going back and forth flinging negative crap and sarcasm I'll close the thread as it will have become a waste of bandwidth and space on Tim's server.

 

Lets stop flashing our credentials as artists and stop playing the 'I'm more of a sensitive intellectual than you are' game and get on with meaningful conversation.

 

Oh, and Happy New Year fellas.

 

Nathan,

 

That was me that 'knocked' Vettriano. You noticed, I hope, that I prefaced my comments with 'only an opinion' and that I did my best to remain within the bounds of constructive criticism....

 

As far as 'sensitive intellectual' goes, I don't think anyone I know would ever accuse me of that ;)

[Jason Maeda]

again, i apologize to everyone for coming down so hard on gregory crewdson. i was never a big fan of his work yet, as i said, i think it certainly is pretty to look at and sure is neat with all those big lights etc. also, i remember seeing a photo he took of fireflies in a field that i thought was pretty as well, although i can't recall where i saw it exactly and a google search just resulted in his recent, more extravagant work.

 

also, it's interesting that he and hopper both use lone figures in the rooms of new england style homes and in suburban urban landscapes as an iconic symbol of the american experience. i recommend the work of eric fischl to anyone who wants to see another contemporary painter (i think he's still working) whose images are influenced by photography and film, without simply mimicing stills, and whose themes share subsets with both hopper (lonely characters, room settings) and with crewdson (uncomfortable family nudity, desperation intersecting sexual shame). also, fischl's stylistic methods echo hopper's at times.

 

jk :ph34r:

[Hal Smith]

Frankly isn't it rather amazing that Crewdson figured out how to capture Hopper's look on film? And isn't that the working process when the Director and the Cinematographer review paintings, photos, other films, etc. for visual reference? Does it make a Cinematographer's work "mediocre" because a visual reference was adopted for a film?

How about Warhol's soup cans? Picasso's Harliquins? Monet's "Water Lilies"? All used visual "reference" to create a work of art.

[Miguel Bunster]

A mate of mine has worked on Crewdson sets when they are making the pictures and described that Crewdson is more of a director (he knows what he wants and all) but there is kind of a cinematographer (photographer) doing all the light and stuff so is an interesting working process...I don't recall well exactly how they worked but it felt like a Director dp relationship where the director was really involved in the visuals but not necessarily in the technical side of it..

any way..just remembered that....

Miguel

[Guest Tim Partridge]

I don't know Crewdon but Hopper is to me one of many personal heroes. David Lynch is the obvious example of someone who has built onto Hopper's work, and I don't think anyone else has really tapped into that abstraction (even fetishism) of often decaying Americana. I tend to agree with Stuart that it's more than not just the superficialities that are acknowledged.

[Stuart Brereton]

This is more like it... Everyone friends again, and a valuable discussion going on!

 

Happy New Year, Everyone.

[David Mullen ASC]

Gordon Willis has always reminded me of Hopper, not just because he copied some of the paintings in "Pennies from Heaven." Sort of that tendency to view humans at a slight distance, like an anthropologist. He brought those qualities to the films he shot for Woody Allen, Coppola, Pakula, etc.

 

But in terms of directors... I'd agree with David Lynch. Oddly enough, Ozu has some of those Hopper qualities. Terrance Malick. Rohmer. Kubrick occasionally. Fincher now & then.

[Jason Maeda]

"Frankly isn't it rather amazing that Crewdson figured out how to capture Hopper's look on film?"

 

hal, i just don't think i would necessarily say he did that. he borrowed from it and was influenced by it, yes. as i said before it's perhaps also a case where their work touches down on shared themes. but we should take care in tying these two artists together if for no other reason than because hopper is literally so famous and so overwhelmingly influential that bits and pieces of his work have been revisited by hundreds of others throughout the century and into today. god i hope this doesn't start a huge debate, and if it does i apologize in advance, but many, MANY graduate theses have been written on very specific elements of hopper's work; hopper's use of color, hopper's influence from and on the theater, hopper and isolation etc... i'm just not exactly sure that this depth exists to be mined in the same way with crewdson's pictures, so again i hesitate to draw too many parallels between the two.

 

 

"Does it make a Cinematographer's work "mediocre" because a visual reference was adopted for a film?"

 

no. an artist needs no help at all to be mediocre.

 

 

 

jk :ph34r:

 

 

 

 

 

"This is more like it... Everyone friends again, and a valuable discussion going on!"

 

agreed. apologies to everyone again. i value the opinion of each and every one of you.

 

jk :)

[Stuart Brereton]

hopper is literally so famous and so overwhelmingly influential that bits and pieces of his work have been revisited by hundreds of others throughout the century

 

Exactly. Every time someone paints a picture or takes a photograph of someone alone, either in a room or elsewhere, someone else will make a Hopper comparison. Sometimes it's justified, when the artist has similar themes, but often, it's just a shorthand, either for the artist or for critic, a way of easily categorising work.

 

Hopper's themes of loneliness and isolation have been written about endlessly. Crewdson says he's not entirely sure what his 'message' is. Either way, Art is as much about what the viewer brings to the piece as the audience...

 

That sounds like an essay question... :)

[Sam Wells]

Gordon Willis has always reminded me of Hopper, not just because he copied some of the paintings in "Pennies from Heaven." Sort of that tendency to view humans at a slight distance, like an anthropologist. He brought those qualities to the films he shot for Woody Allen, Coppola, Pakula, etc.

 

But in terms of directors... I'd agree with David Lynch. Oddly enough, Ozu has some of those Hopper qualities. Terrance Malick. Rohmer. Kubrick occasionally. Fincher now & then.

 

From Gordon Willis, I recall "Interiors" being rather Hopper - like..

 

I'll have to think some about Hopper and Ozu, Ozu being my major rediscovery of 2006... interesting..

 

-Sam Wells

[Jason Maeda]

http://www.amazon.com/Ozu-Poetics-Cinema-D...TF8&s=books

 

sam,

 

check out this book on ozu yasujiro by bordwell. as with all of his books it's great.

 

jk :ph34r:

[Nathan Milford]

From Gordon Willis, I recall "Interiors" being rather Hopper - like..

 

I'll have to think some about Hopper and Ozu, Ozu being my major rediscovery of 2006... interesting..

 

-Sam Wells

 

I recently taught a class in Japanese Cinema... rediscovered Ozu again in the process... Lately I've been finding that the camera has been a lot lower to the ground when I'm shooting.

[Sam Wells]

I recently taught a class in Japanese Cinema... rediscovered Ozu again in the process... Lately I've been finding that the camera has been a lot lower to the ground.

 

Nathan - on the criterion Late Spring DVD there's also Wim Wenders Tokyo-ga which has a long section with DP Yuuharu Atsuta explaing the angles he did with Ozu (a little lower for long shots or shots with objects instead of figures) and he shows the tripod / spreaders that he used.

 

Thanks Jason, I intend to read the Bordwell book sometime.

 

-Sam Wells

[Ryan K]

his [Crewdson's] problem is that, unlike tarkovsky, his theme is really no more than a feeling, a tone. i've encountered smells with deeper meanings than his photos.

 

I know what you mean, though I probably wouldn't be so absolute about it. There is an element in Crewdson's photographs that, instead of communicating depth or 'readability' (for want of a better term), they're just very very 'cool'. A friend of mine once said that he quite liked Crewson's photos but he almost expected them to end up as part of a print campaign for Levis, or something. It's probably not Crewdson's fault, particularly - almost any piece of art can be co-opted for that purpose but there is something in his work that niggles.

 

On the other hand, one of the reasons that i'm attracted to cinematography is that, on a certain level, it's an abstract language in much the same way that music is and the communication of a 'feeling' or a 'tone' is quite often a goal in itself. A lot of the time the things that resonate with me most aren't things that can be endlessly deconstructed or 'read', but are those little feelings or tones that you can't quite put your finger on, that exist on a purely abstract, instinctive level which enter your mind through the back door.

[Jason Maeda]

"the things that resonate with me most aren't things that can be endlessly deconstructed or 'read', but are those little feelings or tones that you can't quite put your finger on, that exist on a purely abstract, instinctive level"

 

A valuable point. I believe we brought up Japanese film at some point in this discussion and the works of both Ozu and Mizoguchi (very different in most ways) give us excellent examples of analogous moments that defy the expectation for typical, directly-correlative symbolism. I'm a huge fan of Antonioni but his weakest moments are when every element becomes part of a tightly wound, yet ultimately simplistic, system of symbols and meanings. If you deconstruct his films far enough you sometimes end up with something like:

 

"the next shot represents Aldo's inability to communicate.

 

this next shot represtents the fruits of intimacy, lost to him because of his inability to communicate.

 

the camera move shows a transition in Aldo's sense of self..." etc. etc. Really it comes dangerously and unexpectedly close to operating in the same, trudging manner of a Hollywood film...with the shot list a model of artless efficiency and single-mindedness.

 

"the next shot shows that the lawyer doesn't care about her client.

 

the next shot shows the client realizing this and being sad.

 

the next shot shows the client's kid, who is cute and reminds us that the client's predicement is important" etc. etc.

 

Other similar directors like Angelopoulos and Tarkovsky evade this specific shortcoming by allowing their work to breath a little; they allow for symbolism that exists parallel to its meaning, not necessarily as its mirror.

 

Wow I just rambled for like 5 minutes. Sorry and, by the way, I really love Antonioni!

 

jk :ph34r:

[Filip Plesha]

I have a couple of books from Crewdson. Big fan.

 

He is, while the only, probably my biggest inspiration in photography.

 

There is no point in discussing is he good or is he not good. A carpenter is good or not good depending on the quality of chairs he makes (do they fall apart etc.). This is art. It's either an inspiration to someone or not.

 

Crewdson is the kind of artist, you either stop and stare at his photos, or should I call them paintings, they certainly look like paintings, and get carried away, or they are just plain stupid.

If it works for you, it works for you, if it doesn't move on to the next photographer.

 

The reason I like it, is, besides the visual impact of the lighting and colors, is

the stillness you can find in them.

I wouldn't even call them photographs in the typical, moment in time sense of the word.

In them time stops, and is somehow a piece of eternity, and not a moment in time.

 

Photographs usually radiate from this life, motion, etc. while paintings usually radiate with some kind of sense of calmness, serenity, almost death, but in a really serene way.

Crewdson is the only photographer I've seen that uses film as a medium (not canvas), yet his photographs radiate that stillness of paintings.

 

The lighting is also a work of a genius. It's like movie lighting, but even more distant from reality.

Very surreal. Like something out of a dream.

 

When I dream at night, I see through Crewdsons camera.

 

 

There is an idea going around that there is a lot of digital trickery involved. Sure he is known to combine different "takes" and exposures. But if you take a look at some of his behind the scenes images in some of the books, you can see how much of it is "real", on set, and I'd say pretty much all.

 

If you walked on his set, you'd get that same surreal feel you get from his prints. Because it's all in the light.

It's one of those things that look good on any medium, film, even a video camera.

 

There is a nice shot in one of the books, showing a view through the viewfinder of his camera, photographed by another camera behind the LF camera he uses.

You can see that the optical image on the viewfinder is pretty much what ended up in the print. The light is amazing.

 

Glad to see someone else can appreciate it.

 

 

the problem is that, unlike tarkovsky, his theme is really no more than a feeling, a tone. i've encountered smells with deeper meanings than his photos

 

That's not a "problem". That's the center idea around his images.

 

He is not communicating specific "human" ideas, but communicates dreams.

 

I don't know if you have ever had that feeling, when you wake up, and still "feel" the dream you had last night, but it's nothing specific, it's just a place you have been in your dreams, and there is nothing really to say about it, it's just a feeling of something other than this reality, a tone as you say that wants to be expressed but there is no word for it.

 

Well that's Crewdson. To be able to capture that subconscious feeling on film, takes a genius.

 

But it also takes a certain kind of viewer to see it in those images, because different people communicate on different levels. Not that everyone has to like it. On the contrary, some people feel the same thing radiating from those images, and hate them because it can be disturbing.

 

It's one of those things you can't talk about with words. It would take some kind of vulcan mind melt to express. It's a vision, plain and simple.

[Jason Maeda]

ok there's no such thing as good or bad. it's all opinion.

 

my opinion is that i like art with depth and meaning.

 

jk :ph34r: