Exhibition Catalogue - Josephine Nivison Hopper: Edward's Muse

Josephine Nivison Hopper: Edward’s Muse

exhibition on view October 23, 2021 - February 20, 2022 at Edward Hopper House Museum & Study Center Elizabeth Thompson Colleary, Guest Curator

o c d e k r a m r e t a w s Thi r e n g i s e d e h t f o n tio r e p p o H d r a w d E r fo n i r e t n e C y d u t S & © Copyright 2021 Edward Hopper House Museum & Study Center

Edward Hopper House Museum & Study Center is pleased to present

Josephine Nivison Hopper: Edward’s Muse, which features a selection of watercolors

by Josephine (Jo) Nivison Hopper. Curated by Elizabeth Thompson Colleary, this show follows one we presented in 2014 (also curated by Colleary) titled, Grace de

a t n e s e r p e r a s i y op d e t u c e x e t u o y a l r ’s m u e s u M e s u r Ho .

1 2 0 2 Coeur: Watercolors by Josephine Nivison Hopper. The earlier show offered an

overview of Jo Hopper’s work, while this exhibition focuses on the role Jo played in helping to shape Edward’s artistic vision.

The watercolors included in this exhibition represent a small portion of the work by Jo Nivison Hopper that has come to light in recent years, thanks to the efforts of Hopper family friend, Reverend Arthayer R. Sanborn. Rev. Sanborn was the pastor of the local

Baptist church in Nyack, and after Edward’s passing in 1967, Jo gave him several folios of her watercolors, along with journals and record books, for safekeeping and in gratitude for his friendship. We are most grateful to Arthayer’s son, Philip Sanborn, for

so meticulously preserving this important body of work, along with invaluable Hopper archival materials, and for sharing them with us and with our worldwide audience.

I would like to offer special thanks to our Guest Curator, Elizabeth Thompson Colleary, for her expertise and passion in organizing this presentation. I would also like to thank Carole Perry, Interim Artistic Director, for coordinating all aspects of this show, and

Charis Carmichael Braun for her usual skill in designing this lovely catalogue. Thanks

also to Alexandra Davies, Office Administrator, for providing valuable assistance along

the way.

Of course, this exhibition would not have been possible without the enthusiastic sup-

port of our exhibition sponsors. We are extremely grateful to Elisabeth Voigt, Dr. Mary Anne Evangelist, and Victoria Hertz & Rod Greenwood for believing in this project

and generously allowing us to see it through.

Edward Hopper House Museum & Study Center has an obligation to bring depth and understanding to the work of Edward Hopper. With this important exhibition of art

by Jo - his wife, painting partner, model, and muse - we are able to do just that, while giving Josephine Nivison Hopper her rightful place as an artist of note whose legacy will stand the test of time.

Mary Mathwich President, Board of Trustees

o c d e k r a m r e t a w s Thi r e n g i s e d e h t f o n tio r e p p o H d r a w d E r fo n i r e t n e C y d u t S &

a t n e s e r p e r a s i y op d e t u c e x e t u o y a l r ’s m u e s u M e s u r Ho .

1 2 0 2 Josephine Nivison Hopper: Edward’s Muse

Elizabeth Thompson Colleary

Josephine (Jo) Nivison Hopper (1883-1968) was an established and

respected artist in New York City prior to her marriage to Edward Hopper

(1882-1967) in 1924, a childless union that would endure for forty-three years.

Her paintings, primarily watercolors, were shown in prestigious exhibitions with

the most admired European and American Modernists of the day and, while her

newly discovered work is worthy of recognition in its own right, it also illuminates and expands our understanding of the Hoppers’ two-artist marriage and the crucial role that Jo played in the creation of much of Edward Hopper’s art.

Indeed, with a body of Jo’s work now available for study we have the oppor-

tunity to tell the Hoppers’ decades-long story of “painting together” – and in

so doing, the importance of Jo’s role as Edward Hopper’s painting companion, model, and muse can finally be recognized and celebrated.

While in her letters and diaries Jo discussed her aspirations and frus-

trations as a female artist, trying to maintain her own creative identity in the

7

shadow of her more famous husband it would be a mistake to think of Josephine Nivison Hopper as a victim of her circumstances. Quite to the contrary, and as the discovery of her artworks makes clear, she maintained an active life as an exhibiting artist in the years after her marriage to Edward Hopper. Although she did devote a great deal of her time and energy to caring for him and managing his professional affairs, she did nonetheless continue to produce and show her

o c d e k r a m r e t a w s Thi r e n g i s e d e h t f o n tio r e p p o H d r a w d E r fo n i r e t n e C y d u t S & paintings, often in prestigious exhibitions throughout the country. Her record books include detailed listings of exhibitions where her work was shown and

sold from 1914, ten years before she married, through 1965, three years before she died.

Indeed, as early as 1914 Josephine Nivison was exhibiting her art, most

often her watercolors, in group exhibitions with artists who are now acknowl-

edged as American Modernist masters. Her paintings were included in an exhibition of “Modern Painters” at the Daniel Gallery in New York City – acclaimed for showing the work of the most avant-garde painters of the day – along with work

by Stuart Davis, Charles Demuth, William Zorach, Man Ray, and Maurice

Prendergast, among others. In 1916 she was exhibiting her work at the Sunwise

Turn Bookshop and Art Gallery, with Marguerite and William Zorach and

Charles Burchfield, who had his first New York exhibition there. Jo showed

at Sunwise Turn through 1922 and in her record book refers to an exhibition in

“1920 more or less, with Charles Burchfield’s show on the right side wall, and Jo Hopper’s watercolors on the left and in the window.”

In 1918, when the Whitney Studio Club was founded by Gertrude

Vanderbilt Whitney, Edward Hopper and Josephine Nivison were listed as

8

Charter Members; Jo exhibited and sold her watercolors, pastels, and small oils there in group exhibitions from 1920 through 1928. Watercolors that she painted in Provincetown, Massachusetts, and Gloucester, Massachusetts were also

a t n e s e r p e r a s i y op d e t u c e x e t u o y a l r ’s m u e s u M e s u r Ho .

1 2 0 2 shown in group exhibitions that featured work by Marsden Hartley, Abraham Walkowitz, William Glackens, Charles Sheeler, Marguerite Zorach, Florine

Stettheimer, and Edward Hopper – and in 1924 her watercolors were on display at the Chicago Art Institute.

The year 1923 was a pivotal one both personally and professionally for Jo

and her future husband. Although they had known each other in New York while

attending art classes (and had stayed at the same Ogunquit, Maine boarding

house in 1914), they began courting that summer in Gloucester. During that time

Edward Hopper began to create finished compositions in watercolor for the first time, clearly inspired by Jo’s efforts. He had previously worked exclusively in oil, with the exception of his commercial graphic design work and his etchings.

Upon returning to New York City, Edward Hopper, with Jo’s help, sold his

first painting in a decade, to the Brooklyn Museum – a watercolor, The Mansard

Roof. The sale came about because Jo, who had been invited to show six of her watercolors in the museum’s “A Group Exhibition of Watercolor Paintings,

Pastels, Drawings and Sculptures by American and European Artists,” persuaded the organizers to include six of Edward’s as well. They agreed, and Edward

Hopper’s watercolors received such wide critical acclaim that he was able to secure an exhibition at the Frank K. M. Rehn Gallery in 1924; it sold out and Edward Hopper was able to give up the commercial artwork that he detested.

The Rehn Gallery represented his work for the rest of his life. This most

9

significant turning point in Edward Hopper’s professional life would not have come about were it not for the assistance and support of his future wife.

Back home in their respective Greenwich Village studios, during the fall of 1923 and the winter of 1924, their romance flourished: they shared their lives as artists, and their mutual interests in the French culture and language and the

o c d e k r a m r e t a w s Thi r e n g i s e d e h t f o n tio r e p p o H d r a w d E r fo n i r e t n e C y d u t S & theater (fig. 1). When travel plans for the summer of 1924 were discussed, Jo

chose Cape Cod, Edward Gloucester. Their compromise: Jo agreed to summer in Gloucester and Edward agreed to get married, that day, July 9, 1924. As

planned, they spent their honeymoon painting watercolors together in Gloucester.

10

Fig. 1

After 1924, while she continued to paint and adjust to her new life in a two-artist marriage, Jo did not exhibit her work as frequently – but when she did it was once again included in prestigious exhibitions. After a decade spent

a t n e s e r p e r a s i y op d e t u c e x e t u o y a l r ’s m u e s u M e s u r Ho .

1 2 0 2 adjusting to her role as her husband’s caretaker, while tenaciously clinging to her own identity as an artist, she no doubt was heartened when Edward chose to include, perhaps at her insistence, his canvas Jo Painting, 1936 (fig. 2), in a Pennsylvania Academy exhibition that included her oil, Cape Cod Hills.

In the decades that followed, through the 1960’s, Jo showed her work

regularly at the Whitney Museum of American Art’s “Annual Exhibitions of Contemporary American Painting” and in

nationwide juried group exhibitions

where her work was judged and often

selected by the artist

peers whom she most admired. In 1953 her watercolor portrait

of a friend, Bertram

Hartman, Painter (fig. 3),

was selected by jurors Andrew Wyeth and Charles Burchfield, among others, for

Fig. 2

11

o c d e k r a m r e t a w s Thi r e n g i s e d e h t f o n tio r e p p o H d r a w d E r fo n i r e t n e C y d u t S & 12

Fig. 3

an exhibition of works on paper at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. She also showed her watercolors in the “International Watercolor Exhibition” at the Art Institute of Chicago.

a t n e s e r p e r a s i y op d e t u c e x e t u o y a l r ’s m u e s u M e s u r Ho .

1 2 0 2 As in other watercolor portraits by Jo, in Bertram Hartman, Painter the

paper is left blank behind the sitter and her vigorous, animated brushwork is pronounced. As a skilled watercolorist, and in keeping with modernist tech-

niques, she combined soft layered washes in the face with the rougher textures

of a dry brush in the treatment of clothes. And most importantly, while she faithfully and somewhat dramatically recorded the appearance of her friend, with his wild bushy hair, elongated face and angular features, she also provides insight into his psyche. With his unkempt hair and clothes, an intense gaze that looks past the viewer, and a pensive expression, Jo reveals his creative spirit.

Throughout her life, Jo often spoke of her revered teacher, Robert Henri

– with whom both she and Edward had studied at the famed New York School

of Art – as the greatest source of influence on her work, especially in his praise for “bold” art. The boldness that characterizes many of the extant oils and

watercolors that Jo Nivison painted prior to her marriage remained one of the hallmarks of her style for the rest of her life – a style that we now know influ-

enced her husband’s work as well. The most significant stylistic features of her

watercolors are her bright, and often arbitrary colors and her loose handling of the watercolor pigment.

As an accomplished artist who eagerly embraced the most current Mod-

ernist styles of the day, much more so than her husband did, Jo captured in

13

o c d e k r a m r e t a w s Thi r e n g i s e d e h t f o n tio r e p p o H d r a w d E r fo n i r e t n e C y d u t S & 14

Fig. 4

her vibrant and lyrical watercolors many sunny views of scenic locales such as in Pink House, Charleston (fig. 4), painted when the Hoppers travelled to South Carolina in 1929. The colors sing with washes of soft pink and lavender,

a t n e s e r p e r a s i y op d e t u c e x e t u o y a l r ’s m u e s u M e s u r Ho .

1 2 0 2 and contrasting patches of rich blues, greens, and dark reds. In this masterful

picture Jo’s technical virtuosity as a watercolorist is especially apparent in the treatment of the elaborate tile roof – she has layered translucent washes of

amber, rust, orange, and green, and then outlined the contours of the tiles with her favored cherry red.

In addition to the watercolors that Jo and Edward painted side by side, a

significant body of Jo’s en plein air watercolor studies of trees painted outside have been preserved, works that

in their rich colors and fluid brushwork show Jo Hopper at her best.

In her record book Jo personalized the titles or descriptions of her

tree studies (fig. 5), even assigning them human qualities. She named

one tree “Seigfried” and described

it as a “big Tree, big trunk, erupting limbs, reaching up, gesticulating,”

another is a “Little Yellow Tree –

making curtsey,” while a third is described as “Dark Tree – branches bare and squirming.” The animated quality that she found in the trees

Fig. 5

15

is emphasized by the dramatic modeling of lights and darks that gives them an almost muscular quality. Despite the intense physicality, she enlivens the brown and gray tones of the tree bark with washes and flourishes of turquoise, purple, lemon yellow and mauve – a technique that her husband will later emulate.

The vibrant palette and technical virtuosity displayed in works like Pink

o c d e k r a m r e t a w s Thi r e n g i s e d e h t f o n tio r e p p o H d r a w d E r fo n i r e t n e C y d u t S & House, Charleston and Tree Studies would clearly inspire Edward’s work over the course of their decades spent painting together. Indeed, Jo’s impact on

Edward’s art becomes evident in the many works that the Hoppers painted side by side during their courtship and in the forty-four years that followed. Examining a sampling of these pairings is revelatory, showing clearly how over time Jo,

who again first encouraged Edward to pursue watercolor in 1923, influenced her husband’s palette and his brushwork.

When sitting next to each other painting Gloucester Roofs, 1928 (fig. 6),

the Hoppers used the same size paper, although Jo created a vertical composition and Edward a horizontal one. Jo once speculated that their difference

in height, she being just over 5’ tall and he 6’5,” might have accounted for his

preference for horizontal compositions that were low, sprawling and close to the ground, while she preferred vertical compositions that soared up high.

In these early works, the most telling difference between the two is the

palette. His is still dark, almost somber, filled with deep earth tones of slate gray and burnt umber and the pigments are almost opaque. The depth and density

of the colors in Edward’s picture create a heaviness that is wholly absent in Jo’s version of the same view. Jo’s paint application and her colors show a much

16

a t n e s e r p e r a s i y op d e t u c e x e t u o y a l r ’s m u e s u M e s u r Ho .

1 2 0 2 Fig. 6

17

lighter touch- she painted his burnt umber building in brick red and coral with washes of mauve and yellow, and his slate gray roofs, with a purple and pink wash; she added purple flourishes in the trunk and branches of the trees in the background. Jo’s yellow trees and blue-green leaves appear luminous against the purple and are painted with translucent washes.

o c d e k r a m r e t a w s Thi r e n g i s e d e h t f o n tio r e p p o H d r a w d E r fo n i r e t n e C y d u t S & In 1928 the Hoppers also painted nearly identical versions of works titled

Railroad Gates (figs. 7a, 7b). Both chose a horizontal format, but again their palettes and paint handling differ, especially in the treatment of the buildings.

Jo’s influence has yet to emerge. Edward (fig. 7a) again uses dark and muted earth tones in sharp contrast to brighter areas of grays and whites. The starkness of

the highlights and shadows, and the absence of any green trees makes the scene

18

Fig. 7a

look more like the desert Southwest than the New England seacoast. By comparison, Jo’s version (fig. 7b) is filled with pastel colors and thin, fluid washes.

Her buildings are painted soft yellows and blue-grays, with contrasting flourishes

a t n e s e r p e r a s i y op d e t u c e x e t u o y a l r ’s m u e s u M e s u r Ho .

1 2 0 2 of turquoise, purple, red, and blue added to the window shutters, curtains, and

chimneys. Her use of vivid colors to enliven the surface of the painting is visible in the cropped salmon red building on the left; the color brightens that side of the picture and does the same when repeated in the chimneys on each of the

adjacent buildings. Jo’s high-key palette and loose brushwork – specifically her

layering of sheer, translucent washes, will soon be seen in Edward’s watercolors.

Fig. 7b

19

The Hoppers’ distinct artistic temperaments, however, can still be found in what they chose to paint during a visit to the circus grounds at Gloucester in 1928. Their divergent approaches to handling the watercolor medium are clearly in evidence as well. Indeed, five years after taking up watercolor painting – at Jo’s side, and at her prompting when they were first courting in Gloucester in 1923, Edward Hopper had not yet mastered the fluidity of sheer watercolor

o c d e k r a m r e t a w s Thi r e n g i s e d e h t f o n tio r e p p o H d r a w d E r fo n i r e t n e C y d u t S & washes. Rather, as seen in his Circus Wagon (fig. 8b), he still handles the

medium as if it were oil or gouache – his angular forms are defined by crisp, sharp, clearly controlled outlines and his pigments are virtually opaque. His

looser, more fluid Jo-like style will surface in the Cape Cod pictures soon to

come. In Jo’s painting, Striped Tents, Gloucester (fig. 8a), the happy feeling of a

20

Fig. 8a

sunny summer day at the circus is enhanced by the presence of a gazebo with a purple roof and distant colorful flags blowing in the breeze against a bright blue sky. Edward, by contrast, in his Circus Wagon, chose a view that included

a t n e s e r p e r a s i y op d e t u c e x e t u o y a l r ’s m u e s u M e s u r Ho .

1 2 0 2 the rear and side of a large, dark rust-colored circus wagon, and the back end

of a parked black automobile. Unlike Jo’s cheery circus scene, Edward’s image

seems bleak. So different are the paintings in mood and execution that were it

not for the presence of the ring of rocks in the foreground of Edward’s picture

that continues into Jo’s, and the gazebo that appears on the right in Jo’s picture and the left in Edward’s, one would not suspect that the artists were painting at the same place and at the same time.

Fig. 8b

21

In 1930, after the Hopper’s had begun to spend summers on Cape Cod, two versions of another locale that the Hoppers painted side-by-side show how Jo’s palette and brushwork had begun to influence her husband’s style. Her version of Corn

Hill (fig. 9a) depicts small beach cottages perched at the top of a tall sand dune or hill. On top of the dune’s varied greens and sandy yellows, she has added flourishes of fuchsia pink, purple, and rust. The cottages are painted in washes of purple

o c d e k r a m r e t a w s Thi r e n g i s e d e h t f o n tio r e p p o H d r a w d E r fo n i r e t n e C y d u t S & and pink, and a pink wash fills the sky as well. In Edward Hopper’s Corn Hill (fig. 9b)

watercolor, the dune is painted more naturalistically with a cream color, and varied shades of green silhouetted against a bright blue sky painted with a loose, fluid

wash. Here, however, as Jo often did, Edward also added wet and dry strokes of

purple and dark red throughout the composition, adding a vibrant touch, not seen

22

Fig. 9a

in any of his earlier watercolors, and creating visual interest to an otherwise muted composition. The influence of his wife’s more colorful palette can also be detected in Edward’s watercolors South Truro Post Office, 1930 and House on Dune

a t n e s e r p e r a s i y op d e t u c e x e t u o y a l r ’s m u e s u M e s u r Ho .

1 2 0 2 Edge, 1931. In South Truro Post Office, the buildings and nearby trees are awash in

sharp reds, vivid purples, and touches of turquoise, and in House on Dune Edge

the dunes are painted naturalistically in shades of green and brown, but the house features turquoise and yellow moldings and pink and mauve shadows. Both works display bright, lyrical color schemes in keeping with Jo’s watercolor style. After

years of painting side by side Edward was inspired by his painting companion to be more adventuresome with his colors and his brushwork, as he had been inspired by her to take up the watercolor medium in the early years of their courtship.

Fig. 9b

23

o c d e k r a m r e t a w s Thi r e n g i s e d e h t f o n tio r e p p o H d r a w d E r fo n i r e t n e C y d u t S & 24

Fig. 10

Lot for Sale, Wellfleet, c. 1935 (fig. 10), is another example of Jo’s watercolor style at its spontaneous and

a t n e s e r p e r a s i y op d e t u c e x e t u o y a l r ’s m u e s u M e s u r Ho .

1 2 0 2 accomplished best. Her vibrant palette and fluid brushwork are comparable to

earlier works but since the paper is not filled to the edges with agitated flashy colors, the subtleties of the artist’s

delicate paint application can be more

fully appreciated. Jo outlined the building and the tree in blue and fuchsia and then added bold and striking flourishes of those colors to the yellow and lime

green shrubs, layering them over strokes of salmon and gold on the tree adjacent to the building. Her virtuosity as a modernist master of the watercolor medium

is everywhere in evidence. On a personal note, in an account of her en plein air

painting excursions in Wellfleet, a Cape Cod town near the Hoppers’ summer home in Truro, Jo described painting

Lot for Sale while sitting on the lawn of the Post Office across the street on a day when Edward was seemingly not painting at her side.

25

According to her record books, Jo frequently exhibited and sold her watercolors of fruit baskets and vases filled with cut flowers. The fruit baskets especially stand out as examples of her exemplary watercolor techniques; in studies of single pieces of fruit and in her full basket compositions, she carefully layered delicate washes to model each piece with perfectly placed highlights and shadows. In

Basket of Fruit (fig. 11) the apple, pear, and tangerines, with rich naturalistic

o c d e k r a m r e t a w s Thi r e n g i s e d e h t f o n tio r e p p o H d r a w d E r fo n i r e t n e C y d u t S & colors and textures, are painted with painstaking care.

The fruit basket watercolors are also noteworthy for the light they shed on

the Hoppers’ sharing of subjects – specifically Edward’s borrowing compositions

26

Fig. 11

a t n e s e r p e r a s i y op d e t u c e x e t u o y a l r ’s m u e s u M e s u r Ho .

1 2 0 2 Fig. 12

27

from Jo. In his large oil painting, Tables for Ladies (fig. 12), painted in 1930, the waitress in the foreground leans forward to grasp a prominently placed fruit basket that is the focal point of the painting. The basket is virtually identical to several of Jo’s fruit basket watercolors. In the record books that she kept Jo identified the basket, with its distinctively braided handle, as a “Bee basket,” one that had been given to them by their friend Bee Blanchard. The presence of one of Jo’s still-life

o c d e k r a m r e t a w s Thi r e n g i s e d e h t f o n tio r e p p o H d r a w d E r fo n i r e t n e C y d u t S & subjects in her husband’s painting is also noteworthy because still-life elements rarely appear in Edward Hopper’s art. Moreover, while he often did preliminary

sketches for compositional features in other paintings, no sketches of fruit baskets

by Edward Hopper are extant. When painting Tables for Ladies he didn’t need to

complete a sketch because he simply took the fruit basket from Jo’s watercolor.

28

Fig. 13

a t n e s e r p e r a s i y op d e t u c e x e t u o y a l r ’s m u e s u M e s u r Ho .

1 2 0 2 Within the context of the Hoppers’ two-artist marriage, in addition to the

stylistic influence that Jo had on her husband’s art, and Edward’s borrowing of subjects from her paintings, their practice of painting together was docu-

mented in several of Edward’s paintings and drawings of Jo. On their way home from a road trip to Mexico in 1946 the Hoppers ventured into Wyoming where both artists painted multiple views of Mt. Moran and the Grand Teton moun-

tains. Edward’s Jo in Wyoming (fig. 13) records the Hoppers’ practice of using

their automobile as a mobile studio with lanky Edward working in the back seat and petite Jo painting her view of Les Grand Tetons (fig. 14) in the front. Here Edward’s choice of subject can be seen as an attempt to recognize, and perhaps celebrate, the efforts of his devoted lifelong painting companion, model, and muse.

Fig. 14

29

In her only extant Self-Portrait (fig. 15), an undated, unsigned watercolor, Jo looks directly at the viewer with a forthright, confident expression. She carefully rendered her likeness, but she was also concerned with what her attire and accessories expressed about her character: she is very neatly and primly turned out. She wears a blue top with a crisp white collar, most likely a shirtwaist dress like the ones that she is often shown wearing in many of

o c d e k r a m r e t a w s Thi r e n g i s e d e h t f o n tio r e p p o H d r a w d E r fo n i r e t n e C y d u t S & her husband’s depictions of her. The white Peter Pan collar is almost always

snugly fastened with a brooch, as it is here. Although the Hoppers were frugal all their lives, denying themselves the simplest of luxuries even after Edward

had become successful, Jo on occasion would treat herself to an inexpensive piece of costume jewelry. She probably included jewelry here because she prized it, and given how carefully she painted her silver hoop earrings, she

was probably pleased with how they flattered her face as well. Perhaps her

personality is most fully captured in her jaunty hat; its dark color draws the

viewer’s eyes directly to hers. The blue bow perched above the hat may secure her ever-present ponytail, but no matter what purpose it serves, it adds to the

perkiness of her appearance. She has given us a proud and honest portrayal of a formidable artist who, despite her trials and struggles, maintained her willful, creative spirit and inspired her husband to do the same.

30

a t n e s e r p e r a s i y op d e t u c e x e t u o y a l r ’s m u e s u M e s u r Ho .

1 2 0 2 Fig. 15

31

o c d e k r a m r e t a w s Thi r e n g i s e d e h t f o n tio r e p p o H d r a w d E r fo n i r e t n e C y d u t S & 32

a t n e s e r p e r a s i y op d e t u c e x e t u o y a l r ’s m u e s u M e s u r Ho .

1 2 0 2 NOTES

Biographical information, and details regarding Jo’s exhibition history,

were found in the record books, diaries, and personal papers owned by Rev.

Sanborn. While they provide thorough documentation, there are inconsistencies, vague dates, and multiple titles for the same undated works. I have used the

dates and titles that Jo used most often. Additional information came from Gail Levin, Edward Hopper, An Intimate Biography (New York, 1995), Chris Petteys,

Dictionary of Women Artists (Boston, 1985), and Peter Hastings Falk, Who Was Who in American Art (1564-1975) (New York, 1999).

33

FIGURE LISTINGS Figure 1

Edward Hopper, à Mlle. Jo. Noël 1923, Gouache on paper, 7 x 8 5/8 inches (17.8 x 21.9 cm), Collection of Mr. and Mrs. Philip L. Sanborn

Figure 2

Edward Hopper, Jo Painting, 1936, Oil on canvas, 18 3/16 x 16 3/16 inches (46.2 x 41.1 cm), Whitney Museum of American Art, New York, NY; Josephine N. Hopper Bequest

o c d e k r a m r e t a w s Thi r e n g i s e d e h t f o n tio r e p p o H d r a w d E r fo n i r e t n e C y d u t S & Figure 3

Josephine Nivison Hopper, Bertram Hartman, Painter, c. 1953, Watercolor on paper, Sheet (Sight): 20 1/2 x 14 inches (52.1 x 35.6 cm), Mount: 24 15/16 x 18 1/8 inches (63.3 x 45.7 x 0.3 cm), Whitney Museum of American Art, New York, NY; Josephine N. Hopper Bequest

Figure 4

Josephine Nivison Hopper, Pink House, Charleston, 1929, Watercolor on paper, 28 1/8 x 22 1/4 inches (71.4 x 56.5 cm), Edward Hopper House Museum & Study Center, Nyack, NY; The Sanborn Josephine Nivison Hopper Collection

Figure 5

Josephine Nivison Hopper, Tree Trunk, n.d., Watercolor on paper, 13 1/2 x 20 1/4 inches (34.29 x 51.4 cm), Edward Hopper House Museum & Study Center, Nyack, NY; The Sanborn Josephine Nivison Hopper Collection

Figure 6

Josephine Nivison Hopper, Gloucester Roofs, 1928, Watercolor on paper, 28 1/8 x 22 1/8 inches (71.4 x 56.2 cm), Edward Hopper House Museum & Study Center, Nyack, NY; The Sanborn Josephine Nivison Hopper Collection

Figure 7a

Josephine Nivison Hopper, Railroad Gates, 1928, Watercolor on paper, 22 1/4 x 28 1/8 inches (56.5 x 71.4 cm), Edward Hopper House Museum & Study Center, Nyack, NY; The Sanborn Josephine Nivison Hopper Collection

Figure 7b

Edward Hopper, Railroad Gates, 1928, Watercolor on paper, 14 x 21 inches (35.6 x 53.3 cm), Private Collection

Figure 8a

Josephine Nivison Hopper, Striped Tents, Gloucester, 1928, Watercolor on paper, 22 1/8 x 28 1/4 inches (56.2 x 71.8 cm), Edward Hopper House Museum & Study Center, Nyack, NY; The Sanborn Josephine Nivison Hopper Collection

34

Figure 8b Edward Hopper, Circus Wagon, 1928, Watercolor on paper, 13 1/2 x 19 3/8 inches, Private Collection, courtesy Fraenkel Gallery, San Francisco, CA

a t n e s e r p e r a s i y op d e t u c e x e t u o y a l r ’s m u e s u M e s u r Ho .

1 2 0 2 Figure 9a Josephine Nivison Hopper, Corn Hill, 1930, Watercolor on paper, 22 7/8 x 28 1/4 inches (57.9 x 56.5 cm), The Arthayer R. Sanborn Hopper Collection Trust

Figure 9b Edward Hopper, Corn Hill, c. 1930, Watercolor over graphite on watercolor paper, Sheet: 13 5/16 x 20 inches (35.4 x 50.8 cm), Philadelphia Museum of Art, Philadelphia, PA Figure 10 Josephine Nivison Hopper, Lot for Sale, Wellfleet, c. 1935, Watercolor on paper, 22 1/4 x 28 1/8 inches (56.5 x 71.4 cm), Private Collection Figure 11

Edward Hopper, Tables for Ladies, 1930, Oil on canvas, 48 1/4 x 60 1/4 inches (122.6 x 153 cm), Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, NY

Figure 12

Josephine Nivison Hopper, Basket of Fruit, c. 1930, Watercolor on paper, 28 1/8 x 22 1/4 inches (71.4 x 56.5 cm), Edward Hopper House Museum & Study Center, Nyack, NY; The Sanborn Josephine Nivison Hopper Collection

Figure 13

Edward Hopper, Jo in Wyoming, 1946, Watercolor on paper, 13 15/16 x 19 15/16 inches (35.4 × 50.6 cm), Whitney Museum of American Art, New York, NY; Josephine N. Hopper Bequest

Figure 14

Josephine Nivison Hopper, Les Grand Tetons, 1946, Watercolor on paper, 22 5/8 x 29 5/8 inches (57.8 x 75.7 cm), The Arthayer R. Sanborn Hopper Collection Trust

Figure 15

Josephine Nivison Hopper, Self-Portrait, n.d., Watercolor on paper, 28 1/4 x 22 1/4 inches (71.8 x 56.5 cm), Edward Hopper House Museum & Study Center, Nyack, NY; The Sanborn Josephine Nivison Hopper Collection

35

EXHIBITION CHECKLIST These works are part of The Sanborn Josephine Nivison Hopper Collection at Edward Hopper House Museum & Study Center unless otherwise specified.

o c d e k r a m r e t a w s Thi r e n g i s e d e h t f o n tio r e p p o H d r a w d E r fo n i r e t n e C y d u t S & Our Lady of Good Voyage, Gloucester, 1923

Watercolor on paper

22 1/8 x 28 1/4 inches (56.2 x 71.8 cm)

Striped Tents, Gloucester, 1928

Watercolor on paper

22 1/8 x 28 1/4 inches (56.2 x 71.8 cm)

Railroad Gates, 1928

Watercolor on paper

22 1/4 x 28 1/8 inches (56.5 x 71.4 cm)

36

a t n e s e r p e r a s i y op d e t u c e x e t u o y a l r ’s m u e s u M e s u r Ho .

1 2 0 2 Gloucester Roofs, 1928

Watercolor on paper

28 1/8 x 22 1/8 inches (71.4 x 56.2 cm)

Pink House, Charleston, 1929

Watercolor on paper

28 1/8 x 22 1/4 inches (71.4 x 56.5 cm)

Basket of Fruit, c. 1930 Watercolor on paper 28 1/8 x 22 1/4 inches (71.4 x 56.5 cm)

37

o c d e k r a m r e t a w s Thi r e n g i s e d e h t f o n tio r e p p o H d r a w d E r fo n i r e t n e C y d u t S & Lewis Farm, 1930

Watercolor on paper

22 1/8 x 28 1/3 inches (56.2 x 72 cm)

House in Provincetown, 1930

Watercolor on paper

22 1/4 x 28 1/4 inches (56.5 cm x 71.8)

Mrs. Scott’s House, 1931

Watercolor on paper

20 5/8 x 27 inches (52.8 x 68.6 cm)

Lot for Sale, Wellfleet, c. 1935

Watercolor on paper

22 1/4 x 28 1/8 inches (56.5 x 71.4 cm)

Private Collection

38

a t n e s e r p e r a s i y op d e t u c e x e t u o y a l r ’s m u e s u M e s u r Ho .

1 2 0 2 Tree Trunk, n.d.

Watercolor on paper

13 1/2 x 20 1/4 inches (34.29 x 51.4 cm)

Self-Portrait, n.d.

Watercolor on paper

28 1/4 x 22 1/4 inches (71.8 x 56.5 cm)

Stove and Fireplace, Three Washington Square North, n.d., Watercolor on paper 28 1/8 x 22 1/4 inches (71.9 x 56.5 cm)

39

o c d e k r a m r e t a w s Thi r e n g i s e d e h t f o n tio r e p p o H d r a w d E r fo n i r e t n e C y d u t S & BOARD OF TRUSTEES

Mary Mathwich, President

Cynthia Branca, Vice President

Robin Lawson Scheuer, Secretary Maryann Schugmann, Treasurer

​​​Bill Batson

​Eileen Brady Nelson

​​Lisa D’Amico, Ph.D.

​Michael Hays

​Nancy Low-Hogan, Ph.D.

Fred Hodder

​Mark Lerner

Chris Patsos

Karon Shovers Goldsmith Michael Witte​

STAFF

Kathleen M. Bennewitz Executive Director

Carole Perry Interim Artistic Director & Curator Alex Davies Office Administrator Juliana Roth Chief Storyteller

Laurie DeRuntz Social Media Manager Eileen White Visitor Services

Charis Carmichael Braun Visual Communications

WITH GRATITUDE As I have said for many years, I am grateful to the late Rev. Arthayer

a t n e s e r p e r a s i y op d e t u c e x e t u o y a l r ’s m u e s u M e s u r Ho .

1 2 0 2 Sanborn and his son Philip for so generously sharing their extensive Hopper

holdings with me and I thank them for their kind support of my work on both Edward and Josephine Hopper. ​At Edward Hopper House Museum & Study

Center, Carole Perry offered invaluable assistance, as always, as did Alexandra

Davies. I also thank Charis Carmichael Braun for her infinite patience and her impeccable mastery in fashioning this handsome catalog. I am especially appre-

ciative of Mary Mathwich’s enthusiasm for the “Edward’s Muse” exhibition from the onset. The Hoppers would be pleased to know that their historic home has

found wise stewards to not only maintain and upgrade it, but to keep it a thriving center for the arts in their beloved town of Nyack.

Elizabeth Thompson Colleary

SPECIAL THANKS

To the generous sponsors of this exhibition: Dr. Mary Anne Evangelist Elisabeth Voigt Victoria Hertz & Rod Greenwood

o c d e k r a m r e t a w s Thi r e n g i s e d e h t f o n tio r e p p o H d r a w d E r fo n i r e t n e C y d u t S &

a t n e s e r p e r a s i y op d e t u c e x e t u o y a l r ’s m u e s u 5 0 M YEARS! e s u r Ho .

1 2 0 2 C E L E B R AT I N G

Edward Hopper House Museum & Study Center gives depth to an artist whose honest representation of life in America perennially evokes both contemplation and reflection. Edward Hopper House celebrates and advances the legacy of Edward Hopper through artifacts, programs, and exhibitions of artists inspired by the iconic painter.

8 2 N B r o a d w a y , N y a ck , N Y 1 0 9 6 0 e dwar d hoppe rhous e .o rg 84 5 -3 5 8 - 07 74