Talk:The Scream

"...a symbol of modern man, finding no solitude."
Isn't "solitude" (ie, too much of it) part of modern man's problems? Is "solitude" an error for "solace"? Or do I just not get this painting? –Hjr 23:09, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Featured Article candidacy comments (not promoted)

The Scream

(Contested - July 11)

So far as I can see the contested portion (gray aliens) has been eliminated. So why not "de-contest" it? Ortolan88 18:50, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A very nice article about an important painting. We are not very strong on fine arts, and this may give us some momentum. Danny 19:58, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose for the moment. The "alien" section is a concern to me; it comes out of nowhere and has no context. Since this is quite a short article, such a peculiar reference must either be extremely important in the overall story, or should not be there at all. Denni☯ 21:04, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)
• Oppose. I hate to impose a length requirement, but this is awfully short for a featured article. maybe add a section on artists who influenced The Scream, or were influenced by it? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 22:00, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Very short, and the alien section is a little strange. I'm not sure if this can be fleshed out into a good feature article. I agree there should be more fine arts features, but not sure about this one. Satori 23:07, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
• Needs more stuff on the painting's iconic nature in popular culture. I used to have an inflatable 'Scream' on my monitor - David Gerard 23:40, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a good non-feature article, but lacks breadth. Should be expanded with discussion of the painting's influence on later art, its physical form, explanation of how the painting expresses the "infinite scream", ownership history, more complete analysis of the "grey alien" theory, comparison with other paintings. 195.167.169.36 11:19, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• On the pop culture bit: one specific thing to mention is that the painting was the inspiration for "Ghostface" the baddy in the Scream film trilogy. I would add this myself but I have a feeling that a more complete pop culture overview is coming! Pcb21| Pete 11:23, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Art theft

Oh, no – I've been stolen again!

The article mentions that there are at least two different version of 'The Scream'. Given that the thefts of 1994 (recovered) and 2004 were at different museums, does that imply that it was actually physically different paintings that were stolen on each occaision. -- Solipsist 12:24, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That's what I want to know. The article says The reproduced painting hangs in the Munch Museum, Oslo. - did the thieves really steal a reproduction? Evercat 12:50, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This article speaks of four different versions (all authentically done by EM); says that this one just stolen is not the same as the 1994 theft and is not the the most famous version (this one is tempera and pastel -- is the other one oils?). As for the reproduced painting hangs..., I take that as meaning the painting that is reproduced alongside in the article, but it's not terribly clear. "–Hajor 13:43, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK, I was the one that entered the fact that The Scream was stolen today, in the main article, even before BBC and bloody CNN reported this. There _are_ different versions of the painting (that Munch himself made). Calling them 'reproductons' is not correct. The one stolen today is _not_ the same as the one stolen in 1994. The one currently stolen is still irreplaceable and should be included in the main article. The one stolen in 1994 was made in 1893 and is Tempera and pastel on board, measuring 91 x 73.5 cm. The currently stolen painting was also made in 1893 and is Tempera on plate, measuring 83.5 x 66 cm. BTW: Here is a picture of the robbers running off with the pic: [1] -Antwelm 16:02, 2004 Aug 22 (UTC)

Oh, and if U want, U can always buy it: [[2]] -Antwelm 16:22, 2004 Aug 22 (UTC)

• Curious that the Mona Lisa was stolen on the same day back in 1911. Redjar 18:32, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

For the 2'nd time, someone has added this to the latest 'theft sentence':

"Nevertheless, museum officials expressed hope that they would see the painting again, theorizing that perhaps the thieves would seek ransom money."

This statement is speculation, and in my opinon, totally useless for the article, and should not be included. -Antwelm 15:46, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)

I agree it isn't up to Wikipedia to theorize, but if it was the museum, or indeed art experts that mentioned the possibility of it being ransomed (which I believe they have), then it is safe for the article to mention it, because the article would be reporting rather than theorizing. Mintguy (T) 15:54, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK, but it truly is a nonsense theory, its more like a _hope_ than anything else. Should we also 'report' the fact that witnesses have seen the thiefs maliciously handling the pictures? Or, that sources in the crim milieu reports that the theft was ordered by a foreign art-dealer? Both these theories would qualify as _less_ speculations than the hope of the museum official quoted... -Antwelm 06:28, 2004 Aug 26 (UTC)

I don't see why you think it's a "nonsense theory". When the other version of the painting was stolen, an attempt was made to ransom it back. When a Vermeer, three Rembrandts, and a Manet were stolen from the Gardner Museum in Boston in 1990, an attempt was made to ransom them back. As I understand it such ransom demands are not at all uncommon when high-profile works of art are stolen. Mintguy (T) 11:53, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

'Nonsense' as in 'does not contribute to the subject in the article'. As I said before, it portrays a _hope_ more than any fact related to the matter. Yes, some Artnappings have occured, but there are way to many examples where this is not the case. The theory, and the repeated occurence of ransom-for-art fits better in Art_theft than here. -Antwelm 03:42, 2004 Aug 27 (UTC)

Yes but it is not stating as _fact_ that it will be ransomed, but rather stating as _fact_ that "museum officials expressed hope" that it will be ransomed. There is a quite clear distinction. Mintguy (T) 09:35, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

alien

I'm not too crazy about the "grey alien" theory, so I put in another possible, and methinks more likely, source for the pose [3]. While I can't find a picture of the exact mummy on the internet, I did see a picture of it years ago (on one of those PBS art shows) and it was striking in its similarity to the face in the Scream. (See Occam's Razor.) Antandrus 17:05, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanx for the contribution (if it is correct that is). I was in the prosess of refuting the 'alien' theory from the article myself. This addition makes for less POV and seems to contribute to more firmness. -Antwelm 17:25, 2004 Aug 22 (UTC)

That's good, but it would be better to move both to a subsection. The similarity to 'grey aliens' is worth mentioning, but at the moment it has too much emphasis and distorts the article POV. I remember being impressed by a similar connection when I first saw Henri Gaudier-Brzeska's The Imp [4]. Some would say actual greys influenced both works, but the more likely influence is African primitive sculpture popular in ethnographic exhibitions at the start of the 20th century. In turn these sorts of images are what defined the popular science fiction iconography of aliens. -- Solipsist 18:40, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Interesting! Thanks for the link to The Imp. I may change the subsection in the article if I can dig up some more info on the Paris exhibition Munch went to (I know he wrote about it, I just don't have the info here). Maybe moving the "grey alien" nearer to the end of the article would improve the (N)POV. Antandrus 21:45, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree, go ahead. The 'theory paragraph' should at be moved to a section further down anyway. Happy hunting -Antwelm 05:22, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC)

IMHO that alien nonsense has no place in a serious article on modern art. Karl Stas 11:10, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As I said before (17:25, 2004 Aug 22), I do not either think the 'alien sentence' should be there. One more person agreeing with this and the sentence should defenately be removed. -Antwelm 03:21, 2004 Aug 27 (UTC)

PS: Just noticed the discussion on the top of this discussion page. Several there does not want the 'alien bit' in. I recon its safe for anyone to remove now. -Antwelm 03:53, 2004 Aug 27 (UTC)

I've removed the entire "some theorists" bit

Some theorists liken the look of the screamer to that of a grey alien, claiming Munch was painting a close encounter he had experienced, while others use this theory to state simply that Munch was mentally unstable and therefore others who report encounters with similar beings were as well. A possibly more likely explanation for the image is that Munch was reproducing the face of a Peruvian mummy he had recently seen at an exhibition in Paris [5]. The mummy had its hands alongside its face, similar to the position of the figure in the painting.

If the unnamed "theorist" is a Wikipedian, it's not noteworthy enough to be in the article; if the "theorist" is an art critic, we need to name him: that is, the theory must be attributed (goes for mummy and alien theory both, though it's more likely the former is actually a real theory). - Nunh-huh 05:44, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think the mummy theory deserves mentioning (see below), although I don't know which art historian came up with it. Karl Stas 09:48, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mummy

It is highly probable that Munch saw a Peruvian mummy at the Trocadéro ethnographic museum or at the 1889 Universal Exposition in Paris (sources diverge on this point). The mummy was crouching in fetal position with its hands clasped around its face. The same mummy stood model for the figure at the left of Paul Gauguin's painting D'où venons-nous? Que faisons-nous? Où allons-nous? (Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where Are We Going?) and for the central figure in his painting Les misères humaines (Vendanges à Arles) [6]. Munch met Gauguin in Paris and was influenced by him. Karl Stas 09:51, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Picture of such a Mummy: http://www.aftenposten.no/multimedia/archive/00222/_scream_zoom_jpg_222069h.jpg

There is also an article in this newspaper (although in Norwegian) which elaborate on this theory, mentioning names, dates, places and the possibility of finding out for sure (searching letters)(http://www.aftenposten.no/viten/article869292.ece). -Antwelm 15:22, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I found an English version of the article on Discovery Channel and integrated the information in the article. - Karl Stas 18:09, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good work :) -Antwelm 18:37, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

Pop culture

There should be some pop culture references. The only thing I can thing of at the moment though is the Dame Edna Everage dress [7]. There's probably a better link around somewhere. Mintguy (T)

There is also the story of Robert Fishbone, an American entrepreneur who made a fortune out of inflatable Scream dolls (gasp!). [8] Karl Stas 10:36, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Pop artists Andy Warhol and Erró made works after Munch's Scream. [9] Karl Stas 10:49, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The ad campaing for Home Alone (1990) showed child actor Macaulay Culkin in a Munchian pose. And the crazy killer in Wes Craven's horror movie Scream (1996) wears a Halloween mask inspired by the painting. Karl Stas 11:12, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The fact that he took the figure out of its context (the landscape) obviously demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of Munch's work —although that doesn't seem to bother the people who are buying his gadgets.

This doesnt seem very NPOV. Maybe we should rephrase this. Deepak 19:00, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I wanted to stress that the unity figure/landscape is essential to the painting (as stated earlier in the article); by cutting out the figure, Fishborne devoided the work of its meaning and expressive power, thereby banalizing it to the level of Disney merchandise. Karl Stas 20:58, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I agree totally with your views about Fishbourne. However this is an opinion, and we need to phrase it so that it is stated as such. For eg. "Many have observed that in doing so he has taken the figure out of its context (the landscape) demonstrating a lack of understanding of Munch's work -- although this doesn't seem to bother his buyers." Deepak 23:39, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Images and captions

Three different images, of essentially the same painting? Isnt that overkill? And whatever happened to the caption I added. It's been taken down for no apparent reason. If you're going to be editing captions please look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Writing Captions first. Deepak 13:42, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't find it overkill since they are three different versions, don't know about the last one, but the other two are entirely Munch works. You can probably find out what happened to your caption in the edit history. --Dittaeva 14:29, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, ok there are 3 versions, but surely its not necessary to show all 3 of them in a row. As a matter of style, it looks very un-ecyclopaedic. I suggest a compromise - one of the paintings and a lithograph. Deepak 03:33, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Isn't one of the advantages of an online encyclopaedia precisely that you can include more images? The three images constitute a meaningful complement to the text. We definitely should keep the two paintings (the National Gallery version is the most famous; the Munch Museum version was stolen recently). The lithograph is of interest too (see text). I am even tempted to include one of Warhol's versions. [10] - Karl Stas 13:24, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I changed (shortened) the captions. It was important to mention which version was shown (National Gallery/Munch Museum). However well worded, there wasn't anything in your caption text that wasn't already in the article itself. I don't see the need for long, descriptive captions. The three images aren't overkill: these are the three best-known versions of the work, all originals by Munch himself. If you read the article in its current state, you'll understand why all three images are relevant. Karl Stas 15:47, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Captions and Wikipedia:WikiProject Writing Captions. The idea of the image caption is not just to give additional information, but to draw a reader who just glances at the article into reading the whole thing, giving context and adding depth. It should at least have one active sentence. Deepak 03:33, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You can restore the caption if you like, but that won't reduce the clutter of course. Karl Stas 13:24, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The caption issue aside, having three pictures is not overkill. The three are very different! I hadn't realised there were separate versions prior to this theft -- I honestly thought the differences were due to cheap & nasty printing techniques and lack of attention to detail on the part of t-shirt makers and mouse-pad brokers. If we could get jpgs of the other two versions, I'd vote for their inclusion here, too. –Hajor 04:02, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have redone the images and captions, and moved the thefts section above the popular culture section. I hope we will all find this acceptable as well as stylistically pleasingly. Please review. Deepak 18:55, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

"Regarded by many as his most important work, it symbolises modern man taken by an attack of existential angst."

It isn't that accurate. Existentialism didn't exist until the 20th century; to describe The Scream in these terms is to describe something 19th century in overtly 20th century perspective. Mandel 07:44, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

Existentialism goes back at least to Kierkegaard, in the mid 19th century, although it achieved vast popularity only at the time of Sartre. I'm sure Munch would have heard of it. Deepak 13:18, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Edvards state of mind"

I removed the following because it didn't add anything:

The image depicts Edvards state of mind, the pressures of society and how terrible it is to have a mind. It symbolizes the inner frustration, anger, and "the scream" that is within us all. It symbolizes what we cannot understand, and "the scream" we get from it.

Ortolan88 16:43, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ghostly Monk image

An anon user has twice added the image Image:Ghostly_monk.jpg which recently has mostly been used in April Fools pranks. -- Solipsist 20:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

moved from User talk:Solipsist, unsigned but added by User:Jcrocker 21:00, 25 Apr 2005

IMO: the edit to "The Scream" page is not vandalism, nor was it intended to be. I believe it to be relevant considering the 'photograph' is similar, if not identical, to the painting. In fact, this knowledge of their similarity may help prove the photo was faked.

Well sorry to suggest it might be vandalism, but I would agree with User:Jonnabuz who also removed the image, that it is not an image that is particularly relevant to this article. The symbolism of an open, moaning mouth has long been associated with ghosts. But it derives from the Christian view of the tourment of a soul in purgatory, and I would suggest that is a completely separate strand of iconography - related to Scream (movie), but not the angst of The Scream (painting). -- Solipsist 20:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, hard for me to argue with your opinion. I have linked to the ghost picture in the see also section. Is this fair enough? Personally I find it more than coincidence, the similarity between the face (and that mask from the movie) and the photograph too strange. J. Crocker 20:40, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

scream mask

hey I suggest someone uploads an image of the halloween mask fron the film since the mask also has a role in pop culture during halloween the mask is sold in many places where halloween costumes are and "ghostface" is a somewhat popular character to be, so if we do this it will relevant to the part of the article discussing the painting's role in popular culture