"The Scream"

[graygo]

Seriously WTF??

 

Just been sold for ?107 million, I don't get it.

[Kalamazoo Jambo]

Seriously WTF??

 

Just been sold for ?107 million, I don't get it.

 

 

 

I see a similarity - except Kickback's one is worth more...

[Johanes de Silentio]

An incredible piece of art, imo - priceless.

 

No single piece of art can really be worth ?107 million, though?

 

Nae wonder the world is messed!

[IronJambo]

Seriously WTF??

 

Just been sold for ?107 million, I don't get it.

 

Me neither, I create better looking pictures with my phone on "draw something"

[Snake Plissken]

Scandalously cheap.

 

For those saying 'I could do better'... why don't you?

 

If it's that easy to create a masterpiece then go ahead, quit your job and make millions.

[IronJambo]

Scandalously cheap.

 

For those saying 'I could do better'... why don't you?

 

If it's that easy to create a masterpiece then go ahead, quit your job and make millions.

 

So tell me why its a masterpeice. What's so good about it? Why is it different to anything that I would draw?

 

It surely only has worth because of who created it, not because of what it is.

[Snake Plissken]

So tell me why its a masterpeice. What's so good about it? Why is it different to anything that I would draw?

 

It surely only has worth because of who created it, not because of what it is.

 

Again, if you can do better, go ahead.

 

I look forward to your exhibition.

 

[Kalamazoo Jambo]

Scandalously cheap.

 

It's only one of several

[IronJambo]

Again, if you can do better, go ahead.

 

I look forward to your exhibition.

 

 

Repeating what you've already said isn't an answer to my questions.

 

The Scream, imo doesn't show fantastic artistic talents. Nothing about it hints the artist can draw or paint. All it says to me is that it comes from a mixed up and confused mind.

 

Please, educate me and convince me otherwise, asking me to do better isn't an answer.

[Peebo]

My first reaction was..."is that all?".

 

Maybe a sign of the times, but in this modern age when a software program that turns pictures a funny colour and uploads them to interweb costs $1 billion, this iconic piece of art seems like a steal at a tenth of that...

[Isaac Clarke]

I like it.

 

[Kalamazoo Jambo]

I like it.

 

 

 

I like it too - although the version above is not what was auctioned. It was a pastel version.

[Snake Plissken]

Repeating what you've already said isn't an answer to my questions.

 

The Scream, imo doesn't show fantastic artistic talents. Nothing about it hints the artist can draw or paint. All it says to me is that it comes from a mixed up and confused mind.

 

Please, educate me and convince me otherwise, asking me to do better isn't an answer.

 

So you've said you can do better but so far have not showed any evidence to substantiate this claim...

 

Accept my challenge and then I may deem your question worth answering.

[Coco]

Hedge against populist Governments inflating their currencies away.

 

That said of course there have been times when the frames have been worth more than the pictures ... as firewood.

[I P Knightley]

Scandalously cheap.

 

For those saying 'I could do better'... why don't you?

 

If it's that easy to create a masterpiece then go ahead, quit your job and make millions.

 

 

I've done better countless times but I'm not prepared to prostitute my art.

 

 

 

The truth of it is that I haven't got the big brass balls to put out any of my masses of squiggles and smudges as being a work of art and doubt I could discuss art with the kind of person who 'sees' something special in this kind of pap whilst keeping a straight face for long enough to let tehm buy it off me. Maybe if I took drugs...

 

And on a purely economical point, I fail to see how one of the most ubiquitous 'art' images can be worth the obscene amount of money that it's raised. Visitors to the buyer's house will probably see it and assume that it's just another print, unless the buyer tells them that it is the original and he's prepared to place "the usual wager" if people doubt him.

 

And don't get me started on the tax dodge schemes that allow people to bid ridiculously over-inflated prices at art auctions, bidding on behalf of their "charitable trusts" so that the revenue see less of their money than they see of Rangers'.

 

Gah! You've got me going, now - anyone looking at me as I type will see a close resemblance to the fella in the picture; except that I have hair and, behind me, there's a proper sky with clouds and stuff.

[I P Knightley]

So you've said you can do better but so far have not showed any evidence to substantiate this claim...

 

Accept my challenge and then I may deem your question worth answering.

 

Did you used to be known as Therapist round these parts?

[weegranty]

It was worth every penny.

[Chris Benoit]

[Vlad-Stupid]

Thought it got nicked a while back

[Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC]

 

$250 million for that.

[Johanes de Silentio]

Thought it got nicked a while back

 

It did.

[2NaFish]

that munch boy must be ******* loaded.

 

I love the "any idiot could have come up with that" line. It fails to realise that only one idiot did, and it wasnt them.

[leginten]

that munch boy must be ******* loaded.

 

I love the "any idiot could have come up with that" line. It fails to realise that only one idiot did, and it wasnt them.

 

Surely this is the crux of the matter. If you take art out of its social and historical context with "I could have done that" type analysis, you'll never understand why individual works of art and artists had they impact they did.

 

Nobody painting Munch-style stuff today - or writing a Beethoven-type symphony for that matter - is going to be hailed as a genius. There's a very good reason for that.

[leginten]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/cbe308f2-8ac9-11e1-b855-00144feab49a.html#axzz1tnmoBMp2

 

By the way, there's currently an exhibition of Munch drawings and prints at the National Gallery of Modern Art at Belford. Haven't been yet, but will certainly be popping along.

[Vlad-Stupid]

It did.

 

Cool.

[Chris Benoit]

Thought it got nicked a while back

 

 

There's 4 of them. 2 were stolen then returned.

 

Quite like some of Munch's stuff but never really been a fan of The Scream to be honest.

[Primavera]

So tell me why its a masterpeice. What's so good about it? Why is it different to anything that I would draw?

 

It surely only has worth because of who created it, not because of what it is.

 

It means what it means to the beholder. For me its the pain, loneliness and scariness of coping with depression. To anti-abortionists its the pain of a foetus. To the agoraphobic its the terror of being there. Make of it what you will - this picture is about the dark places of the human soul, its monetary value or artistic merit is not the point, its one of the most emotive pieces of art I've ever seen. BTW, it was a 107m dollars.

[IronJambo]

So you've said you can do better but so far have not showed any evidence to substantiate this claim...

 

Accept my challenge and then I may deem your question worth answering.

 

As I thought Don't you have money to collect under a bridge somewhere? Sorry I forgot, you don't answer questions. Silly me.

[IronJambo]

It means what it means to the beholder. For me its the pain, loneliness and scariness of coping with depression. To anti-abortionists its the pain of a foetus. To the agoraphobic its the terror of being there. Make of it what you will - this picture is about the dark places of the human soul, its monetary value or artistic merit is not the point, its one of the most emotive pieces of art I've ever seen. BTW, it was a 107m dollars.

 

Now there's a reasoned answer and my own analagy isn't so far off that. I'm not missing the depth of the painting or the darkness that lies within it.

 

Still no real reason on why it's worth so much money other than because of the name on the painting. If you or I had painted the same thing it would've been rubbished and would never've seen the light of day. Even the canvas it was painted on would be devalued.

[Snake Plissken]

As I thought Don't you have money to collect under a bridge somewhere? Sorry I forgot, you don't answer questions. Silly me.

 

So you're not going to back up your claim that you could do better?

 

Very well.

[The Great Khali]

So you're not going to back up your claim that you could do better?

 

Very well.

 

Did you buy it and now you feel a bit daft?

[Boris]

As with all art, it's not necessarily about the technicalities of the physical production, rather the inspiration of the artist to create and their vision laid bare on canvas, or whichever medium is used.

 

Bottom line is that outwith art circles, Munch's "The Scream" is instantly recognisable and iconic such that it is (I would imagine) one of the most recognised works of art in the world, sitting alongside The Mona Lisa, Guernica, The Last Supper, Marilyn Monroe, Campbells Soup within the cultural psyche of the World. (That list wasn't exhaustive btw, you could add The Laughing Cavalier or many other paintings/works of art.)

[IronJambo]

So you're not going to back up your claim that you could do better?

 

Very well.

 

PM me for my email address and if you have the balls you can start a game with me on "draw something". I'll blow your mind with my artwork.

 

Please do yourself a favour and stop answering questions with questions. Makes sound like more than a bit of a roaster, which I'm sure isn't true.

[Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC]

Now there's a reasoned answer and my own analagy isn't so far off that. I'm not missing the depth of the painting or the darkness that lies within it.

 

Still no real reason on why it's worth so much money other than because of the name on the painting. If you or I had painted the same thing it would've been rubbished and would never've seen the light of day. Even the canvas it was painted on would be devalued.

 

The frame of the painting contains a poem from the artist which explains his interpretation for it, apparently boosts the value.

[Guest Just Came To Say Kello]

Nobody painting Munch-style stuff today - or writing a Beethoven-type symphony for that matter - is going to be hailed as a genius. There's a very good reason for that.

 

I suspect you know **** all about Beethoven then. If he were alive today and wrote Moonlight Sonata at the same age, then he would rightly be celebrated as one of the finest composers and pianists to have ever lived.

[Primavera]

Now there's a reasoned answer and my own analagy isn't so far off that. I'm not missing the depth of the painting or the darkness that lies within it.

 

Still no real reason on why it's worth so much money other than because of the name on the painting. If you or I had painted the same thing it would've been rubbished and would never've seen the light of day. Even the canvas it was painted on would be devalued.

 

Not sure that you and I could come close. Munch's success was very much about him consistently doing dark emotive work without regard for the current aesthetics. He was eventually accepted by critics for the thought-provoking qualities of his work, as much as his actual skill. That took him many years though, he didnt just daub The Scream and become famous. It has to be taken into the context of its time as well. When you consider he was up against the beauty of impressionism this stuff becomes more surprising in its success.

 

If you painted it now you'd just be copying Munch - that isnt what successful art is about. Originality is as key as skill, quality and what it provokes, hence the likes of Hirst becoming successful. I dont like him particularly but he does things that are original and thought provoking, even if they dont fit normal ideas of what art should be.

[IronJambo]

Not sure that you and I could come close. Munch's success was very much about him consistently doing dark emotive work without regard for the current aesthetics. He was eventually accepted by critics for the thought-provoking qualities of his work, as much as his actual skill. That took him many years though, he didnt just daub The Scream and become famous. It has to be taken into the context of its time as well. When you consider he was up against the beauty of impressionism this stuff becomes more surprising in its success.

 

If you painted it now you'd just be copying Munch - that isnt what successful art is about. Originality is as key as skill, quality and what it provokes, hence the likes of Hirst becoming successful. I dont like him particularly but he does things that are original and thought provoking, even if they dont fit normal ideas of what art should be.

 

I understand that if I painted it now I'd just be copying, but that's out of context with what I'm trying to say. What I'm saying is that if a nobody had created that piece of art, and they had remained a nobody for all of eternity then that painting would never ever have been looked at twice.

 

Everything else you say is bang on and re-affirms that the painting only has value because of who painted it. Because of his past, because of the reputation he'd built up. Had his next door neighbour painted it and Munch had showcased it to the world saying "look what my friend painted, isn't it amazing" he'd have been laughed at.

[leginten]

I suspect you know **** all about Beethoven then. If he were alive today and wrote Moonlight Sonata at the same age, then he would rightly be celebrated as one of the finest composers and pianists to have ever lived.

 

 

What a complete arse you are with your confrontational posting style.

 

Unfortunately you come across as a little boy lost on threads like this. You really don?t know what you?re talking about.

 

I suspect I?ve listened to more Beethoven than you ever will. But if someone today wrote something as good as Moonlight Sonata - in a classical style - they would be dismissed as artistically irrelevant. Technically brilliant, yes. A prodigy, yes. But irrelevant. Because the work wouldn?t change anything. Great art changes the way people look at the world and its enduring value derives from the recognition that it has done so ? but it can only do so from the starting point of a particular time and a particular place. It?s all about context. Unfortunately you didn?t understand the phrase ?or writing a Beethoven-type symphony? from my post. But no surprise there.

 

 

 

[Vlad-Stupid]

I was at one of Came on Kello's recitals once and he played Moonlight Sonata exceptionally well. Not too far off Beethoven's standard to be fair. Syphilis levels are definitely matched though

[Gershwin]

So tell me why its a masterpeice. What's so good about it? Why is it different to anything that I would draw?

 

It surely only has worth because of who created it, not because of what it is.

 

Because Munch painted it first. Yours, well that would just be a copy.

 

It's the kind of piece that lots of people start to reference in their own work over time, hence the reason it seems like anyone can do it.

 

A bit like those 'Keep Calm Posters'. A nice piece of graphic design from the 40s that has been ruined by internet cretins.

[Guest Just Came To Say Kello]

What a complete arse you are with your confrontational posting style.

 

Unfortunately you come across as a little boy lost on threads like this. You really don?t know what you?re talking about.

 

I suspect I?ve listened to more Beethoven than you ever will. But if someone today wrote something as good as Moonlight Sonata - in a classical style - they would be dismissed as artistically irrelevant. Technically brilliant, yes. A prodigy, yes. But irrelevant. Because the work wouldn?t change anything. Great art changes the way people look at the world and its enduring value derives from the recognition that it has done so ? but it can only do so from the starting point of a particular time and a particular place. It?s all about context. Unfortunately you didn?t understand the phrase ?or writing a Beethoven-type symphony? from my post. But no surprise there.

**** me, I've touched a nerve.

Also, stop falling over yourself trying to come across as artistic whilst simultaneously trying to patronise me, it makes you look clumsy and boorish.

 

Quite simply, if you think a Moonlight Sonata written today would be irrelevant then you just haven't understood the music. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is. This is clearly important to you or you wouldn't have flipped out so I am genuinely sad to have to break it to you. I've had to take the media tags off one of these because Kickback's being an arse but:

 

Artistically irrelevant

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgZ8z7Ztn10

Artistically irrelevant

 

 

Artistically irrelevant

 

Anyone reaching that style of composition or similar would be lauded regardless of context, not just for execution but for artistic brilliance as well.

[leginten]

**** me, I've touched a nerve.

Also, stop falling over yourself trying to come across as artistic whilst simultaneously trying to patronise me, it makes you look clumsy and boorish.

 

Quite simply, if you think a Moonlight Sonata written today would be irrelevant then you just haven't understood the music. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is. This is clearly important to you or you wouldn't have flipped out so I am genuinely sad to have to break it to you. I've had to take the media tags off one of these because Kickback's being an arse but:

 

Artistically irrelevant

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgZ8z7Ztn10

Artistically irrelevant

 

 

Artistically irrelevant

 

Anyone reaching that style of composition or similar would be lauded regardless of context, not just for execution but for artistic brilliance as well.

 

"A Moonlight Sonata written today." One of the most preposterous phrases I've ever read on Kickback.

 

 

A Venus de Milo sculpted today.

 

An Impression: Soleil Levant painted today.

 

Know what? They'd all be pastiche. But I'm glad you think posting some youtube clips of Beethoven music with a few smilies supports your argument rather than demolishing it completely.

 

You don't get it - still. Time. Place. Context. Anybody who is composing music today who will be remembered centuries from now is not doing 19th century-style classical music or anything remotely like it. Because anyone of genius would know that it has been done before. Perhaps you can name me a successful, well-known contemporary composer who is producing work in anything like the idioms used by Beethoven or Schubert or Schumann? That might form the basis for a discussion. Or perhaps you could indicate composers whose work you think people will be listening to centuries from now from any genre?

[Tommy Wiseau]

 

$250 million for that.

 

 

I'd pay that for a Paul Cezanne, tbf.

[2NaFish]

was playing football today, did a cruyff turn to get out of a corner. i'm a footballing genius who has changed the way people approach football as a profession.

[Guest Just Came To Say Kello]

"A Moonlight Sonata written today." One of the most preposterous phrases I've ever read on Kickback.

 

 

A Venus de Milo sculpted today.

 

An Impression: Soleil Levant painted today.

 

Know what? They'd all be pastiche. But I'm glad you think posting some youtube clips of Beethoven music with a few smilies supports your argument rather than demolishing it completely.

 

You don't get it - still. Time. Place. Context. Anybody who is composing music today who will be remembered centuries from now is not doing 19th century-style classical music or anything remotely like it. Because anyone of genius would know that it has been done before. Perhaps you can name me a successful, well-known contemporary composer who is producing work in anything like the idioms used by Beethoven or Schubert or Schumann? That might form the basis for a discussion. Or perhaps you could indicate composers whose work you think people will be listening to centuries from now from any genre?

No one's mentioned ripping off Beethoven and passing it off as genius, you've just invented this straw man to feel superior. What I did say was that anyone, at any time, reaching that standard and beauty of composition through expression of emotion and musical themes would be considered brilliant. That's the crux of it.

 

Beethoven's musical genius transcends context. That's the reason his work was and is considered artistically brilliant. I'm not denying that there are some very, very good contemporary composers writing some excellent, culturally relevant pieces. But Beethoven wasn't just "very, very good", he was Beethoven. Hence, anyone today composing to that standard or type would not be "irrelevant" as you bluntly put it. Rather, they'd be feted.

 

You said nobody writing a Beethoven-type symphony would be hailed as genius and you supported that by saying any good composer today isn't writing 19th century style music, but the only 19th century style you could attribute to Beethoven's work is the fact that most of it was written then. A "Beethoven-type" is a composition that has such beauty and zeal that it isn't constrained by Zeitgeist and the fact you think Beethoven's work is in limited in such a way betrays just how little you get about his music.

 

Go back and listen to the third movement of Moonlight Sonata. If you honestly think that if something so stirring, wonderful and timeless written today would be dismissed as artistically irrelevant then I'm wasting my time.

[leginten]

No one's mentioned ripping off Beethoven and passing it off as genius, you've just invented this straw man to feel superior. What I did say was that anyone, at any time, reaching that standard and beauty of composition through expression of emotion and musical themes would be considered brilliant. That's the crux of it.

 

Beethoven's musical genius transcends context. That's the reason his work was and is considered artistically brilliant. I'm not denying that there are some very, very good contemporary composers writing some excellent, culturally relevant pieces. But Beethoven wasn't just "very, very good", he was Beethoven. Hence, anyone today composing to that standard or type would not be "irrelevant" as you bluntly put it. Rather, they'd be feted.

 

You said nobody writing a Beethoven-type symphony would be hailed as genius and you supported that by saying any good composer today isn't writing 19th century style music, but the only 19th century style you could attribute to Beethoven's work is the fact that most of it was written then. A "Beethoven-type" is a composition that has such beauty and zeal that it isn't constrained by Zeitgeist and the fact you think Beethoven's work is in limited in such a way betrays just how little you get about his music.

 

Go back and listen to the third movement of Moonlight Sonata. If you honestly think that if something so stirring, wonderful and timeless written today would be dismissed as artistically irrelevant then I'm wasting my time.

 

The highlighted whopper is an absolute belter, right up there with your mendacious claim that I had suggested Beethoven was artistically irrelevant. Either your reading comp skills aren't very good, or you're at it.

 

So hang on. The crux of your argument now is that a musical genius in any age will be recognised as a musical genius? A great composition will be recognised as a great composition? Wow. That's mind-blowing. But I believe we started out with your failure to appreciate that when I wrote "Nobody painting Munch-style stuff today - or writing a Beethoven-type symphony for that matter - is going to be hailed as a genius", I meant that nobody worth their salt today was going to be trying to do anything even vaguely related to the styles that were prevalent in Munch's or Beethoven's time. Somehow I suspect you knew that anyway. Stylists and imitators, no matter how entertaining or gifted they are, don't go down in the hall of fame. Forget "today's Moonlight Sonata". It doesn't exist, or if it does, nobody will listen to it.

 

But the fact that you appear to think Beethoven's music isn't instantly - and I mean instantly - recognisable as coming from a very particular time suggests that you really haven't listened to much classical music. (That's not meant to be patronising, although it probably comes across that way.) When you say that a Beethoven-type composition is not constrained by the Zeitgeist, I hope all you're trying to convey is the platitude that a great work of art will survive. There's a reason Beethoven doesn't sound like Bach or Vivaldi, even though Beethoven would have been perfectly capable of imitating or even refining their styles. Similarly, there's a reason his music can't sound like Richard Strauss or Wagner. It's the same reason Munch eventually rebelled against the Impressionists whose work he'd been surrounded by, and the same reason Picasso didn't spend the whole of his career churning out Expressionist paintings. Great artists do things which are different. They break down barriers. The 19th century is replete with concert audiences and gallery-goers rioting and engaging in all sorts of civil disturbances purely because of the shock of the new - they couldn't cope, initially, with what they were seeing and hearing. As is the early 20th century.

 

As for not getting Beethoven's music: I like his music very much. Admittedly there are four or five composers at least whose music I much prefer, but there is no denying his genius. But the moment I listen to it, I have a fairly clear idea of where and when. Far from detracting from its universality and longevity, an understanding of the context adds to the enjoyment.

[Jaap's Sigh]

The highlighted whopper is an absolute belter, right up there with your mendacious claim that I had suggested Beethoven was artistically irrelevant. Either your reading comp skills aren't very good, or you're at it.

 

So hang on. The crux of your argument now is that a musical genius in any age will be recognised as a musical genius? A great composition will be recognised as a great composition? Wow. That's mind-blowing. But I believe we started out with your failure to appreciate that when I wrote "Nobody painting Munch-style stuff today - or writing a Beethoven-type symphony for that matter - is going to be hailed as a genius", I meant that nobody worth their salt today was going to be trying to do anything even vaguely related to the styles that were prevalent in Munch's or Beethoven's time. Somehow I suspect you knew that anyway. Stylists and imitators, no matter how entertaining or gifted they are, don't go down in the hall of fame. Forget "today's Moonlight Sonata". It doesn't exist, or if it does, nobody will listen to it.

 

But the fact that you appear to think Beethoven's music isn't instantly - and I mean instantly - recognisable as coming from a very particular time suggests that you really haven't listened to much classical music. (That's not meant to be patronising, although it probably comes across that way.) When you say that a Beethoven-type composition is not constrained by the Zeitgeist, I hope all you're trying to convey is the platitude that a great work of art will survive. There's a reason Beethoven doesn't sound like Bach or Vivaldi, even though Beethoven would have been perfectly capable of imitating or even refining their styles. Similarly, there's a reason his music can't sound like Richard Strauss or Wagner. It's the same reason Munch eventually rebelled against the Impressionists whose work he'd been surrounded by, and the same reason Picasso didn't spend the whole of his career churning out Expressionist paintings. Great artists do things which are different. They break down barriers. The 19th century is replete with concert audiences and gallery-goers rioting and engaging in all sorts of civil disturbances purely because of the shock of the new - they couldn't cope, initially, with what they were seeing and hearing. As is the early 20th century.

 

As for not getting Beethoven's music: I like his music very much. Admittedly there are four or five composers at least whose music I much prefer, but there is no denying his genius. But the moment I listen to it, I have a fairly clear idea of where and when. Far from detracting from its universality and longevity, an understanding of the context adds to the enjoyment.

This makes sense to me. Good post.

[Guest C00l K1d]

I really don't 'get' art.

 

My bird dragged me along to the Van Gogh gallery in amsterdam and i was just completely underwhelmed.

 

What difference does it make looking at a painting in the flesh or looking at it online.

 

And then once you look at it for what, 30 seconds/1 minute that's it.

 

 

 

If i was to pay 100m for something i'd want it to do something, no just hang there on my wall

[Juan Rom?n Riquelme]

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.

 

Doesn't look like much but in context its a masterpiece. Wonder who's got that kind of dosh to spend on a single painting though.

[Gregory House M.D.]

 

Heres hundreds of then for 20p.