Actually, scratch that; since the railing is depicted, it seems to be a fair assumption that the depicted figure is the narrator.
Nothing against nipples…unfortunately.
That’s actually really interesting. Whenever I saw this painting, I would assume that the title did, indeed, mean that the figure was screaming. But it never made much sense to me – because I couldn’t HEAR the figure screaming. It’s mouth was open, it looked distressed, but I just didn’t get the impression that it was screaming.
I would actually sit there and try to “hear” the scream coming out of the figure’s mouth, but the mouth seems to be taking things IN, not sending stuff OUT. It’s almost a hole in the center of the painting, funneling all the colors and the wavy lines into it.
This additional information makes the painting make more sense.
Yes, and the two friends he mentions are also visible walking out of frame to the left.
Maybe it’s just me but I always thought the figure was hearing a scream, hence the hands covering the ears.
I thought everybody knew it was a painting of Macaulay Culkin in “Home Alone”.
The day is still young, my friend.
I rate this:
:D:D Three big grins!
Well, put on a freakin’ shirt or a stick-on star or something! Who do you think you are? Janet Jackson?
Clearly, he’s pining.
I thought the whole point of art is that there’s never a “right” or “wrong”, it is what it is to the person who is viewing it.
If it represents to me the reaction of a farmer to the news that his pigs have all just flown away, so be it.
One of my chief complaints has always been that so many people seem to sneer at the masses who don’t appreciate fine art, yet those same people sneer at the masses who appreciate fine art, but “incorrectly.”
Perhaps I am incorrect but isn’t The Scream only one painting out of a collection of paintings* that tell the story of his happiness, then subsequent depression after breaking up with a girlfriend?
I heard this on a Munch documentary once.
(I know there are also different versions of the The Scream, but I am talking about actual different paintings)
I just hate it when that happens.
I’m guessing he perceived nature’s affirmation of man’s eventual mortality resonating through time to eventually be heard by all.
Maybe if I’d stuck around for the graduate level, they would have explained why Munch made this painting, instead of how (but I doubt it: I once read a quote by Picasso that when artists get together they never discuss the meaning of art; they talk about the cheapest place to by paint). To earn a simple BFA at a state university, you had to understand that Much was both a skilled and innovative printmaker and that, oh, by the way, he really had the hots for this one girl but her dad put his foot down big-time on the relationship (and there they are in the upper left of the painting. How mortifying!).
Scandinavians; a moody bunch
Strindberg, Ibsen, Edvard Munch
Sunless winters evoking funk
Strindberg, Ibsen, Edvard Munch
Yeah, but does an infinite string of screams equal 1?
Mmm, but what an artist says about work doesn’t usually count for that much, particularly one who was as [Mr. Tudball] lewwwwny tewwwwns [/Mr. Tudball] as Munch. At best it’s a first word - but certainly not the last word.
Funny, and I thought that this thread was going to be about the fact that two thugs got just walked in, kicked the unarmed guard, pulled the painting off the wall (no alarm), no one follwed them, and that it took the cops 15 minutes to show up after one of the most significant paintings of the turn of the century was stolen. I realize that Oslow society may not be exactly like American society…
Anyway.
Oh, man - I can’t believe I thought that dude was screamin’. Wow, what was I thinking? Sheesh, I was like 180 degrees off on that one. Boy do I have egg on my face now. The guys at work are gonna have a field day with this one, let me tell you. :o