To the Editor:
Re “An Edward Hopper, but Not That Original,” by Blake Gopnik (Critic’s Notebook, Sept. 29):
As an Edward Hopper researcher and fan, I am happy to learn more about his life and influences. However, it seems too presumptive by half to claim that a scholar’s finding that he copied works by other artists “cuts straight through the widely held perception of Hopper as an American original.”
As mentioned in the article, it’s pretty common knowledge that young artists copy other pieces to practice.
In all my research I never saw Hopper claim his childhood as a big influence on his later paintings’ subject or style. His statement “the only real influence I’ve ever had was myself” was in response to an interviewer trying to pigeonhole him into one of the “American” schools of painting and came after his childhood, French period, illustration career, early success, etc.
The recent discovery of the original from which young Edward Hopper practiced is interesting and good detective work, but it seems not to affect one iota Hopper’s originality or Americanness.
Kevin Grandfield
Glenview, Ill.
The writer is the author of “Hunting Nighthawks: On the Road With Edward Hopper.”
To the Editor:
While Blake Gopnik’s discussion of historical research regarding Edward Hopper’s early paintings was noteworthy, the discovery that the young artist copied the works of others before he went to art school does not in any way detract from his unique vision of everyday life captured in his later work.
In the realm of light and shadow, Hopper has few equals, and he lent majesty and dignity to ordinary objects (fire hydrants, windows, filling stations) and to people, whose courage in the midst of desolation he captured with sensitivity and pride.
John R. Leopold
Stoney Beach, Md.
Understanding Facebook
To the Editor:
Re “Facebook Is a Disaster for the World,” by Jamelle Bouie (column, Sept. 21):
That Facebook amplifies racism, promotes conspiracy theories and undermines democracy should be obvious to anyone who has been following the news lately.
What is not at all obvious is why so many people and organizations nevertheless continue to support this company by voluntarily donating their data to it.
Ben Givan
Saratoga Springs, N.Y.
To the Editor:
Jamelle Bouie writes that Facebook is a “disaster for the world” because it has been used to spread lies, paranoia and violence, all in the name of profit.
What about printing presses, websites and broadcasts? Since their inception, they, too, have occasionally been misused for the same purposes. Aren’t they to be equally condemned, feared and scorned?
If not, why not?
Philip E. Bowles
San Francisco