Scream - How good is it?

"Scream" is obviously a great work with 'historical' importance; but as with all older works, i have insufficient wall space to assign it to history; and far too little cash to aquire originals.

[are you searching for a buyer for your 'newly aquired work' Edgar? :wink: ]

I consider it far more important to support current working artists if one can afford to, in order to create a new 'history' for art's future!

OK... I admit, I voted that it is awful. The painting is sloppy and of an uninteresting subject. I've never cared for it and the fact that it is one of four versions doesn't make me like it any better.

The most interesting thing about The Scream is that the brightly colored sky may have been the result of Krakatoa's volcanic explosion.

The second most interesting thing is that one of the other versions was stolen during another Olympics.

Re: Scream - How good is it?


"Would I hang it in my house?" Absolutely not. Do I think it is a painting of excellent merit? Absolutely. My house is a place I want to be comfortable and peaceful - but I would be glad to put it in a gallery or show.

There is technique here. Don't get caught up into thinking that the only kind of advanced technique is a smooth, subdued, veremeer that is painted with discipline and time. The technique involved in this piece lies in the brush stroke (much like van gogh) the way the lines move in strange, erratic ways charging the piece with energy and emotion. The colors are taylored to add to the sense of terror by being eeclectic, vivid, garrish.

I think some of the screams are better than others. (What are there, 5 versions?) As is constantly suggested, seeing a painting in reality is usually (not always!) better than in reproduction. Note that looking at it online can be worse even than reproduction. I personally think the scream looks good in reproduction but not as good as in person. Where exact color and texture of the surface are important, or subtlety that cannot be conveyed in print - the original painting is better.

However, when the artist isn't a skilled painter, or uses bright colors that look good printed, an artists work can look much better in print than it really is.

Even if a painting is culturally iconic and revered by (nearly) one and all... and is called "great art"... it is still possible not to care for the style, don't you think?

It looks like something any moderately talented artist could whip out in an afternoon, while toking and sniffing.

I may be totally wrong about this, but I thought I heard that Munch painted several versions of the painting that we (in the English speaking world) know as The Scream. The word, the title in his own language, had a different nuance vis a vis Nazi Germany sixty years ago.
Where's an art history student when we need her/him? Probably working at McDonalds.

Yes. there were at least four.

I guess I need to look up some links for all of us - whatever points of view we all start with, we could probably chew on new links.

Ah, never mind with IIIIIIII needing to look up links, we could all do this..

osso

Well, here's one.

Gives a plain overview of the situation when he painted.
http://www.huntfor.com/arthistory/C20th/expressionism.htm
I'm sure english is not the first language of the person who commented, but the site is a help.

Munch's Scream has Four versions - all painted in 1893. The original name is "Skriket."

According to the BBC

Cardboard? Good grief.

http://www.munch.museum.no/

I enjoy most of Munch's work. The Scream does seem to be a caricature of Munch's feellings about terror. I prefer his Anxiety, which seems a variant of Scream (or vice versa). His brushwork clearly does what he wants it to do. So much for technique.

Munch was a pioneer of expressionistic technique in letting the paint speak for itself. Naturally, there is a certain conscious control of the style of expressionism right up through Abstract Expressionism which it still alive a kicking. All that's lost is subject matter (other than what is abstracted by the brain). Actually, DeKooning was still subjective in his imagery and the titles of the paintings give them an anchor in reality. Most of Rauschenberg certainly has a conscious and subconscious objectivity, especially in his found objects (straight out of Duchamp).

It's the energy in the brushstrokes of "The Scream" that give it it's impact and unfortunatley nearly all the reproductions are not very good.

Munch painted what he saw: pain, fear, angst, and neruosis. But he was capable of painting great joy also. Many years ago The Dallas Museum of Fine Arts had a Munch exhibition, and above the portal connecting two galleries was a painting of the sun, one of the most joyful works of art I've ever seen.
http://www-pors.hit.no/~trondc/telesol.gif

just a point to add - it is the landscape that is screaming and the figure is caught up in it.

Like most of you I prefer the other work Osso showed (interesting thank you) but voted 'good' and like Portal would show it in a gallery but not my home, which i also like to be more tranquil.

That never occurred to me, that it was the landscape screaming, thanks, Vivien. That is clearer to me with the sky in Anxiety....

We have some work at the gallery now that is disturbing, a couple of ink drawings on child abuse that are part of a retrospective. Talk about not wanting something over the couch. But they are strong drawings (and no, not explicit) We were waiting for community complaints, but instead it has been one of the most successful shows in terms of people appreciating the woman's body of work, some portion of which is vibrant and accessible and not difficult, and there has been a lot of verbal support of her tougher work. Heh, no buyers for the tough stuff.

I might buy one sometime myself, as I like the strength. Where would I put it? You're talking to someone who has paintings on the staircase to the basement... not that I would put it there. I might clear a closet and make it an alcove... Or if I had funds and space, work up a rack, sort of like those where you can turn holders for paintings like pages..

Ah, well.

Coluber, I think that sun by Munch is wonderful.

Scream is a masterpiece, but I wouldn't hang it in my house.

Hey, welcome to a2k, Ladybelle....

I highly recommendthis online film about Munch's Frieze of Life, especially if you have a high-speed connection. It has several pertinent quotations by Munch including the oft-repeated: "We do not want to paint pretty pictures to be hung on drawing-room walls."

Scream
This is a perfect example of something taken out of context. Munch is expressing his feelings about 'modern art'. Cubism mostly I think. Even the Impressionists put the eyeballs in the right place. I don't think he had any Picasso's hanging on his wall.
The image of the scream has become a pop icon. That certainly wasn't Munch's intention. As an artistic work it has merit. But now it is simply the reverse pop symbol of The Happy Face. A regrettable loss to what was meant to be a social commentary.

I can understand social commentary, but this one has the merit of an editorial cartoon, in my view, and ought to have passed as quickly. I don't intend being cruelly harsh, just presenting my alternate vision.