1. Taylor, Francis Henry, “The Romantick Revival of 1930,” Parnassus 2, no. 6 (10 1930): 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Taylor is contrasting Hopper with other exhibitors at the Museum of Modern Art's Nineteen Living Americans exhibition.

2. Watson, Forbes, “The Rise of Edward Hopper,” Saturday Review, 11 5, 1933Google Scholar.

3. “Edward Hopper,” Life, 05 3, 1937Google Scholar. The information about Hopper's sales and prices is taken from the “Index of Owners of Paintings, Watercolors and Drawings by Edward Hopper” in the Lloyd Goodrich Papers, Archives of American Art, rolls N624–6. It should be noted that Hopper's net return was less onethird commission to his dealer.

4. Hopper's articles were: “Fine Prints of the Year 1925” [a review], The Arts 9, no. 3 (03 1926)Google Scholar; “John Sloan and the Philadelphians,” The Arts 11, no. 4 (04 1927)Google Scholar; and “Charles Burchfield: American,” The Arts 14, no. 1 (07 1928).Google Scholar

5. Watson, Forbes, “A Note on Edward Hopper,” Vanity Fair, 02, 1929Google Scholar; and Crowninshield, Frank, “A Series of American Artists, No.3–Edward Hopper,” Vanity Fair, 06, 1932.Google Scholar

6. Reece, Childe, “Edward Hopper's Etchings,” Magazine of Art 31, no. 4 (04 1938): 227.Google Scholar

7. Some exception to the dominant pattern of interpretation is Marling, Karal Ann's excellent article “Early Sunday Morning,” Smithsonian Studies in American Art 2, no. 3 (Fall 1988).Google Scholar

8. Museum of Modern Art, New York, Homer-Eakins-Ryder (New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1930).Google Scholar

9. Barr, Alfred H., “Post War Painting in Europe,” Parnassus 3, no. 5 (05 1931): 20–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Although Barr associated the term “New Objectivity” with German art in the first place, he saw it as an international trend, also evident in the art of England, France, Italy, and the U.S.S.R. It was “in sort, a revival of realism,” and also “definitely a reaction against the decorative or expressionist distortions of such pre-war innovators as Matisse and Modigliani, or the formal and abstract experiments of the cubists” (p. 21).

10. See Bolger, Doreen, “Hamilton Easter Field and His Contribution to American Modernism,” American Art Journal no. 2 (1988): 100–2Google Scholar; and “Lloyd Goodrich Reminisces: Part I,” Archives of American Art Journal 20, no. 3 (1980): 3–18Google Scholar. Goodrich emphasizes the close connection between The Arts and the project of the Whitney Studio Club (p. 12). In relation to the larger sense of the term “modernism,” it should be noted that in 1929 Vanity Fair advertized itself as the forum of modernism — “that is to say the newest schools of modern thought and art.”

11. The Arts 1, no. 1 (06–07 1921): 39–40Google Scholar; and 2, no.4 (January 1922). This argument for tolerance needs to be set in the context of the Red Scare, Palmer Raids, and Sacco and Vanzetti trial.

12. Others included Archipenko, Benton, Brook, Dasburg, Mordecai Gorelick, Guy Pene du Bois, Picabia, Picasso, Rivera, Sheeler, Stravinsky, and Zorach.

13. Watson, Forbes, “The Academy Attempts to Make Hay,” The Arts 11, no. 4 (04 1927): 194.Google Scholar

14. Watson, Forbes, “The All American Nineteen,” The Arts 16, no. 5 (01 1930): 310Google Scholar. The importance of Watson's support in the advancement of Hopper's reputation should not be underestimated. As well as the articles referred to in notes 2 and 5, and favorable reviews in The Arts, Watson published a collection of plates after his work in The Arts Portfolio Series in 1929. In a letter to him of that year, Hopper, Jo remarked, “We are profoundly grateful to you for all your wonderful kindness in promoting the work of E. Hopper…”Google Scholar (Forbes Watson Papers, Archives of American Art, roll D56, 48–9).

15. Barker, Virgil, “The Month in the Galleries,” The Arts 13, no. 5 (05 1928): 318Google Scholar. Goodrich makes a similar comment on German expressionist painting on show at MOMA in 1931 — see “Exhibitions,” The Arts 17, no. 7 (04 1931): 503–4Google Scholar. In retrospect Goodrich considered, “I was definitely in a conservative trend in my thinking at that time.…” (“Lloyd Goodrich Reminisces,” p. 15).Google Scholar

16. Barker, Virgil, “Aesthetics and Scholarship,” The Arts 13, no. 1 (01 1928): 64.Google Scholar

17. Barker, Virgil, “The Etchings of Edward Hopper,” The Arts 5, no. 6 (06 1924): 325Google Scholar. Cf. du Bois, Guy Pene, “The American Paintings of Edward Hopper,” Creative Art 8, no. 3 (03 1931): 187, 190.Google Scholar

18. Goodrich, Lloyd, “JOHN SLOAN, Edited by E.A. Gallatin,” The Arts 9, no. 5 (05 1926): 296Google Scholar; and “Exhibitions in New York,” The Arts 14, no. 6 (12 1928); 327Google Scholar. In his reminiscences Goodrich acknowledged the influence of his friendship with artists in forming his views. His friendship with Marsh, whom he defended in the second of these reviews, went back to childhood.

19. Goodrich, Lloyd, “In the Galleries,” The Arts 16, no. 6 (02 1930): 410, 412.Google Scholar Cf. “Giorgio de Chirico,” The Arts 15, no. 1 (01 1929): 9–10.Google Scholar

20. Goodrich, , “In the Galleries,” p. 434.Google Scholar

21. Goodrich, Lloyd, “New York Exhibitions,” The Arts 8, no. 6 (12 1925): 349Google Scholar. Cf. “November Exhibitions,” The Arts 17, no. 2 (11 1930): 118Google Scholar. Note Hopper's use of the term “divagations” in “Charles Burchfield: American,” p. 5Google Scholar; and his praise of Sloan's consistency in “John Sloan and the Philadelphians,” p. 173Google Scholar. At the same time as his reviews of European modernists, Goodrich was publishing articles on Homer and Eakins, who he presented as offering a tradition of American realist art on which contemporary artists should develop. See “Winslow Homer,” The Arts 4, no. 4 (10 1924)Google Scholar; and “Thomas Eakins, Realist,” The Arts 16, no. 2 (10 1929).Google Scholar

22. Watson, Forbes, Edward Hopper, The Arts Portfolio Series: “A Note on Edward Hopper,” pp. 64, 98Google Scholar; and “Rise of Edward Hopper.”

23. Bois, Du, “American Paintings of Edward Hopper,” p. 187Google Scholar. In 1937 he was described as “temperamentally incapable of compromise” by Brace, Ernest, in “Edward Hopper,” Magazine of Art 30, no. 5 (05 1937): 275.Google Scholar

24. Barker, , “Etchings of Edward Hopper,” p. 325Google Scholar; and Reece, , “Edward Hopper's Etchings,” pp. 227–28.Google Scholar

25. Goodrich, Lloyd, “The Paintings of Edward Hopper,” The Arts 9, no. 3 (03 1927).Google Scholar

26. Goodrich, , “New York Exhibitions,” p. 349Google Scholar; “The Murals of the New School,” The Arts 17, no. 6 (03 1931): 444Google Scholar; “Exhibitions,” The Arts 17, no. 7 (04 1931): 506Google Scholar; and “Paintings of Edward Hopper,” p. 136.Google Scholar

27. Barker, Virgil, “The Search for Americanism,” Magazine of Art 26, no. 2 (02 1934): 51.Google Scholar

28. Hopper, , “Charles Burchfield: American,” p. 10Google Scholar; and “John Sloan and the Philadelphians,” pp. 169, 170.Google Scholar

29. Museum of Modern Art, New York, Edward Hopper Retrospective Exhibition (New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1933), p. 9Google Scholar; Helen Appleton Read, “Edward Hopper,” Parnassus 5, no. 6 (11 1933): 8, 10, 30.Google Scholar

30. Hopper, , “Charles Burchfield: American,” p. 10Google Scholar; “John Sloan and the Philadelphians,” p. 177.Google Scholar

31. Sterne, Katharine Grant, “American vs. European Photography,” Parnassus 4, no. 3 (03 1932): 16CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. “French and American ‘Elevens’ Stage a Sanguine Game,” Art Digest 6, no. 9, (02 1, 1932).Google Scholar

32. His gallery, the Rehn gallery, described itself as a “Specialist in American Paintings,” and in 1931 acted as sole agent for Biddle, Burchfield, Carroll, Chaplin, Dasburg, Kroll, Luks, McFee, Miller, Speicher, and Tucker. Reginald Marsh also showed there.

33. Glassgold, C. Adolph, “The Paintings of Ernest Fiene,” Creative Art 8, no. 4 (04 1931): 259Google Scholar; Read, , “Edward Hopper,” p. 8Google Scholar. Creative Art ran from October, 1927, until May, 1933. Initially it was a supplement to The Studio, becoming independent in April, 1931. It drew on some of the same critics as The Arts and promoted a similar aesthetic line. Parnassus, the journal of the College Art Association, ran from 1929 onward.

34. Hopper, , “Charles Burchfield: American,” p. 7.Google Scholar

35. Glassgold, C. Adolph, “Around the Galleries,” Creative Art 10, no. 3 (03 1932): 229Google Scholar; Bois, du, “American Paintings of Edward Hopper,” p. 33Google Scholar; and Bois, du, “The Palette Knife,” Creative Art 7, no. 3 (09 1930): supplement, p. 33.Google Scholar

36. Phillips, Duncan, A Collection in the Making (Washington, D.C.: Phillips Memorial Gallery, 1926), Pl. CXXXI.Google Scholar

37. Benson, E. M., “The American Scene,” Magazine of Art 27, no. 2 (02 1934): 61Google Scholar. See Marling, , “Early Sunday Morning,”Google Scholar for a convincing account of the relations between Hopper's work and the imagery of the city in contemporary American literature. I am less convinced than she that Hopper's work escaped an effect of nostalgia.

38. Read, , “Edward Hopper,” p. 10Google Scholar; Brace, , “Edward Hopper,” p. 275Google Scholar; and Knowlton, Walter, “Around the Galleries,” Creative Art 9, no. 1 (07 1931): 69.Google Scholar

39. Bois, du, “American Paintings of Edward Hopper,” pp. 190–91Google Scholar. Hopper himself encouraged this kind of interpretation through his “Notes on Painting” in the MOMA retrospective catalogue of 1933.

40. Benson, E. M., “Of Many Things,” Magazine of Art 27, no. 1 (01 1934): 21Google Scholar; Wellman, Rita, “Gallery Notes,” Parnassus 5, no. 7 (12 1933)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; New York Sun, quoted in Art Digest 3, no. 9 (02 1, 1929): 16Google Scholar; “Museum of Modern Art Honors the Well-Known American Artist,” New York Sun, 11 4, 1933Google Scholar; and Morsell, M., “Hopper Exhibition Clarifies a Phase of American Art,” Art News, 11 4, 1933, p. 12Google Scholar. Cf. Mumford, Lewis, “The Galleries — Two Americans,” New Yorker, 11 11, 1933Google Scholar: “His limited vision is good but is not enough” (p. 78). Marling's description of this as a “glowing review” seems unjustified, since Mumford's central point was to make an unfavorable comparison between Hopper and John Marin (see Marling, , “Early Sunday Morning,” p. 24).Google Scholar

41. Audrey McMahon, head of the Federal Art Project in New York, was married to A. Philip McMahon of New York University, editor of Parnassus. It is notable that the populist art criticism of Thomas Craven met a hostile response from such journals. See, for instance, the scathing review of Craven's Men of Art by McMahon, A. Philip, “New Books on Art,” Parnassus 4, no. 5 (05 1934)Google Scholar. This likens the book to a “Huey Long political indictment.” By contrast, the middlebrow Art Digest was favorable; see “Read Mr. Craven,” Art Digest 7, no. 17, (06 1, 1934)Google Scholar. The New Deal intellectuals comprised an elite with a strikingly homogeneous class base, in which professional occupations were massively overrepresented in relative proportion to their numbers in the American population. See Krueger, T. A. and Gidden, W., “The New Deal Intellectual Elite: A Collective Portrait,” in The Rich, the Well Born and the Powerful, ed. Jaher, Frederic Cople (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1973).Google Scholar

42. Shapiro, David, Social Realism: Art as a Weapon (New York: Ungar, 1973)Google Scholar; Galleries, A. C. A., Social Art in America 1930–1945 (exhibition catalogue by Milton Brown) (New York: A. C. A. Galleries, 1981)Google Scholar; and Hills, Patricia, Social Concern and Urban Realism: American Painting of the 1930s (Boston: Boston University & Bread and Roses, 1983).Google Scholar

43. Grafly, Dorothy, quoted in “Exhibitions,” Magazine of Art 22, no. 4 (04 1931): 271–72Google Scholar. The conservatism of the Magazine of Art was partly defined through the statements of its editor Leila Mechlin, who described much contemporary art as the “expression of ugliness and vulgarity,” symptomatic of a degenerate culture. After Frederic Allen Whiting took over as editor in 1931, the magazine became increasingly sympathetic to modernism. See, for instance, “Good-bye Modernism?” Magazine of Art 26, no. 6 (06 1933).Google Scholar

44. Grafly, Dorothy, “Field Notes,” Magazine of Art 26, no. 3 (03 1933): 147Google Scholar. Grafly's dislike of left-wing art is also clear from “Murals at the Museum of Modern Art,” Magazine of Art 25, no. 2 (08 1932).Google Scholar

45. “Around the Galleries,” Creative Art 10, no. 3 (04 1932): 299Google Scholar. It should be noted that Creative Art also carried positive evaluations of Marsh's work, which appraised it primarily in technical terms, and described his attitude to his subject as that of a “dispassionate observor” who offered no judgement. See Burroughs, Alan, “Reginald Marsh,” Creative Art 10, no. 4 (10 1931)Google Scholar; and Blossom, Frederick A., “Reginald Marsh as a Painter,” Creative Art 12, no. 4 (04 1933)Google Scholar. In 1934 Parnassus referred to his “cynical modernity” (see “Current Exhibitions,” Parnassus 6, no. 7 [12 1934] 25Google Scholar). By the mid-1930s the emergence of more militant artistic forms seems to have stripped Marsh's work of radical connotations.

46. “Rebel Arts,” Art Digest 6, no. 16 (05 15, 1932)Google Scholar; and “American Artists Take Up Eager Roles in ‘Social Revolution,’” Art Digest 7, no. 11 (03 1, 1933).Google Scholar

47. Grafly, Dorothy, “The Whitney Museum of Art,” Magazine of Art 24, no. 2 (02 1932)Google Scholar. The Magazine of Art continued to carry sympathetic articles on Hopper in the late 1930s, which are referred to above, but it also became more receptive to some types of social realism.

48. Benson, Gertrude, “Art and Social Theories,” Creative Art 12, no. 3 (03 1933).Google Scholar

49. Watson, Forbes, “Gallery Explorations,” Parnassus 4, no. 7 (12 1932): 11CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For Watson's views on the relationship between art and manners, see “A World without Elegance,” Parnassus 7, no. 4 (05 1935).Google Scholar

50. Juliana Force specifically identified the Whitney Museum with the “American Renaissance” in a radio interview of 1931 (see “A Champion,” Art Digest 6, no. 7 [01 1, 1932])Google Scholar. For contemporary accounts of the “American Renaissance,” see the Creative Art special issue on that theme, vol. 9, no. 5 (November 1931); and the editorial “An American Renaissance,” Magazine of Art 24, no. 3 (03 1932)Google Scholar. This “American Renaissance” was, of course, distinct from that of ca. 1880–1917.

51. “American Artists Take Up Eager Roles In ‘Social Revolution’”; see note 46.

52. Monroe, Gerald M., “Art Front,” Archives of American Art Journal 13, no. 3, 1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

53. Klein, Jerome, “Twenty-One Gun Salute,” Art Front 1, no. 5 (05 1935)Google Scholar. Klein was discussing the exhibitions “American Genre, The Social Scene in Paintings & Prints,” shown at the Whitney from March 26 to April 29, 1935; and an exhibition on the “Social Scene” at Herman Baron's A. C. A. Gallery, which was the main forum for left-wing realists after the demise of the John Reed Club. The phrase “realists of the Coney Island stripe” was probably a gibe at Marsh, whose Coney Island scenes were well known, and the whole comment needs to be situated in debates around the proper attitude to fellow travelers in the C.P.U.S.A. in the early 1930s.

54. Solman, Joe, “Tour through the Whitney,” Art Front 2, no. 5 (04 1936)Google Scholar. Writing in retrospect, Lloyd Goodrich observed, “In the 1930s leftist artists chided us for being too art-for-art's sake and insufficiently Marxist…,” but also acknowledged that in “the first few years there was a tendency to favor the pleasant, the decorative, the middle-of-the-road, what used to be called ‘good painting’” (Goodrich, Lloyd, “The Whitney's Battle for U.S. Art,” Art News 53, no. 7 [11 1954]: 71).Google Scholar

55. “Revolutionary Front,” Art Digest 3, no. 19 (08 1, 1934).Google Scholar

56. Hopper quoted in Art Digest 3, no. 9 (02 1, 1929): 16.Google Scholar

57. Nochlin, Linda, “Edward Hopper and the Imagery of Alienation,” Art Journal 41, no. 2 (Summer 1981): 136–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Parker Tyler, in an important article of 1948, pointed out, “This artist paints a genre of social relations along with a genre of chiaroscuric relations.…” See “Edward Hopper: Alienation by Light,” Magazine of Art 40, no. 12 (12 1948): 295.Google Scholar

58. Burchfield, , “Edward Hopper — Classicist,” in Edward Hopper Retrospective Exhibition, p. 16.Google Scholar

59. Benson, E. M., “Carnegie International — 1933,” Magazine of Art 26, no. 12 (12 1933)Google Scholar; and Benson, , “The American Scene.”Google Scholar