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.

Today in class, we analyzed Leonardo Da Vinci’s timeless piece known as the “Mona Lisa” in a perspective that I have never seen before.  Honestly, I loved it! Before this class, every time I looked at the Mona Lisa, I only saw her eyes. Now, I pay attention to the background of the painting. I try to make sense of the mysterious scenery and where it might be taking place. While many people in class find the background calm and peaceful, I actually find it violent. I feel as though the ground looks scorched as from a fire. It looks like a warzone. The small stream seems to be leading into the huge sea. Separating the two bodies of water, I see a rough terrain, like a scorched island.  On the left  side of the painting, there are mountains. The mountains have a pathway going through them, maybe a part of the steady stream of water. Overall, it’s a barren, rough terrain. She seems like she’s content with her life. As though there have been some rough times, but now she’s gotten through it all. She appears to be satisfied with her life, but not completely happy. The background is as mysterious as the subject, because nothing is known about either elements. After careful consideration, it also was obvious that the painting is drawn around imperfect ovals. The dullness of her outfit was contrasted by the diverse background.

After going through the “Mona Lisa” in such detail, I began to see art in a different perspective. Basically all of our opinions are correct, they simply express how we feel about the painting based on our understanding of life.

Next we looked at the iconic portrait known as “Night Hawks”. The painting showed a woman and three men. While the third man seemed completely indifferent to what was going on at all in the bar (or so it seemed), the other three figures seemed to be interacting in some way. The man and woman looked like they were a couple. The third man, who seemed like a hard working employee, was just listening and interacting with these frequent customers. The two characters sitting together seemed to be powerful figures in their town, whereas the other man just seemed indifferent. He just blended in with the room itself.

Today in Seminar we looked at two paintings: ‘Mona Lisa’ by Leonardo da Vinci, and ‘Nighthawks’ by Edward Hopper. I was familiar with the former (who isn’t?), but the latter was new to me. Through careful analysis I was excited to hear and see  the different ways the artwork could be interpreted.

When I first looked at ‘Nighthawks’ I saw a strange scene. I felt that it was odd that there would be three characters sitting at a diner in the middle of the night when there doesn’t appear to be a soul on the streets outside. Viewing this painting with a 21st century schema I saw something sinister in this scene.  The way the men at the bar blend in with the darkness from the streets in contrast with the harsh bright lights from the shop make me think that the contrast of light and dark represents a contrast between good and evil. Almost as if the shop is the only beam of light on the dark streets and that by entering the shop the men are bringing the darkness into this sanctuary of light. I felt that the men at the bar and the woman in red were sinister characters who had an air of mystery and danger about them that is contrasting with the light and innocence of the man dressed in white behind the counter. I also felt that the light acts as a spotlight exposing the people inside the shop. In this sense there is a symbolism in the way that it hits the woman in a more direct manner than her male companions. Perhaps if the characters are trouble makers, her role in the scene is more frowned upon than her male counterparts. In this sense the light acts in a judgmental way, frowning down on the woman who has perhaps strayed from the path of goodness to be with the men of darkness. The tile ‘Nighthawks’ also added to my negative interpretation of the painting.  I know of the expression, ‘night owl’, but when I think of hawks I think of predators, dangerous creatures which prey on smaller animals.

Despite this initial impression of ‘Nighthawks’ I began seeing it in a different light, no pun intended, when one of my classmates pointed out that the woman is holding hands with one of the men at the bar.  If I were to follow my initial impression of the scene the two would appear as a Bonnie & Clyde, lovers and partners in crime, mistresses of the darkness.  However, I don’t agree with this interpretation.  I feel that the holding of hands, adds a softness that I missed at first glance. They aren’t kissing or sitting on top of each other, there isn’t any overtly sexual tension between the two. The simple act of holding hands seems so simple and innocent that it is indicative of the time period which the painting depicts.  Perhaps the men aren’t forces of darkness entering the diner, threatening the light of the institution. Perhaps they are just sitting at a bar late at night talking about their days.

At this point in my analysis I began to confuse myself, about what I really saw the painting as. My classmates and professor pointed out the historical aspects of the painting. Painted in 1942, ‘Nighthawks’ depicts American life at the peak of WWII.  Everything from the clothing of the characters to the setting the empty streets outside the shop show Edward Hopper’s view of American life at home during WWII.

After mulling this issue over in my head for a few hours, I’ve decided that my initial interpretation was correct…but not in the manner which I had originally proposed. I feel that considering the time period of the painting that the characters do bring a darkness into the diner which was not there before. However, I do not believe that they have brought this darkness intentionally, or with sinister motives. Instead I believe that the war, and the darkness that wars bring has touched them and that they are burdened by the darkness of war when they enter the diner. They have entered this diner as a Fortress of Solitude. They are searching for the innocence that they lost, whether by the onset of WWII or the reality of growing up. This interpretation makes me sad, because even though the characters seem to be searching for the light, they are covered in darkness and seem out of place in the brightly lit diner.  This interpretation also paints the female figure in a better light than my first interpretation.  At first the light was judging her because of her exposure to the light, but now it represents her ability to blend with the light even though she is a child of the darkness. The men are covered in shadows, even as they sit in the brightly lit shop, but the woman picks up some of the light.  This is perhaps  a commentary that the male figures are more heavily burdened by life than the woman.

When we analyzed the ‘Mona Lisa’ I had a more difficult time analyzing it than I did ‘Nighthawks’, because I’ve seen it my entire life and I have heard so many different interpretations of it, that was is difficult for me to see it with a blank mind. The one new idea that did appear to me about the painting today was the idea that the background might correlate with the parts of Mona Lisa’s body that they line up with. The water in the image begins at her neck and continues to her eyes.  The point at which the water disappears into the distance is in perfect alinement with her eyes, which for many observers, is the most compelling feature of the piece. I feel that in this manner the painting is broken up into three sections running horizontally across the painting. The sections are: earth, water, and air. Her body falls into the earth section. From her neck to her eyes is the water section, and the top of her head and hair is the air section. Symbolically I feel that this represents that her body is grounded, but that her mind is free flowing and imaginative, and that she has the ability to rise above the average individual, either in class, or character.

Aside from my interpretation of the painting itself, through my personal analysis of the ‘Mona Lisa’ I became more interested in the interpretations of artists such as Nat King Cole, and The All American Rejects of the same painting. Nat King Cole’s song, ‘Mona Lisa’ discusses his various interpretations of Mona Lisa’s smile, while The All American Rejects wrote a song entitled ‘Mona Lisa (When the World Comes Down)’ which names Mona Lisa as the person they want next to themselves when the ‘world comes down’, because she seems to know something that others can’t understand.

Regardless of my personal interpretations of the ‘Mona Lisa’ and ‘Nighthawks’ I look forward to seeing and hearing the various interpretations of these pieces. Each person brings their own personal schema to the art which sheds new light on the classic pieces.

~Naomi Edwards

I really enjoyed today’s Seminar experience.  We looked at both The Mona Lisa and the painting Night Hawks by Edward Hopper.  What I enjoyed most about the class was that we were all given the opportunity to look at the paintings and interpret them in our own way and present that feedback to each other and Professor Kahan.  There was no “right” or “wrong” answer, instead, we were able to look at the paintings and decide what they meant to us and what we did or didn’t see when we analyzed the depiction, technique, style, etc.  I’ve always disliked when someone asks you what you think a specific painting, poem, or story means and then tells you that your answer is wrong after you give it.  I think art should be able to be interpreted based on a person’s own experiences, thoughts, and background.

I saw The Mona Lisa in an entirely different way today.  I had never taken the time to look at the background behind her and the complex scenery that surrounded her.  I think that it’s interesting that there is simplicity yet complexity in both the scenery and the object of the painting, the Mona Lisa herself.  It can be said about both that there appears to be a simple face and outward expression, but when you look more closely, there is a hidden complexity that is not observable at first glance.  In relation to the scenery, it is the fact that there is barren desert land and streams of rivers side by side.  In relation to the figure, it is that her countenance seems to express contentment and even happiness, but when you look at her eyes more closely, there appears to be contemplation, even dissatisfaction, underneath.  The class opened my eyes to the possibility that there can be much activity occurring in what appears to be a simple painting.

I was also interested to learn the objectives of the class, the purpose of the Seminar.  1. Our initial reactions to certain pieces of art. 2. Analyzing that art and all of its possible meanings. 3. Becoming familiar with the art and having gained more experience in understanding and interpreting many different art forms.  For someone like me, who really has no prior knowledge when it comes to art, this class fascinates me.  I like that there are different steps we will take that will ultimately lead to a positive end result, hopefully one where we all can appreciate art and be more familiar with certain art types than we are now, just beginning the class.  I look forward to the coming discussions and analyses in our Seminar class.