N. Candela Essay 1 Marxist and Feminist Analyses
New York Movie, Oil on canvas, 32” x 40”, Edward Hopper, 1939, Museum of Modern Art.
Marxist Analysis Hopper’s painting New York Movie can be explained through a Marxist analysis by investigating the external drama and psychological implications that exist between the female usher on the right side of the painting and viewers of the movie on the left. To begin, it is important to note that this work was created in 1939 as the country struggled amidst the throes
of an economic depression and the threat of war looming in Eastern Europe. The setting shows a movie theater, a place of leisure that defies the tumult of the outside world, and through this defiance establishes the moviegoers as nonchalant bourgeois patrons. As well, the audience of the seating area is separated from the curtained entryway on the right by a narrow wall that creates a strong vertical line. Coincidentally, this line also separates the moviegoers from the lone worker in the painting, a female usher who leans solemnly against the wall adjacent to the entrance, lost in thought. Additionally, Hopper has foregrounded the usher to the viewers, a hint towards the tenets of Marxism that recognize that the superstructure is built and maintained by the very people it excludes.1 The audience has turned its back on the usher, the woman responsible for admitting them to the very same activity in which she herself is unable to partake. Formally, the left half of the work containing the moviegoers is significantly darker in its palette while the right side, the side of the singular proletariat, is lighter in value and created with higher-key colors. This difference in palette references familiar oppositions such as right and wrong, good and bad, etc. That the usher’s head is bathed in the most intense and direct light used in the painting alludes to divine illumination, and references early Christian iconography. Perhaps a bit oddly, the brighter half of the painting containing the usher reads as more melancholy while the bourgeois patrons sit rapt in front of the movie screen, carefree and ignorant. Feminist Critique In New York Movie, the vertical line that divides the painting between audience and usher isolates the female figure and creates opportunity to assess the work from a feminist perspective.
1
Adams, Laurie. The Methodologies of Art: An Introduction. New York, NY: IconEditions, 1996.
First, the face of the isolated woman is turned away from the viewer with one hand drawn towards her mouth and the other arm resting across her midsection. She is lost in thought and exists as a passive figure, one which receives the gaze of the viewer (as she is emphasized through contrast), but is powerless of return or confront the gaze herself. Additionally, the female figure is clothed in the uniform of an usher which consists of a blue pants-suit with a red stripe down the side. The shoulders are broad and likely enhanced by the use of shoulder pad inserts, and in general the outfit mimics military dress with the exception of the thinly strapped high heels. These shoes serve as a reminder that the woman is, above all, an object to be viewed and enjoyed. Also, this manner of presentation hints at subjugation and casts her in the role of “other� in the gaze of the viewer, which parallels the observations Abigail Solomon-Godeau made about the figures in Gauguin’s paintings of Tahitian women.2 Finally, the manner in which Hopper has divided the space allows the male moviegoer to enjoy his time and space in unobstructed solitude. He engages with the film as he pleases. The usher is held captive by the function of her job and enjoys nothing, if not her own solitude. She is displayed next to the only significant light source and is herself a character for all viewers of the painting. She does not enjoy the same autonomy as the man. Similarities of Both Marxism and Feminism Perhaps the most significant similarity between Marxism and Feminism is that they both react against the aesthetics of Modernism and seek instead to identify and understand the contexts within which a work is made. The two approaches rely heavily on moral and social factors (and financial, in the case of Marxism), as well as the acknowledgment that the ignorance of these often leads to class divisions.3
2
Adams, p. 99
3
Adams, p. 66
However, where Marxism seeks to explore a current capitalist superstructure, or reinforce a specific Marxist regime, Feminism strives to change the manner in which a current culture is interpreted. That is, Feminism seeks strictly ideological change while Marxism seeks ideological, economic, and social change. Marxism casts both artists and their work in specific roles as proletariats and commodities within a superstructure; they are part of the workforce. Ernst Fischer went so far to tie art to labor by identifying the first artist as the first toolmaker.4 Feminists instead believe that gender is the essential element in understanding art in all its facets, and as a result, their interpretations and evaluations of art tend to work under the assumption that both artists and viewers are male. Both methodologies heavily question the lineage of art and all of its participants, but Marxism seeks a more comprehensive and integrated change to the manner in which art is made, evaluated, and owned within a society. Feminism seeks to rebuild the construct only as it applies to relationships between gender and their roles within a given construct.
4
Adams, p.69