Edward Hopper has always been one of my favourite artists. I’m no connossieur of art but I usually am very partial to abstract art because I am impressed by pat

Edward Hopper has always been one of my favourite artists. I’m no connossieur of art but I usually am very partial to abstract art because I am impressed by patterns and how it managed to induce an emotion in me without actually showing an obvious posed story (I’m speaking of the very abstract Mondarian, Kandinsky, slash-on-canvas Fontana, or Rothko, not the vaguely-screwed-up Picasso-style stuff). Anyway, I’ve always been confused by the fact that I adore Edward Hopper above all of those, because the light is so striking and so ‘contrasty’ and stark and ‘photographically’ posted, and so inherently optimistic. So absolutely non-banal, so remarkable, so memorable, so... rendered? And now up crops this stuff which strikes me as being absolutely run-of-the-mill almost-risible pulp. It surprises me. It doesn’t at all detract from my amazement of those works of his I find so absolutely affecting and moving. It makes me feel... very protective of him, because he was pushed into doing these things in order to survive and provide for himself. Sorry for the very confused comment. Thanks for posting.