Yesterday’s discussion of Leonardo da Vinci’s “Mona Lisa” and Edward Hopper’s “Nighthawks” showed me the basic principle of all art forms. As different as both paintings may be, both painters were very detailed in their layout of the scene. Before it was brought to the attention of the class, I never even paid attention to the background of the Mona Lisa but this painting has a lot more to offer than the pretty woman in the very center. But after looking at the intense detail, I found myself understanding the true complexity of Mona Lisa. I felt that the background was used to highlight the impact this woman made on Italian society when and where Leonardo painted this piece. The background was calm and rough, bright and dark, bright and gloomy. The contrast in this ambiguity shows that Mona was found attractive because of the fact that nobody could clearly read her. At first look, she might just be a beautiful woman. But after analyzing her presence, the viewers might find that there is more to her than just her physical beauty. She’s ever so present in the painting but not really as seen through her eyes. They look like they’re telling a story and while she may be so present in the painting, her story is not known because nobody can ever tell what she thinking even if her gaze seems to intense. That too shows a contrast. Her pleasant expression seems soft but the intensity in her eyes makes her anything but soft. Leonardo made her eyes and face the focal point of the painting to get the viewers attention on purpose. He wants us to read us more closely and understand her complexity in comparison to her background.

Similarly, “Nighthawks” didn’t seem to tell much of a story at first. But the use of the various colors shows that the contrast from dark to bright is a way of bringing attention to the character’s stories. The bright dark color of the woman’s dress automatically brings attention to her, making it obvious that it’s not normal for her to be there in that bar at that time just like it’s not normal to wear a dress that color with a lipstick that color. Without knowing much about the background of the painter or his true purpose, I assumed that she was troubled because of the fieriness in the painting. The darkness shows that it is night and for someone to be out that late, adds more to my speculation of her role in society. The men also seemed troubled but in contrast to the woman. The clothing is darker and almost blends in to the night. Either way, the small number of people in the bar and their odd appearance, made me think their role in society was flawed and troubled. I’m not quite sure if my analysis is right but I created a fitting story out of the details laid out by the painting and I think that’s the sole purpose of paintings.

I was able to gather these educated assumptions with my classmates without the background knowledge which showed me that the background of paintings might not be so important when trying to understand the depth of the meaning. Before this thorough analysis, I would’ve never understood how much there is behind every painting. This was definitely different than my prior visits to paintings in which I would simply take a glance and not think much about the painting other than its physical appeal. But while I still might not be so fond of analyzing paintings, I definitely gained an appreciation for the emphasis the painters placed on details and the significance of each and every painting to these creators.