ComparingYousuf Karsh and Edward Hopper
Artis a beautiful thing. As such, the expression of thought, action andreal life events in painting and photography is an essential partthat arouses emotional power of the viewers. Since the early times,renowned artists have graced this area of skill with images that arenot only appealing but also portray the designers’ thoughts andfeelings. Different people show different qualifications and tacticsin their work. The variation is what makes them distinct. Two of themost famous artists known for their works are Yousuf Karsh and EdwardHopper. Although these artists used different methods of displayingtheir talent, their art was mainly focused on images which capturedthe essence of the subjects or the sceneries. By comparing these twoindividuals, one can be able to draw insight on the artistsunderlying reasons for depicting images the way they did, informationor message being passed across as well as the implications in thesociety.
Karshwas an expert of Studio lighting. He had a gift of capturing thequintessence of the individuals he photographed which is why he wasable to work on the portraits of famous and wealthy people of histime. He believed that at a certain point in time, a secret within anindividual might be revealed and a photographer has to capture thatexact moment. The pictures were able to portray the precise nature ofthe individual the way Karsh felt were most related to the character.One instance is the picture of Winston Churchill in which he came outas defiant and unconquerable especially since it was taken duringWorld War II. One of the art he did on Churchill was chosen to beused on the £5 note in England (Berman 93).
Hopperwas a prominent American Painter and printmaker as opposed to Yousuf.He did not use a camera in his work. On the contrary, he developedboth rural and urban depictions which mirrored his visualization ofhow the contemporary American life is like. His paintings have beendescribed as short with remote instances of configuration, giving theviewer a suggestion of melancholy. His art was distanced frompolitics and social matters although he was interested in depictingand acknowledging the subconscious as an important facet of hisworks. He took his time to create his paintings, balancing light andpeople to create the proper mood. His subject matter was derived fromthe urban life and its inhabitants, as well as the sea views andrural landscapes (Clause 52).
Differencesbetween Yousuf Karsh and Edward Hopper
First,Yousuf based his portraits primarily on people with the aim ofhighlighting their inner being and character. Edward, on the otherhand, was more inclined towards sceneries such as buildings,landscapes, and seascapes. The people he included were usually partof the larger view. Secondly, as described earlier, Yousuf had thetask of capturing a single particular moment in the life of a personand make it appealing in the way he felt was best at the time.Edward’s painting took much longer to create, balance the colors aswell as create the specific mood that he required for that particularpiece. Third, Yousuf’s method involved the use of a camera tocapture his subjects. Hence his art was entirely that of real lifeindividuals. Edward Hopper`s methodology was completely different.Most of his drawings of people, sceneries and buildings werecompletely from his imagination. In this way, although the two sharedthe aspect of being able to produce images that correspond to aparticular situation, the means of displaying their works wasdifferent. Lastly, while Hopper did not engage a lot in thedevelopment of political and social images, Yousuf spent most of histime in capturing the prominent individuals such as Churchill. Hispictures were relevant to the particular mood of the currenthappenings while for Hopper, most of his paintings indicated amelancholic, solitary and somber disposition (Moss).
Anartist’s work can instill varied reactions from individuals.Apparently, the artist himself must be able to create an image thatarouses a certain feeling, emotion or attitude that he wants to beseen. Both Hopper and Karsh show this aspect. Their final picturesare molded and shaped to portray exactly what they want the viewersto allude. Likewise, despite the difference in the method of artwork,both individuals pass across a particular message. For instance,Yousuf’s famous portrait of Churchill shows the viewer that the manat the time of World War II was robust and unmovable (Smithsonian58). Similarly, Hopper’s paintings pass certain meaning to theviewers concerning the modern day life which involves seclusion to acertain extent. His seascapes also seem to parallel his silent,lonely character by depicting the quietness and softness of nature(Kwak 89). By combining the subject matter with a particular touchingarrangements of a person’s features or the geographicalpresentation, the resulting art is one that has intangibleresponsiveness, yet complimented with poetic and inspired meanings tothe observers.
Berman, Eliza. "Yousuf Karsh`s Masterful Portraits from Churchil to Hepburn." 18 March 2015. Time. Document. 1 September 2016.
Clause, Bonnie Tocher. Edward Hopper in Vermont. Hanover: University Press of New England, 2012. Print.
Kwak, Chaney. "Road-Tripping Through Edward Hopper`s Maine." The Wall Street Journal (2015).
Moss, Jeremiah. "Finding Nighthawks." May 18 2014. jeremiah`s Vanishing New York. Document. 1 September 2016.
Smithsonian. "From Colonel Sanders to Grace Kelly: Iconic American Portraits by Yousuf Karsh." Smithsonian (2013). Document.