Agree with Don: something's missing. The environment (the "set"), the lighting, and the palette are all quite Hopper-esque, but the models... the models are positively baroque. In the end, the images seems schizophrenic to me... I actually do admire the skill with which they are crafted, but in the end they seem cloyingly artificial to me.
Am I missing something? I thought these were quite lovely. I actually liked them better than some of the Hopper paintings.
They ARE lovely, and skilfully done. It's more of a disconnect thing for me, at the conceptual level. The Hopper paintings are of a piece, essentially, and there's an aura of "pastiche" about these photographs. The backgrounds, the environments, are one layer of reality and a much more detailed and abrupt figure (or figures) is dropped into that environment. It's like some sort of post-modern stage set for baroque-moderne figure models.
I see what you're describing, Bear. It's as if the bg and the models are of two different styles - the background being quite "Hopperesque" in its detail minimization, while the models are the opposite, quite detailed.
Since he is not trying to actually BE "Hopper", and these are "inspired" by Hopper, I don't mind his take on the style. Except for the very first one, where the technique seems to make it more "miniaturized" than "Hopperish". Regardless, his use of light is delicious.
