Template:Did you know nominations/Rooms by the Sea
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Rooms by the Sea
- ... that Edward Hopper sold some beachfront property to a New York art gallery?
Sources: "When he wrote to his dealer about the picture, an austere view out the door of his Truro studio...directly on the water of the bay, he noted only: 'I have finished a canvas am [sic] hoping to get another before we leave here'." Levin, Gail (1998). Hopper's Places (2nd ed). University of California Press. pp. XI. ISBN 9780520216761. OCLC 1228847942. "[Art collector Stephen Carlton Clark] bought Rooms by the Sea...and kept it for the remainder of his life. Hopper's wife, Jo, in the notebook she used to record her husband's sales, noted next to Clark's name in the entry for this picture, 'snapped up at once before shown publicly'." [...] "Purchased by SCC from Rehn Gallery, New York". Vincent, Gilbert T.; Sarah Lees (2006). "A Life with Art: Stephen Carlton Clark as Collector and Philanthropist". The Clark Brothers Collect: Impressionist and Early Modern Paintings. Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute. pp. 186, 332. ISBN 0300116195. OCLC 1110377214- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Mount Aniakchak; Template:Did you know nominations/Weston Turville Castle; Template:Did you know nominations/Cold Crematorium: Reporting From the Land of Auschwitz; Template:Did you know nominations/Leeds 2023
- Comments: Hopper had an exclusive arrangement with Rehn Gallery in New York for 43 years. See Edward Hopper: Paintings & Ledger Book Drawings (2012) for additional supporting info, particularly pp. 23, 25, and especially 114, where Hopper's wife confirms they received the check for the painting from Rehn on April 7, 1952.
Created by Viriditas (talk) and Tryptofish (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 26 past nominations.
Viriditas (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC).
- I started to review this, but then I got to copyediting so I'm ineligible to review. It grieves me to say that I could not find material for an even remotely off-color ALT. EEng 02:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Article is new enough, long enough, and within policy. However, I don't think this hook works for two reasons. One, the fun of this hook is backwards. The punchline of this hook is when you get to the article and realize it is about a painting and not actual beachfront property. That's witty, but the wit isn't in what one sees on the main page. On its face, the buying of property along a beach isn't interesting, and I don't think the hook will draw in many readers so that they get the wit of the hook which requires actually going to the page. Two, the hook is factually inaccurate. Even if a painting depicts beachside property, the purchaser of a painting knows they aren't buying land, they are buying a painting. I get the humor/wit behind the hook, and if this were an April Fools hook proposal it would be appropriate. In short: we need a new hook that is hooky at first glance and verifiable.4meter4 (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
ALT1:
- ... that an art critic felt that Rooms by the Sea was one of Edward Hopper's "strangest" works?
- Source: "The light in many of Hopper’s paintings appears overdetermined, as much psychological as natural. In “Rooms by the Sea” (1951), one of his strangest paintings, it is especially urgent and borderline surrealistic." Johnson, Ken (January 3, 2013). "Artworks That Shine in New York Museums". The New York Times.
- @4meter4: I've provided an alternative hook that I think will satisfy your specifications. (In case you didn't know, the joke about selling someone "beachfront property" is a thing, [1], and we even have a page about a song about it.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
