August 31, 2006
-
The Scream
The piece of art called “The Scream” has been recovered. It was stolen 2 years ago. Today, the news media is excited about the recovery.
As I looked at the painting, I asked myself “How can that painting be worth millions?” It is being called a masterpiece but I think I can take my son’s finger paints and do the same.
Should this painting be called a masterpiece?
Comments (212)
first again
i guess? doesn’t look like it
i wouldnt buy it for millions
THIRD!!
my puppy dog could do better than that.
I personally don’t think so.
but then again, i could never paint like that so it would be a masterpiece compared to what i can do
lol okay .. idk if it should be called a masterpiece, but it’s one of my favorite paintings.
no.
i mean it’s okay. but not worth millions of dollars. and i’ve certainly seen better.
it just doesnt show me that the artist had that much talent. shrug.
Um…as much a masterpiece as I’m an emo. Just look at my profile picture. I would suck at being an emo.
Thus, that painting really sucks at being a materpiece.
i doubt you’ll be offended, but that’s a foolish thought. that’s like suggesting “nighthawks” is boring because nothing is happening. the painting has infinite meaning.
sure
No, I’ve never thought it was all that great.
Yes, I think so. The artist has consistant talent and a style that causes him to stand out and be distinctive. Besides, it isn’t always about the painting itself but the meaning behind it.
It’s definitely a “piece” alright! Lol. Rich fuckers don’t know what to spend their money on.
lol ive seen 2 yr olds paint better. it would rock if i could make a crappy paintjob and get millions off of it
Dude, no, that painting is amazing. If I had millions, I would consider buying it. I love the bleakness… and just… it’s astounding. I love it.
I had the exact same thought. Those artsy fartsy people will buy anything. I also think many of the “artist” who are acclaimed are a joke. One such is Pablo Picasso. A two year old can paint the crap he painted. LOL
ugh
it doesn’t appeal to me very much.
but i see that the moral of stealin it was wrong
=)
Yes.
no
21st comment!!!heh heh… a rare honor..
I think we could all do the same as well.
Hello no, anyone could have made this painting! Plus its terribly ugly!!
I hate people who think art is always supposed to look beautiful like landscapes and stuff.
plus people buy snotty tissues from micheal jackson on ebay.it’s because its so famous.
but i would still buy it.
I mean, if you really look at it, the colors looking like they blend together but really they’re all very separate, and the way the figure looks like a ghost or a man, like his soul is being ripped out… it’s so prevocative.
ok that was suppose to be hell no not hello…
I am amazed at what some call “ART”… in the Fine Arts Museum of Virginia located in Richmond there is a “piece” that consists of four easels – one painted blue, one yellow, one red, and one green. That’s it. That’s the entire “piece” of “ART”. Perhaps I’m not artsy enough to get it but how is something like that considered art?
that’s the picture that’s on my mousepad!
no, it shouldn’t be called a masterpiece; it doesn’t take a great artist to do that.
hang your son’s fingerpaints up in a museum long enough, and it will be considered priceless one day too.
i bet you 100 bucks u cant do something that good, thats skill
and no that should not be considered a masterpiece….
I could do that picture easy as cake…
I think that it is a masterpiece because it was revolutionary in the methods used. “The Scream” is a prime example of expressionism. You can see emotion in the face and the shear terror. To understand the piece of art in question, it is also helpful to know that it was painted around the same time as WWI, the war to end all wars. I think that it displays what many felt in Europe during the great war. For these reasons, I believe it is a masterpiece.
”
hang your son’s fingerpaints up in a museum long enough, and it will be considered priceless one day too.” — i totally agree except i dont have a son =)
Not really, but then I don’t think art should ever really be worth millions…
…especially most modern art, “WOW!!! Look at those squares of color. I can sense the artists feeling here….”
The only exception is when it is art from the Rennaissance or something like that.
i love that painting. maybe if some people would loosen up a bit and REALLY look at it.
they might find something.
have an open mind.
to me a painting isnt crap anyone can paint but to me real art is videogames it takes actual skill and talent to do those like halo 2 and runescape countless hours of programing art adn effects now if paintings were more like videogames thats another story
Van Gogh was amazing.
Yeah…it’s kind of freaky, but it’s really popular, first of all, and the way he painted it…well, it stirs something in the imagination…who was this person, why are they screaming…what’s going on? It makes you think.
Yes, the painting is a masterpiece.
Now the painting you show is just a copy/reproduction of the original.
The real one, that Edvard Munch painted, looks a lot better. Psh.
They got it back? Excellent!
I consider it art. It is powerful and gives strong emotions, which is part of how art should be defined.
-Guru on the Hill
yeah, it should be a masterperice b/c a famous artisit drew it!!! and it’s really cool and i would by it if i had 4,000,000 dollors …lol…
ryan
Definate masterpiece.
Honestly, I love the painting… but I don’t have millions of dollars to throw around.
Yes, it is definitely a masterpiece.
Yeah, you could do that, but then you would just be copying it.
The genius comes in creating it the first time.
no
Sure, but like a lot of people said, I wouldn’t want to pay millions for it.
that thing scares the hell out of me
Yes, it should be called a masterpiece.
I love van gogh’s work though!
I think lots of things are masterpieces that most people wouldn’t. No piece of art should be worth millions. No amount of currency should purchase art.
the idea of the painting, the colors, the detail, it is intricate. from an artist’s persceptive, I can say it deserves more credit than most give it.
So Dan, I guess you’re not the artistic type, then.
Of course it’s a masterpiece, of course it’s worth millions, as it should. One could be surprised of the effort it takes to create such a painting. There’s more than meets the eye.
hah, it’s cool but it looks kinda retarded in my opinion..
I am no art expert. I expect one would know…
Yep.
Either way, that thing scares the shit out of me
i think it’s a masterpiece. i think many works of art are masterpieces. except abstract art. anyone can do that. Angelica on Rugrats did that one episode haha.
this painting is the inner soul of the person who painted it. even if it doesn’t look like anything, it doesn’t mean it isn’t a masterpiece. u try to make something so meaningful.
(i am being totally sarcastic^, i’m telling you b/c u can’t hear the tone of my voice)
i guess there’s a hidden meaning in there that’s worth millions…?
People like The Scream because it reminds them of their lives of quiet desperation with the scream on the inside… there is a cure for the scream, though… someone to replace the scream with the shouts of joy… the Prince of Peace of course…
Art is so subjective.
its ok
It’s never struck me any particular way… but hey, what do I know about art?
I personally could care less. I’m sure people out there think it’s worth millions. I myself would rather buy a Monet. But that’s just me.
absolutely!!
actually, I love it. Definitely masterpiece-worthy in my book
yes. it’s brilliant.
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dear Lord,
Please forgive Dan, for he knows not the difference between masterpieces and fingerpaints… and thank you for Hummus.
Amen.
Ehh.. to the people who think this is easy…it’s actually quite difficult to paint something like that…I tried, quite a few times. Before you judge any art, let it be paintings or sculptures or anything, I suggest you try to make it. They look easy because talented artists make them look easy. As a metalsmith, that’s what we do; fool you into assuming you can do it easily in a few hours.
I suppose it’s a masterpiece because the critics tell us it is… I personally don’t like it just because my favorite art forms are realism and art deco.
Art is defined as whatever is beautiful and appealing or of more than ordinary standards according to aesthetic principals. Aesthetics is whatever is beautiful and appeals to the emotions and/or senses as opposed to the intellect.
Therefore, simply because I personally do not see beauty in the picture (beyond the color scheme) does not make it art. Whether or not it is a masterpiece (a consummate example of skill or excellence) is another story.
People don’t understand what art is. Art is not the ablitiy with which someone can replicate something, no matter how realistically. And it is also not the amount of detail or realism that is in the piece. Art is more about the mood the piece conveys, the meaning behind it, and how people think and feel when they see it. This piece in particular is not my kind of art, but it is exceptionally talented nonetheless.
-Jared
I think it has something to do with being original and the meaning behind it, I can appreciate art even if I don’t care for it. (I think Mona Lisa is the ugliest painting ever) but I know why it’s all high and mighty. Haha.
It takes a lot of talent to put that much emotion onto a canvas. Anyone who doesn’t think it is art…Quite simply doesn’t know what art is.
Even if it seems to be total crap at first glance… if something that is truly unextraordinary can cause a commotion among the media, then that itself is an extraordinary thing. That’s got to count for something.
My vote? It is a masterpiece. Not of art, but of sensationalism, with the media actually making people care about what does indeed seem to be a fairly talentless doodle.
And to people who contend that I don’t know what art is because I don’t appreciate this work: true art should deeply move all its viewers. If it doesn’t, then it isn’t true art.
yes really look at it and u feel the emotion with the painting
beauty is in the eye of the beholder.. and something only costs as much as someone is willing to pay for it.
Work of art?…. *shrugs* I wouldn’t put it on my wall.
I tend to think that whenever an artist tears a piece of him or herself out and puts it on canvas, it’s a masterpiece. I may not like all of what I see, but that doesn’t change the fact that whoever created it had a message to send and took a piece of the chaos and emotion in their mind, concentrated it, and poured it into the world. Not all drawings or paintings are artworks, but all true artworks are masterpieces, in my mind.
I would buy it for a million dollars. Not that I have a million dollars.
Eh… I don’t know about this painting… it isn’t that great, but, I guess it’s ok. Now, what makes me mad is when you go to a museum and you see these pictures that are like, big colored squares… that’s it… and they’re famous! That’s rediculous to me, I mean, seriously, anyone could do that… if anyone could clarify why painting different colored squares would deserve fame and fortune, then please do, I tend to be a bit ignorant sometimes
But… it’s just like anything in the art world… I mean think about it… there are plenty of bands that have been put together that are just local and can really play, but how many of them actually make it big? I think it’s a matter of luck and/or money, really.
God Bless,
Chris
I wouldn’t spend millions on any sort of painting, I don’t care HOW rich I am..
The painting has meaning, it’s not really about the beauty of the art.. it’s about the idiosyncratic style of the painting.
whatever floats your boat..
hey, look at it this way, it could be a get rich quick scheme – get our dogs & kids to finger paint a “masterpeice” & then make millions! yipee!
yes because I find it humorous
I like it. I think it captures something…but I can’t say what.
Masterpiece, yes…probably. Pay millions for it? No. At least not me personally.
It’s a classic of world art. If anyone here thinks that by diddling away with their fingerpaints they can come close to “The Scream”, let them try. No doubt I’ll read all about it when the latest art history books are published…
Whatever. As long as I get to wipe my ass when I sit up from the toiley-woiley with somethin’ nice lookin, art is good by me.
What was the question again…?
a masterpiece is in the eye of the beholder, so while i may think that is the most awsomest art i have ever seen, the person sitting next to me might think its trash. i personally like it, but whatever
wow, have ppl finaly saw it, it took me 2 years ahead before i saw it on paper to see art. why is art so high in status. kuz we said so. if i drew a can of soda in a crude way would it be considered art.
maybe a can of Vault or Faygo
art should be judged within context:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scream
perhaps it’s better if you can give us a definition of what ART should be.
Yes. There are lots of stuffy reasons that I won’t bore you with…but it is definitely good art.
Yes!!
yes, it is.
Maybe it’s the meaning behind it.. I dont think it’s that great.. but then again.. what do I know!?
Just because its not art or beautiful in your eyes.. its beautiful in a lot of others eyes, and the artist eyes. How dare people judge it from the appeal of it. Im disappointed.
<3Jack!e
perhaps it’s better if you can give us a definition of what ART should be.
Posted 8/31/2006 at 6:48 PM by saximaphonian
what is art you say, its an expression put into print, music, or poetry or even a story.
but think about it, i draw or write plenty of art. and i express my feelings into the drawing or the song and ppl i show it to just shrug it off.
i guess it has to be popular to be art;)
Personally I really like it. A masterpiece? I don’t know, I can’t judge art.
No.
Art is not about being beautiful in the same way every time. Perhaps art isn’t worth what a lot of rich people pay for it, but that doesn’t mean it is or isn’t a “masterpiece”. I think this piece (the actual one, not this poor replication of it) is a really cool looking piece. Is it a masterpiece? Not in my opinion, but it is pretty intriguing and looks good. And anyway, determining a “masterpiece” can never be factual but only opinionated.
As a response to someone’s comment: “One such is Pablo Picasso. A two year old can paint the crap he painted”
Actually, he was one of the first people to step out of the box and revolutionize the artistic world. Before Picasso, there were all these bland landscapes that all looked about the same. Before Picasso, no one even thought about painting things like him; and even if someone did, perhaps they were a child, no one would have recognized the fact that it doesn’t have to be pretty and very realistic/detailed to be considered art, or to be considered great. Picasso shows a different perspective.
“Art” is meant to convey a message. And if you can’t see or understand that message, then perhaps you weren’t the target audience. That doesn’t mean it isn’t good. That doesn’t mean it isn’t art. It just means that piece isn’t for you.
Art is NOT meant to all look the same. It is not meant to be perfect. And its relevance, greatness, or importance cannot be factually determined. Art is individual and opinion-based. Art can not be properly judged and labeled. Regardless of whether you label art as “art” or “crap”…Art…is.
Since when is an art’s worth being calculated in money? And perhpas if it was painted today it would not have been worth as much. But consider the time period, Consider that they did not have photo shop. Consider the context. I mean these people invented styles. One woman said her two year old could paint pablo picasso. Maybe so, but had there never been a Picasso to invent that style, her two year old would never be able to paint a mere facsimile
Art is NOT meant to all look the same. It is not meant to be perfect. And its relevance, greatness, or importance cannot be factually determined. Art is individual and opinion-based. Art can not be properly judged and labeled. Regardless of whether you label art as “art” or “crap”…Art…is.
Posted 8/31/2006 at 7:15 PM by harliequin
this chick is freakin’ awsome.
Just goes to show, it’s all about the name, not the talent behind the name.
Yes, I think so. Most people think art like that is like fingure painting but it’s just another person’s way of expressing their feelings.
It seems interesting. I doubt I’d ever call a piece of art a “masterpiece,” but I do recognise good painting. I really like, “Nighthawks,” for example. Still, no “masterpiece.”
I like it. I’ll bet most people don’t know off the top of the head who painted it, though I’m sure they all know the painting.
That should be your next question. “Off the top of your head, who painted “The Scream” ?”. The answer is Edvard Munch, but hardly anyone knows that.
nah
And how can a house cost over $100,000? Location, location, location!
art isn’t about perfection, thats what cameras are for.
art isn’t about perfection, thats what cameras are for.
Posted 8/31/2006 at 7:24 PM by EZsax07
indeed
You say you could take your sons finger paints and do the same thing.. but did you?
it isn’t just about the painting.. it is about how artists were learning to do different things and what it meant for that time in history.
but that is just my opinion….
shrugs…Andy Warhol slapped a bunch of tomato soup labels together…..it’s taking up space at the Albright Knox art gallery.
yes absolutely.
how can one define art?
maybe it’s what is hidden in the painting that is what makes it most valuable. maybe people who major in art history could tell you what eludes from it. & maybe the artist eludes some sort of emotion that is captured in this painting?
sometimes things aren’t worth what they are… this painting and athletes/celebrities/socialites.
Some of these answers are funny. Saying “no it isn’t because it isn’t pretty” is ridiculous. A painting, a poem, or a book does not have to be beautiful and happy in order to convey deep meaning and emotion. I mean…I find emotion-based pieces much more intruguing and more artistic than what others would consider “high art”. Religious paintings of the Middle Ages and of the early 1400′s and 1500′s (though very asthetically beautiful and having taken painstakingly long to produce) are hollow. Bland. Drawn and painted and sculpted because someone asked the artist to do so, not because said artist wanted to create what they wanted. I find nothing artistic about them, except for the fact that they are “pretty” paintings and the artists were indeed talented.
Before you judge, go back to the source. Art is ten times more about the emotion conveyed than whether or not something is “pretty” or (in my opinion) boring and cookie-cutter esque.
And I am just LAUGHING my ass off at all the idiots who think this was painted by Van Gogh. Dear god.
This is why you are not an artist, Dan.
I forgot to add that art is also about being unique. Old paintings bore me because they are all the same. Same portraits. Same landscapes. Same religious imagery. Real artists are creative and don’t just imitate some reguritated rubbish.
I happen to like it as well…not enough to hand over millions just to be able to see it on my wall everyday, but then again I don’t have spare millions just laying around, you know? Maybe I’d feel differently if I had a larger disposable income…
Art’s just one of those things; either you “get it” and you can appreciate it, or you don’t and you can’t. And there’s no right or wrong answer.
One of dictionary’s definitions of “masterpiece” is this: “a person’s greatest piece of work”. Since I don’t know of anything else that Mr. Munch produced, I’d say there’s an excellent chance that this was his masterpiece and deserves to be called such.
hmmm i think its very unique…
To each his own.
I like it but masterpiece……don’t know. Speaking of masterpieces, what’s with Tom Cruise having his daughter’s first stool bronzed and then it will be auctioned?????? That’s just looney!!!
Um no, but that’s because I can’t draw or paint or do anything remotely artsy. I guess I just don’t understand the mind of an artist
All artists (including actors, singers, performance artists, etc) are different in that they can complete something different from the rest. I think the painting is amazing and it has been one of my favorites for a long time. The great thing about art is that we all interpret it differently. For instance, if we’re taking actors, I don’t think Keanu Reeves could act his way out of a wet paper bag but there are those that think he is really good. I love John Lennon but if someone like him tried out for American Idol, he’d never make it past the first auditions. It’s all about different tastes for different people. I love this artist but I don’t get Piccaso. We all see, hear, interpret and feel different things.
yes.
Correction, Reeves couldn’t act his way out of a wet paper bag.
There are worse “masterpieces.” I actually like this one.
I don’t think it should be worth millions. My cat could do that. It looks sorta freaky, too.
I like that one.
Most of them.. haha, I hate them. So no.
I should be called a masterpiece
its the artist name and age of the painting that’s worth millions
that and the fact that theres alot of mystery behind that painting…
but still personaly I dont think its worth millions either…
I do like the painting though
It’s definitely a masterpiece.
i dunno about being worth millions of dollars
but it IS a masterpiece
Artists become famous for doing something origional. They generally begin with realism, master it, and then venture off into their own visions. This piece is beautiful.
I’ve seen that painting everywhere. I never could see the point, or why it was everywhere.
I love that painting!
uh……YES!
I think it s ugly, but thats just me.
wow, if i type in here, will anyone even notice. LOL.
does anyone even discuss anything anymore other than yes, no, and i dont understand.
/
/
(exempt the few are smart enough to actualy type something other than above.)
Try it. Seriously, take out your son’s fingerpaints and try it.
I know the felling. I guess it takes a master to understand.
I love this painting. I have a print of Munch’s SCREAM on my wall. I used it in my classroom in years past. I told the kids thats how I feel when they give me a hard time LOL.
Yes, definintely!
It depends: (1) Is the artist deceased? (2) Have you seen better artwork by unknown artists? (3) Was it painted about a hundred years ago? (4) If this painting were to somehow be destroyed, would the world be worse off because of it? (5) Did you look at the painting with your neck bent to either side or while being up-side-down? If either yes or no was your answer to more than one but less than five and a half, then it probably is a masterpiece or should be.
Yes!!! Edvard Munch. I love it.
There was this painting in 1960 (I don’t recall the name) it was one big black square. Now that… is debatable.
yes. although art is a very controversial subject… it is all based on opinions. but i agree that this painting has a lot of meaning to it, and is a lot better than you could do with your son’s fingerpaints. honestly.
i really really like it. i wouldn’t buy any piece of art for millions of dollars, but i really like that piece.
I love it.
idk I just like anything that I think looks cool! I don’t call stuff masterpieces except in a joking manner.
why would someone steal that?
I think it’s a great painting, but I can’t see spending that kind of money on it. A lot of it is about the artist too, as I think someone already said. If the artist makes a breakthrough in the way art is veiwed and accepted, a napkin he doodles on is worth a lot.
you think you could do this painting? Well, will you try? I think many of us think we could do just as well to create abstractish art, but how many of us do, and will, and would actually produce a gallery quality piece? I think this often myself, but I have never bought canvas and paint and actually made a piece. I have done much with my own photography, but original painting, not yet really tried.
Well, when you have an opening, let me know.
that painting is amazing. end of story.
actually, i love it.
most definitely.
Sure why not? I think the art world is the first proof that man is digressing. Pretty soon modern day stick characters in caves will increase property values.
it’s art… and art is always worth what some one is willing to pay…. van goughs sunflowers is very 3rd grade… but yet… I think you have to be a art person to find value and beauty in things like this
not a masterpiece by any standards, but in my opinion, it IS a pretty spiffy looking painting. i mean, i kinda like it, but id pay NO more than about $500 for it.
u have to be an ‘artist’ (pronounced arteest) before you can make money. how that happens i do noot know
I also think many of the “artist” who are acclaimed are a joke. One such is Pablo Picasso. A two year old can paint the crap he painted. LOL
Posted 8/31/2006 at 5:35 PM by lead_mare
Pablo Picasso studied traditional painting for many years until he pursued his own direction. If you take a look at the work he did during his teenage years, you will see nothing but Realism. Cubism explored space in a way that could not have been possible in traditional painting.
Cubism also has its place in photography, which was an art form that was not accepted by the general public for many generations.
Art is not a one-way street. It is a constant interaction between the artist, the art, and the audience. The audience might discriminate, judge artificially, or ignore a piece of art that deserves more time. The artist, on the other hand, spends more time on a piece of artwork than the audience can ever return.
This is artwork because that interaction is present.
Yes. Absolutely.
Nice colorful painting but worth millions, It would only be worth that if they painer was famous.
Hmm, I like it, but, well… I don’t know anything about art. I wonder who is the judge of this kinda thing?
YES YES YES
try looking up expressionism in the dictionary
I wouldn’t buy it. Or hang it in my house. Or do anything other than burn it (oil paint burns really nice).
not sure, really I think some aintings you just have to see in person to decide. however, the mere fame of the painting makes it worth millions.
Yes! The painting speaks volumes.
yes, it’s worth millions.
what many people don’t understand about modern art is that the artist has the ability to paint like the renaissance artists or the impressionists; it’s simply that they are trying a new style of art that conveys something more.
i dare any of you to try to create something like that
Some, no. This, yes.
I think it is very expressive and it’s expression is one of helplessness and confusion,I do not particularly like it but I think it what art is about ,expressing ones self.
I’m confused because I saw the stories this morning, but I looked back at msnbc.com just now and couldn’t find ANYTHING on the recovery. how odd is that? or maybe I’m just blind.
Meh.
All this abstract symbolism and shit. Whatever.
I find the term masterpiece in general a little problematic. On the other hand it disturbs me how easily people will dismiss a piece of art without knowing anything about its maker, its time period, or its intended audience. Pause and think a while before forming an opinion. Art is a visual language, but if you don’t speak the language fluently it can take a bit to decipher. Sometimes you even need to reference a book to figure it out (and not necissarily an art history book). If you are having abdominal pains do you just guess at what is causing the pain or do you reference other resources to help you figure it out? (perhaps a medical encyclopedia or a doctor).
yes. i love that painting, actually. besides, nothing is universally popular, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be considered a masterpiece.
what makes a painting a masterpiece?? i mean it’s good and all but what makes it stand out and others not?
obviously you don’t know how to appreciate art and the meaning behind it, and the work put behind it.
i’m pretty sure a child’s finger paints will NEVER amount to this.
Yes, it’s very evocative. You say you could paint that but really – would you a) come up with the idea if you hadn’t seen this painting and b) render it so convincingly? I don’t think so. But why don’t you get out your son’s finger paints and prove me wrong.
Probably not.
Do the same with your son’s finger paints first, then we can say whether it should be a masterpiece or not.
hey…some of the pieces being paraded at the Met are like a red piece of square on white canvas, so comparably this is pure genius
This is definitely one of my faves. Anyone with talent could probably reproduce it. But if you want to know an artist I just don;t understand, try Jackson Pollock.
I don’t know, but it has always creeped me out..
I’m not an art-buff so I have no clue what qualifies as a masterpiece
that being said I can think of other artists’ work I prefer
I think its a love it or hate it piece; absolutely no middle ground. i like it, but i don’t have a million bucks to spend on anything.
Yes, I think so. Sure, looking at it you could recreate it with your son’s finger paints, but at the time this painting was made, it was like nothing anyone had ever seen before.
There’s more to a painting than paint on a canvas.
yes.
it was unlike anything else being created at the time.
beauty is in the eye of the beholder – i think it’s brilliant.
glad to hear it has been recovered. it was a sad day when it was stolen.
I like it and I would not be able to create it, so it must be good.
yes, it should be considered a masterpiece. all the swirls and different colors cannot be matched. it is absolutely incredible.
i think its an original
I see very little in this painting. It doesn’t impress me.
Although Munch isn’t one of my favorites, I definitely believe that “The Scream” is a masterpiece. It’s incredibly chilling and unsettling, and expresses so much anguish through color and line- not something that is easily done.
Here’s something I’ve always found interesting about this painting, Munch’s inspiration for the scream: “I was walking along a path with two friends – the sun was setting – suddenly the sky turned blood red – I paused, feeling exhausted, and leaned on the fence – there was blood and tongues of fire above the blue-black fjord and the city – my friends walked on, and I stood there trembling with anxiety – and I sensed an infinite scream passing through nature”. I don’t know about you, but I think he did a pretty good job expressing this.
asking this question is the same as asking why jessica simpson is so famous.
maybe we all should paint somethine of our own, wait till we’re dead and see if we become famous. worked for picasso.
^^btw, hehe. this is also kinda the same question why you’re being featured. [sarcasm].
Art becomes art only after it manages to give the veiwer a new emotion…so the question is, does that give off any emotions? And then you will know whether it is a masterpeice or not
that painting is priceless; and rocks!!!
I think so – but then, I’ve always had a soft spot for this particular painting.
MANY paintings aren’t very good looking. But I think that this one is pretty good.
Yeah
I bought this Poster in the Mall for my Daughter ( she is 18), This poster represents her- the screamer, there is always something for her to scream about… I thought it was painted by Monet- But I was wrong, Im Not so sure its a ‘classic’ but it sure is entertaining.. also creepy in an odd way, and that looks like an alien…
So what was the question ?
LOL
NO
It is a masterpiece. It resembles fear itself. See the people in the back? See the colors fading in and out, confusing the afraid? See how the people are behind the screamer?
It’s so much deeper than the close-thinkers see it.
“Although Munch isn’t one of my favorites, I definitely believe that “The Scream” is a masterpiece. It’s incredibly chilling and unsettling, and expresses so much anguish through color and line- not something that is easily done.
Here’s something I’ve always found interesting about this painting, Munch’s inspiration for the scream: “I was walking along a path with two friends – the sun was setting – suddenly the sky turned blood red – I paused, feeling exhausted, and leaned on the fence – there was blood and tongues of fire above the blue-black fjord and the city – my friends walked on, and I stood there trembling with anxiety – and I sensed an infinite scream passing through nature”. I don’t know about you, but I think he did a pretty good job expressing this.”
It is like a simple song your son in the junior high band might play. Simple, not very good artwork at all, but the tune is erie (sp?) and scary and evil.
Art becomes art only after it manages to give the veiwer a new emotion…so the question is, does that give off any emotions? And then you will know whether it is a masterpeice or not
It is the same with music.
Umm……..idk. I guess. I mean, it’s a whole lot better than anything that I could ever do, lol. So, I guess so. But it’s kind of creepy. I, for one, would definately not buy that.
-KrIsTiN-
I absolutely think this painting should be called a masterpiece because it’s not the seemingly random lines of paint on the page that matters, but rather the emotions that the artist was trying to portray. It may be emotions he was feeling at the time, or emotions he’d seen on another’s face. Take the fact that the focus of the painting (the foreground) is hardly of artistic quality out of the picture, just ignore it for a moment, and look at the sky and water in the background. It is swirlies and curves, sure, but the stark contrast of colors screams out of pain, anxiety, disturbance, and hopelessness at maybe the situation of his friends portrayed behind him, or at his enemies that are talking about him behind his back.
Take it or leave it, it’s your own interpretation. I’m just begging you to look closer and feel it, don’t just see it. Call me an Art Nazi, but I believe that most paintings, artwork, etc. (that goes for music, as well) that are uncommon like this, if they come from the heart, are definitely art.
God bless,
Mindi
Absolutely. It is one of my favorite paintings.
[ariana]
It has different values to everyone, and to me it’s a beautiful work of art, but it’s deff not worth millions.
yup! it should be called a masterpiece. i mean, im sure u can make a replica of the painting using ur sons fingers like u said, but art isn’t about the product, its about the process you went thru to get to the product. so as you might be able to do the same painting, ur process will be completely different, and lets face it, nothing special about finger painting ^_^
Or maybe he is afraid of his past…interesting.