American bristles

In this essay I want consider some painting that I give back to their authors, the first is one painting that is evident, to stylistic character that is to hand of Schuyler Limner, whereof we know very little, except that he has had active during 1715 to 1725; a portrait of Hannah Styllman(Fig.1), that has characterized from same finger very long and same folds, very rigid, same peculiarity that he has used to other portraits as Tryntje Otten Veeder(Fig.2) and Gerrit Veeder(Fig.3), and this attribution is supported by a light on sleeve, that is very iridescent and useless, but now on contrary is very useful because we can identify author to these peculiarity, the whole style is same and we can’t mistake because precariousness of sign is evidently, the face of two women (Figs.1,3)is very similarities: same sign very summary and a portrait that are very mechanical and traced to line, instead the portrait must be traced to color. But we must consider also the very bad painter as Pieter Vanderlyn (1687-1778), a painter that may has painted something that is appreciable, but that now is unknown, because his portraits are very disgust; he has proof that the Netherland painting can be forgotten, and van Dyck and van Eyck aren’t; because this painting are a nothing, but we must take that some portrait we can give back because we can identify the precarious form and the style, if we can so define it; a portrait of Boy with fawn(Fig.4) made same errors and same childish form that he has used to others, as the young Lady with rose(Fig.5) and the Young boy(Fig.6), and the face is very similar to other portrait(Fig.7), the style is identic and ugliness is perfect. Edward Hopper(1882-1967) an American painter, he is other function of reality, because he has shown the reality but on portrait, certainly, but on daily life(Figs.8-17) some moment that he has took and he has translated on paper or canvas; moments of daily life that are in our time; and a stylistic question; I think important, this is the light of Hopper, because we must remember that he sojourned in French in 1906, and he was impressed from impressionist painters, and he certainly  took the light effects(Figs.13-18), he has expressed this participartion to light in a letter: "I've always been interested in light—more than most contemporary painters"; though he didn't express this concept but some thing  of impressionist bristel is present; the painting of People in the sun(Fig.18a) and the sunday morning(Fig.18b) keep some brushstroke very strong and inaccurate, typical of impressionist brushstroke that, he kept in mind, difference between these painting and High noon(Fig.18c) is evident, threupon he took alone effects and vigor of Monet(Figs.19-20) and other, because the brushstroke is very right, because the reality want representation adherent to models, he, as any painters, took that he considered important. Same Hopper written on letter that: "Why I select certain subjects rather than others, I do not exactly know, unless it is that I believe them to be the best mediums for a synthesis of my inner experience."

Alessandro Lusana

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Fig.5

Fig.6

Fig.7

Fig.8

Fig.9

Fig.10

Fig.11

Fig.12

Fig.13

Fig.14

Fig.16

Fig.17

Fig.18

Fig.18a

18b

18c

Fig.19

Fig.20