Sir Gordon Howard Eliot Hodgkin was born 6 August 1932, he is a British painter and printmaker.
His early paintings tend to be made up of curved forms and a limited number of colours. Around the beginning of the 1970s, Hodgkin's style became more spontaneous, with recognisable shapes presented in bright colours. His works are often compared to the paintings of Henri Matisse.
His early paintings tend to be made up of curved forms and a limited number of colours. Around the beginning of the 1970s, Hodgkin's style became more spontaneous, with recognisable shapes presented in bright colours. His works are often compared to the paintings of Henri Matisse.
Howard Hodgkin In an Empty Room
The black and white lines do present a sense of being in a room, as he didn’t paint it fully flat, yet made it into a 3D structure. Where the arrow points for example, it points at a corner of the room because the lines show a distorted ‘L’ shape which would eventually make a 2D painting. However he did add a third line on the bottom going towards the right bottom corner, giving the image more meaning and also more interesting as the viewer may feel as if they were inside the empty room. Green lines surrounding the image as if they were a frame,is a very common factor in Hodgkin's paintings. He either paints over the actual frames which is also very common, or paints his own within a painting. This could be purposed for making the image visually smaller, or perhaps could create a form of an optical illusion, where the viewer stands far from his painting, doesn't see a green frame, yet sees a green color blending in from all sides with the painting. On the other hand Hodgkin in this case has used a red splash on the lefttop corner, implying how he has clearly thought of the use of the colors red and green as those two particular colors that are very often put together that could emphasise many different things. For instance in this painting Hodgkin could imply the opposites. Green usually gives a positive concept such as accept, agree, complete, yes, on, up etc, whereas red that usually gives a negative concept such as reject, disagree, incomplete, no, off, down etc. On the other hand in the European culture, colors such as green and red put together, imply Christmas. Therefore the story of this painting could be him, being in an empty room during a christmas evening.
Deep Water.
This painting on the other hand, does not give a sense of space withing the actual painting as it does not containg any foreground nor background. It's a fully 2D image. However, Hodgkin does create a sense of deep space within the work by the use of the frame and painting over it. As the frame stands out more than the actual painting, painting over the frame as a continous spreading image, gives a sense of space in it, creating a unique 3D painting. What makes this painting more natural or realistic is the use of blue paint to present water. Hodgkin has mainly used a baby blue and a dark blue to present water, I am also guessing that the danrk blue presents the deep part of water, the lighter the color gets the more shallow the water is. The way he presented this painting, considering paint over the frame as well, this gives a very chaotic impression to the viewer, perhaps he tried to present anger that he felt, through the use of stormy water, as it presents chaos, noise and mess.
I think his art works are about something so personal to him that a viewer will not understand, perhaps this is the purpose of his paintings, to present something that may seem to be so complicated to the viewer, yet so simple to him as he is the only one who knows what the work is about. If I had the chance to ask the artist a question, I would ask him why is he creating work that viewers do not understand? It's good to know the meaning to yourself, that shows how important the work is to you, but what is the point of publishing to the world, when no one knows what the work is about. Without meaning it is just canvas with painted lines over it. Meaning is important. I think this work is relevant to my project because it is about something meaningful to Hodgkin, which could be either a feeling or a memory or something that was going on at that particular time of when he created the work. He presents something increadibly meaningful to him, which is also a huge part of memories, most are meaningful, therefore, quite well linking to my theme of 'Memories'. However what does not relate to my project is the style he uses to emphasise his meanings, well at least I do not aprove it myself, in my view creating something meaningful to me even through the use of a metaphor, still should imply a meaning to the viewer, I want them to understand what my work is about just by looking at it and reading the title. Without them understanding the work looses its purpose, as then there would be no point of publishing it to the world.
The elements that I think are successful are his use of colour, which might just as well emphasise his feelings that he felt during the painting or perhaps what he once felt, and now he may try to present that memory of those feelings within his paintings. The elements I don't think are successful however, are his style of painting, which I do not understand. What I see are coloured lines on canvas but no image within. I do love the way he uses colour and comopses it, hovewer painting lines across canvas is certainly something that does not go with my taste. My mother has said about this work that it 'does not make sense, seems as if a child drew this, yet this is not the problem, I just don't understand what is going on in this painting', which I agree with as his works are difficult to read. The factors worth remembering are his use of colour, it is clear that he knows the colour schemes and is aware of how to mix different colours together so that they look good or perhaps create an optical illusion, such as the use of red and green, mixed have been known for perfect use for the optical illusion.
I would like to compare this work to Charles M. Russell, not because of the paintings that they create because they are 100% different from one another, however I would like to compare their use of colour, which I will analyse after the analysis of Charles M. Russell.
‘Charles
M. Russell was born to moderate wealth. A native of St. Louis,
Missouri, Russell first came to Montana as a boy of 16 with a dream of
becoming a real cowboy. He was so captivated with the West he chose to
stay and fulfill his childhood fantasy. During those first years in
Montana, Russell received great encouragement from Jake Hoover, a
mountain man who befriended him and took him under his wing. Hoover
often shared his cabin with the young Charlie, sometimes providing food
and shelter for months at a time. This friendship allowed Russell to
experience the ways of the frontier life he would later portray so
vividly in his paintings. Charles Russell felt deeply the passing of the
West, the most evident theme of his art. This sense of loss touched him
with an emotional immediacy. He was haunted by youthful fantasies,
memories of what once was and by the evidence of change that surrounded
him as an everyday reality. His work reflected the public demand for
authenticity, but also the soul of a romantic.’
This is the first image of his that I saw, which has also caught my attention because of the way he uses colour (therefore being a perfect artist for my task). His paintings present reality, that he saw as a child, such as the image above presenting Indians, marching on their horses, however what differs him from normality of the paintings that present reality is in fact Russell's use of colour. The colours present true colours of nature that he actually saw, however what is really interesting about them is that they are incredibly sharp and therefore noticeable. His use of tone depends on the use of different colour, not the same colour with a different tone, yet with an actual colour change. For instance, at the very bottom of the above painting, shows the land that they were on, and what's very noticeable about the land is that it is brownish/yellowish, however some parts of the land are either white or black, these colours have been purposely used to show the tonal difference in the painting. All the lines that he uses are not so clear when it comes to the bright colours in the painting, such as the one below showing the sky/mountains in the background, because they are so thin. On the other hand, when it comes to the dark tones, speaking of the horses below and the men, in comparison to the bright mountains in their orange/yellow colours are much more stronger and powerful. Thanks to which are very noticeable.
Although, the painting below is completely different to the ones above. In fact it seems to be presenting a different reality comparing to the ones we have seen before. This is because the colours have changed according to the action in that painting. Earlier painting's I've shown were very aggressive according to their action and colouring, because they have shown men fighting, therefore Russell chose very dark, yet appropriate range of colour and tone, making the painting's very sharp and strong looking in the end. However, the one below is completely different. It is calm, peaceful, beautiful, showing a lot of nature and it contains very bright colours. Seems like action affected the colour Russell has used. In this case he has used very bright colours such as blue, green and yellow, creating a massive contrast in between the images we have already gone through and the one below. Similarly, what holds those painting's together in one style is the strength and sharpness of the use of colour I have mentioned before. The way Russell has composed them together, yet used a different colour to show a different tone. That sharpness and power keeps those painting's together.
I love the way Russell uses colour in his works, they are a bit enhanced, which would of course make sense as they are memories. Comparing his use of colour to Hodgkin's, I would say that Russell's is more realistic, which is an aspect that interests me quite a lot, whereas Hodgkin's are not realistic at all. However, maybe if I knew what was behind Hodgkin's painting's, it would be easier for me to analyse weather the colours he used go with his meaning, if they make the painting more realistic or fictional and if he uses colour to emphasise a feeling or a memory.
The black and white lines do present a sense of being in a room, as he didn’t paint it fully flat, yet made it into a 3D structure. Where the arrow points for example, it points at a corner of the room because the lines show a distorted ‘L’ shape which would eventually make a 2D painting. However he did add a third line on the bottom going towards the right bottom corner, giving the image more meaning and also more interesting as the viewer may feel as if they were inside the empty room. Green lines surrounding the image as if they were a frame,is a very common factor in Hodgkin's paintings. He either paints over the actual frames which is also very common, or paints his own within a painting. This could be purposed for making the image visually smaller, or perhaps could create a form of an optical illusion, where the viewer stands far from his painting, doesn't see a green frame, yet sees a green color blending in from all sides with the painting. On the other hand Hodgkin in this case has used a red splash on the lefttop corner, implying how he has clearly thought of the use of the colors red and green as those two particular colors that are very often put together that could emphasise many different things. For instance in this painting Hodgkin could imply the opposites. Green usually gives a positive concept such as accept, agree, complete, yes, on, up etc, whereas red that usually gives a negative concept such as reject, disagree, incomplete, no, off, down etc. On the other hand in the European culture, colors such as green and red put together, imply Christmas. Therefore the story of this painting could be him, being in an empty room during a christmas evening.
Deep Water.
This painting on the other hand, does not give a sense of space withing the actual painting as it does not containg any foreground nor background. It's a fully 2D image. However, Hodgkin does create a sense of deep space within the work by the use of the frame and painting over it. As the frame stands out more than the actual painting, painting over the frame as a continous spreading image, gives a sense of space in it, creating a unique 3D painting. What makes this painting more natural or realistic is the use of blue paint to present water. Hodgkin has mainly used a baby blue and a dark blue to present water, I am also guessing that the danrk blue presents the deep part of water, the lighter the color gets the more shallow the water is. The way he presented this painting, considering paint over the frame as well, this gives a very chaotic impression to the viewer, perhaps he tried to present anger that he felt, through the use of stormy water, as it presents chaos, noise and mess.
I think his art works are about something so personal to him that a viewer will not understand, perhaps this is the purpose of his paintings, to present something that may seem to be so complicated to the viewer, yet so simple to him as he is the only one who knows what the work is about. If I had the chance to ask the artist a question, I would ask him why is he creating work that viewers do not understand? It's good to know the meaning to yourself, that shows how important the work is to you, but what is the point of publishing to the world, when no one knows what the work is about. Without meaning it is just canvas with painted lines over it. Meaning is important. I think this work is relevant to my project because it is about something meaningful to Hodgkin, which could be either a feeling or a memory or something that was going on at that particular time of when he created the work. He presents something increadibly meaningful to him, which is also a huge part of memories, most are meaningful, therefore, quite well linking to my theme of 'Memories'. However what does not relate to my project is the style he uses to emphasise his meanings, well at least I do not aprove it myself, in my view creating something meaningful to me even through the use of a metaphor, still should imply a meaning to the viewer, I want them to understand what my work is about just by looking at it and reading the title. Without them understanding the work looses its purpose, as then there would be no point of publishing it to the world.
The elements that I think are successful are his use of colour, which might just as well emphasise his feelings that he felt during the painting or perhaps what he once felt, and now he may try to present that memory of those feelings within his paintings. The elements I don't think are successful however, are his style of painting, which I do not understand. What I see are coloured lines on canvas but no image within. I do love the way he uses colour and comopses it, hovewer painting lines across canvas is certainly something that does not go with my taste. My mother has said about this work that it 'does not make sense, seems as if a child drew this, yet this is not the problem, I just don't understand what is going on in this painting', which I agree with as his works are difficult to read. The factors worth remembering are his use of colour, it is clear that he knows the colour schemes and is aware of how to mix different colours together so that they look good or perhaps create an optical illusion, such as the use of red and green, mixed have been known for perfect use for the optical illusion.
I would like to compare this work to Charles M. Russell, not because of the paintings that they create because they are 100% different from one another, however I would like to compare their use of colour, which I will analyse after the analysis of Charles M. Russell.
‘Charles
M. Russell was born to moderate wealth. A native of St. Louis,
Missouri, Russell first came to Montana as a boy of 16 with a dream of
becoming a real cowboy. He was so captivated with the West he chose to
stay and fulfill his childhood fantasy. During those first years in
Montana, Russell received great encouragement from Jake Hoover, a
mountain man who befriended him and took him under his wing. Hoover
often shared his cabin with the young Charlie, sometimes providing food
and shelter for months at a time. This friendship allowed Russell to
experience the ways of the frontier life he would later portray so
vividly in his paintings. Charles Russell felt deeply the passing of the
West, the most evident theme of his art. This sense of loss touched him
with an emotional immediacy. He was haunted by youthful fantasies,
memories of what once was and by the evidence of change that surrounded
him as an everyday reality. His work reflected the public demand for
authenticity, but also the soul of a romantic.’This is the first image of his that I saw, which has also caught my attention because of the way he uses colour (therefore being a perfect artist for my task). His paintings present reality, that he saw as a child, such as the image above presenting Indians, marching on their horses, however what differs him from normality of the paintings that present reality is in fact Russell's use of colour. The colours present true colours of nature that he actually saw, however what is really interesting about them is that they are incredibly sharp and therefore noticeable. His use of tone depends on the use of different colour, not the same colour with a different tone, yet with an actual colour change. For instance, at the very bottom of the above painting, shows the land that they were on, and what's very noticeable about the land is that it is brownish/yellowish, however some parts of the land are either white or black, these colours have been purposely used to show the tonal difference in the painting. All the lines that he uses are not so clear when it comes to the bright colours in the painting, such as the one below showing the sky/mountains in the background, because they are so thin. On the other hand, when it comes to the dark tones, speaking of the horses below and the men, in comparison to the bright mountains in their orange/yellow colours are much more stronger and powerful. Thanks to which are very noticeable.
Although, the painting below is completely different to the ones above. In fact it seems to be presenting a different reality comparing to the ones we have seen before. This is because the colours have changed according to the action in that painting. Earlier painting's I've shown were very aggressive according to their action and colouring, because they have shown men fighting, therefore Russell chose very dark, yet appropriate range of colour and tone, making the painting's very sharp and strong looking in the end. However, the one below is completely different. It is calm, peaceful, beautiful, showing a lot of nature and it contains very bright colours. Seems like action affected the colour Russell has used. In this case he has used very bright colours such as blue, green and yellow, creating a massive contrast in between the images we have already gone through and the one below. Similarly, what holds those painting's together in one style is the strength and sharpness of the use of colour I have mentioned before. The way Russell has composed them together, yet used a different colour to show a different tone. That sharpness and power keeps those painting's together.
I love the way Russell uses colour in his works, they are a bit enhanced, which would of course make sense as they are memories. Comparing his use of colour to Hodgkin's, I would say that Russell's is more realistic, which is an aspect that interests me quite a lot, whereas Hodgkin's are not realistic at all. However, maybe if I knew what was behind Hodgkin's painting's, it would be easier for me to analyse weather the colours he used go with his meaning, if they make the painting more realistic or fictional and if he uses colour to emphasise a feeling or a memory.
