Talk:Nighthawks (Hopper)

Trapped patrons

This bit of the intro paragraph strikes me as odd:

If one looks closely, it becomes apparent that there is no way out of the bar area, as the three walls of the counter form a triangle which traps the attendant. It is also notable that the diner has no visible door leading to the outside, which illustrates the idea of confinement and entrapment. Hopper denied that he had intended to communicate this in Nighthawks, ...

Is this based on any citation? Could it be that we just can't see the door because it's not in the frame? — Loadmaster 01:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It says "...no visable...". Besides, pretty much any anylization is speculation, esp. when Hopper is involved. He didn't help us out too much! User:Oystermind

I'd need to find the actual reference but it exists. IIRC, someone (I don't remember who, but he was referenced by name in the source) asked Hopper about the meaning behind the lack of doors, he answered with embarrassed "Oh, no. I forgot it again, didn't I?" 83.14.232.226 (talk) 08:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

"It is sharply outlined by the fact that the man with his back to us appears more lonely because of the couple sitting next to him." In correct, the couple are sitting across from him.

Trivia

Does the pop culture section of this article seem bloated to anyone else? --sparkit^TALK 14:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Seperate or trim, I say Oystermind 03:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Ne'ermind. I did it. Oystermind 03:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Matrix reference?

I've stuck a "citation needed" on the claim that people read a woman in a red dress in The Matrix as a reference to the painting, because I haven't been able to find a single reference to such a reading on the Web or on USENET. —Eric S. Smith (talk) 21:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Space Quest III reference?

Another possible pop culture reference could be the Monolith Burger scene in the computer adventure game Space Quest III, unfortunately I don't have a link to an image of the exact scene in the game but I do recall it looks very similar and may be a nod to the painting. -- œ^™ 17:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Beaks?

"The couple's noses resemble beaks, perhaps a reference to the title"

Am I the only one not seeing this? Their noses look like normal human noses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.211.78.111 (talk) 09:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Hard to say, and I've added a couple of cn tags to what looks like original research, i.e. one editor's personal opinion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

...unreferenced?

I'm not sure how a link to the video isn't a valid reference. Maybe there's nothing written out, but the video's quite clearly a reference to the painting. Drjayphd (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

What you, or I, or anybody else, consider "quite clear" is beside the point. And no, a link to the video is not enough. I still argue that "inspired by" or "influenced by" is not enough to make it relevant. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, now it's a moot point. You'd think it'd be easier to find an actual citation.. Drjayphd (talk) 04:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Literature

The following was recently added to the Literature subsection, but I cannot make sense of it:

A book L' arrière-saison from Philippe Besson in French <ref>{{ Citation editor-last = Besson | editor-link = Philippe Besson | title = L' arrière-saison | year = 2002 | place = Paris | publisher = Julliard | isbn = 2260016103 | pages = 191 }} </ref>

Can someone who knows French please determine if this is relevant and notable? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I am, in fact, not French but nevertheless I am reading this book at the moment and yes, it tells a possible story around the characters in the painting. I would therefore consider it a relevant and notable reference to the painting. Besides, it is definitely very much worth reading... Hope to have been of help --85.178.86.3 (talk) 00:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Sorry it took me so long to respond. A translation of the title and more details about the story would help, though. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The book is indeed relevant and relates a meeting between an estranged couple. Arriere-saison means the end of autumn or beginning of winter, suggesting bleakness. It can also mean the beginning of old age.Frenchflicfan (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

"Primary Colors"

There's a tribute in the film "Primary Colors," which had achieved some significant fame. The setting takes place late at night in a doughnut shop with the presidential candidate. Does this meet the worthiness standard? --Thatnewguy (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Desktop background in OS X

This rather marvelous painting is included as one of the rotating backgrounds in the 'Art' carousel in the Desktop preferences of OS X. Maybe worthy of note? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.164.152.54 (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Notes on Composition

As it appears I keep getting deleted, I'll keep it short this time. I feel the article (and more wiki articles on paintings, in general) should have a section analyzing the composition of the painting against pre-established ( artistic conventions. Conventions that Hopper, as an academic artist (as well as anyone who's taken an art history class), would be aware of and understand their symbolic value in terms of visual art as a medium of communication (something else Hopper would have learned and implemented). These conventions would have to be cited and illustrated (through examples in other known art -- perhaps limiting it to only items already found on the Commons? To keep people from adding their own work?), not opinions. Each example of convention would of course be open to editing, and removal, if they're determined to be unfounded or inaccurate. I already listed a few examples found in this particular painting (the simple composition and visual elements make it easier to compare against), but they got deleted so I figured I'd just ask beforehand this time.

As to the user who keeps deleting things, I've replied to your message on my talk page (as you requested people don't write on yours about your actions), addressing why I think your edit was baseless. I ask you read and respond before you take any more actions. mrdeadhead (talk) 05:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Notes on composition could be added to an article as long as they are reliably sourced and verifiable. Basically, what that means is if you find a book or academic journal that analyzes the composition, that material can be added. If you or any other editor is doing the analysis, that amounts to your opinion and it would not be acceptable here. You can't cite a convention and then make your own assessment, because that is original research. You need a reliable source that makes the analysis. If someone wants to read your 2,000+ word essay on the composition of Nighthawks, the can always find it here. As far as I can tell, nowhere in that essay did you pose a question or make a statement as to how to improve this article. That is why I removed it from the talk page, per WP:Forum. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• Quite frankly the entire description section needs serious work. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Nighthawks by Edward Hopper 1942.jpg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Nighthawks by Edward Hopper 1942.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 30, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-08-30. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Nighthawks is an oil painting on canvas completed by the American artist Edward Hopper in 1942. It portrays people in a downtown diner late at night. The painting is held by the Art Institute of Chicago, which purchased it within months of its completion. The painting has frequently been referenced in American popular culture, and several writers have searched for its real-life inspiration.Painting: Edward Hopper

Sharp corner?

Is there a secondary source stating that the intersection is sharp as opposed to right-angled? It looks right-angled to me. In any case, it is not up to Wikipedia editors to judge whether it is right-angled or sharp-angled. Thisisnotatest (talk) 04:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Nighthawks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091016091540/http://www.colorado.edu/finearts/erikadoss/articles/postscriptessay.pdf to http://www.colorado.edu/finearts/erikadoss/articles/postscriptessay.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070711045932/http://www.smithsonianmagazine.com/issues/2007/july/hopper.php?page=4 to http://www.smithsonianmagazine.com/issues/2007/july/hopper.php?page=4
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070926235810/http://filmfreakcentral.net/dvdreviews/hardcandyking.htm to http://filmfreakcentral.net/dvdreviews/hardcandyking.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Critical heritage

There should be some comments by art experts that explain the exceptional popularity of this work. Valetude (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

WD infobox

A WD infobox doesn't add any value to an article which already has a manual infobox. It doesn't discriminate between relevant and irrelevant info (it includes all info which is relevant in any article, not this specific article) and it's more awkward and backwards in its control of relevant and irrelevant info (it's far more natural to include the info you want than to actively exclude the info you don't want). The WD box has value when you put an article together very quickly and feel too lazy to fill out an infobox, but since a manual box already exists here this is a non-issue for this article. In short - the manual infobox is superior when counting all factors that are relevant here, and there is no reason to remove it. Smetanahue (talk) 09:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

That may be your opinion, but it is not rooted in fact nor is there policy backing up that particular rationale to justify reverting. There are clear benefits to Wikidata-assisted infoboxes, some of which include having data updated by a greater set of constituents and maintaining integrity, consistency and accuracy across all the Wikimedia projects. There are clearly flags and options in the template one can set to address the "discriminate" issue you raise, even though I think it is a weak one at best. Rather than fight the evolution of the infobox, how about seeing it as the fulfillment of our long term vision of information sharing and integrity across our wiki ecosystem, just like when we moved images to a central store in Commons circa 2004. -- Fuzheado | Talk 09:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

There is no policy for abolishing manual infoboxes either. The fact they haven't been mass deleted is enough to prove that they're still considered useful, and not some evolutionary left-behinds. I also have a very hard time believing that there are more people engaged in Wikidata than in the national editions of Wikipedia - and even if true, the benefits only apply to cases where editors are too lazy to fill out a manual infobox (i.e. not here). The manual boxes are simpler, more flexible and look better aesthetically. Removing them to add WD boxes is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, and creates actual problems whether you think they're small or not. Smetanahue (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)