Instantly recognisable as La, and positively makes the viewer do a double take trying to see how big and where in the picture the LIQUOR sign actually is. David Hockney meets Edward Hopper in this piece. Hockney, of course, did live and work in LA.
His house is in the hills right behind the location of this photo and the place where this photo was taken is just two or three streets west of where Nichols Canyon (one of his well-known Los Angeles paintings) ends on Hollywood Boulevard.
I am extremely flattered and feel wonderfully validated. Your blog shows excellent taste and has for a long time which is quite difficult. I have never had my work shown in the same "scroll" as Ansel Adams!
Thanks. I'll take "strange." Part of my fascination with LA is how strange the palm trees are. They don't produce edible dates or dates that folks eat (those are out near Palm Springs) and they don't have coconuts on them. They can't be useful for shade. So if they are there as decoration, think about how far up they put their "leaves"..... strange indeed.
The composition is normal to me - - well, if not normal, I assure you completely intentional. I think I spent at least four or five years looking at the situation, wondering if it said what it should and figuring out how to to show it.
this is really nice, i personally would have cropped the edge of the O out as it is a little distracting and dosnt really add much. but there is definatly something very pleasing about the graphic angular shape of this shot and how the shadow angle under the 'ali' sign mimic's perfectly the angle of the palm trees in the distance. also the red and white striped roof works really well with the sign colours... nice one
Thanks and great comment. I agree in terms of form and subject matter(re Stephen Shore)but its the strong primary colors in the sun that places it in LA and separates it from Bauhaus (which perhaps inappropriately I associate with off white)and Shore.
As primary as it gets and as Mondrian as one would want. I knew Mondrian's grids were connected to the architecture but I didn't know Mondrian had been claimed by the movement as one of their own. Thanks.
From Wikipedia: “He was an important contributor to the De Stijl art movement and group, which was founded by Theo van Doesburg. He evolved a non-representational form which he termed Neo-Plasticism.” But not a single mention of Bauhaus in the Piet Mondrian Wikipedia entry. The Wikipedia entry on Bauhaus does show Mondrian as a lecturer at Bauhaus so Tachen wasn’t being entirely intellectually dishonest.