How to place Hopper’s work in art historical (stylistic) categories and critical orders seems to be difficult. Judgments often have a “but” characteristic to them. Clement Greenberg is among the harshest, writing that Hopper was “simply a bad painter” but “such a great artist.” Several writers point to the deficits of his means but acknowledge the strengths of his compositions.
Is it fair to conclude that Hopper’s oeuvre is: laconic, limited, marginal, provincial, conservative, difficult, and / or plodding? Certainly, he was not: European, avant-garde, purely Modernist, abstract, and / or formal.
Ivo Kranzfelder writes, “(Hopper’s) aim was to find the most concise expression of a given pictorial idea.” (2006, p. 182) Kranzfelder’s summative claim might help explain the subtle irregularities of Hopper’s version of naturalism (especially, his handling of anatomy and linear perspective) and of his use of color (Hopper was a fine colorist, and yet . . .) Hopper was an undeniably original talent, being led by his genius to favor the construction of images of great intimacy, economy, and mystery.
The dilemma for critical opinion, centered on his significance as an American painter in the 20th century, has created a wide and various range of classifications among interpreters and venerators. Even so, his general popularity and his influence on artists have remained intact.