Talk:Edvard Munch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Norway      (Rated B-Class) Norway Portal This article is part of WikiProject Norway, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Norway. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. WikiProject Biography     (Rated B-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. Biography Portal B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] WikiProject Visual arts     (Rated B-Class) This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. B Class: This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 comments 2 Another self-portrait 3 Munch museum redirect? 4 Name pronounciation 5 Copyvio 6 Google 7 Copyedit request 8 Reference for Quote Needed 9 Jakac in the infobox

[edit] comments

test Overall, the essay seems to overgeneralize, overreach, and occasionally confuse sequence with causality. It's overgeneralizing, for instance, to say all female figures in his work fall at the poles of virgin/whore, and assumes too much to derive traits or behavior from what his father said, or from a period of hospitalization (post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy).

In this sentence, "symbolist" seems to be mistaken in terms of the evidence cited, and should have been "expressionist" (or Expressionist): "While stylistically influenced by the postimpressionists, Munch's subject matter is symbolist in content, depicting a state of mind rather than an external reality."

Also, when using terms like Symbolist/symbolist, Expressionist/expressionist/expressionistic, etc., there's a question of, so to speak, programmatic/selfdefined vs. empirical, or narrow vs. broad description: did the artist avow/intend the connection to a movement; was the artist of the same historical period or moment; is the term a "term of art" particular to the field of art history, with a conventionally agreed upon definition. In the preceding paragraph, uppercase seems to apply (Postimpressionist, Expressionist). Paulownia5 19:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Essay? I think that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. -- Pichote 19:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you should say more OVERALL on his painting... THE SCREAM...

I think we should include a paragraph on the theft of Munch works. Karl Stas 09:31, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And about the newly discovered painting. Uttaddmb 14:41, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Way too much focus on one painting from such a diverse painter who went through so many phases and techniques. Seriously little description of the periods that he went through. Thechosenone021 22:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Um in other searches i found that Edvard Munch was born in Loten Norway, not Adalsbruk Norway —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachiko 89 (talk • contribs)

Ådalsbruk is a village in Løten municipality. We could maybe be specific about that, but then again the reader can just click the Ådalsbruk link and read more about where the place is, so I thinks it's ok as it is. Shanes 15:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another self-portrait

I've uploaded another Munch self portrait, but didn't add it to the article.Image:Munch SelfBurningCigarette.jpg --sparkit (talk) 02:31, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Munch museum redirect?

The Munch museum should have its own article, don't y'all agree? --Leifern 12:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

It should. The Norwegian article might be useful for making an English one [1] Cybbe 18:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Name pronounciation

What is the proper pronounciation of Munch's name?

To an English speaker it'd be something like "moonk", with "oo" as in "good"

And the first name?

I guess the last d is silent. --1523 21:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe that should be 'unvoiced'? - So it would sound something like 'edvart' ? Stumps 15:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Neither the pronunciation nor the discussion here seems to conform to the IPA values given at Norwegian language --Dupes 16:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Now it does. The sound in question is a retroflex assimilation of /r/ and /d/, just like in many Swedish dialects. That means that two underlying phonemes have merged into one sound. And to the best of my knowledge, Norwegian doesn't devoice word-final plosives.

Peter ^Isotalo 01:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

but it is actually devoiced in the name edvard for some reason, at least in most dialects —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.241.134.244 (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio

Much from the opening paragraphs appears to have been plagiarized from http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/munch/. Assuming the date on that site (2002) is indeed correct, this material pretty clearly came from there. I don't know how to do this but I thought I'd mention it here; someone should either write something original or add a citation.

Material in question was added by Aecis on 3 August 2004 (see [2]). I'll try to work out how much text is affected. I'd rather not go through a rewrite-from-scratch on this article, if we can avoid it. Stumps 10:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the following text as it seems to have been copied from the site mentioned above:

• His intense and evocative treatment of anguish greatly influenced development of German expressionism in the early 20th century.
• Re: 'The Scream': regarded as an icon of existential anguish and
• These tragedies foreshadow the bleakness and pessimism of much of Munch's work. (because of the phrase"bleakness and pessimism")
• Munch traveled to Paris in 1885, and his work began to show the influence of French painters — first of the impressionists, then of the postimpressionists and art nouveau design.
• (Munch designed the sets for several Ibsen's plays)
• Between 1892 and 1908, Munch divided his time between Paris and Berlin, where he became known for his etchings, his lithographs, and his woodcuts.
• Munch died in Ekely, near Oslo, on January 23, 1944 ... has been rephrased.
• in his honor (re Munch museum)
• (recircle of friends)including the Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen (need a reliable source for this)

This obviously leaves some gaps in the current text, which we need to fill with properly sourced information. Stumps 10:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I can remember editing the article (it was one of my first edits here), but I can't remember this particular edit, and the link doesn't ring a bell either. However, the site clearly is copyrighted, so the copyvio info indeed needs to be removed. If I made an error (and it seems like I have), I apologize retroactively. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 11:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Google

Hey I figured out colours...

Anyway, "The Scream" is a Google logo at the moment if anyone's interested. --WikiSlasher 11:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sure. :) And a nice one. -- Pichote 11:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, so perhaps the page should be protected to prevent the vandalism that typically results. RyanLivingston 13:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

What happened to assuming good faith? We're now assuming that linking to our pages causes vandalism rather than improvements to the page? Has any vandalism been detected? Stevage 00:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The logo only links to the Google search for the term "Edvard Munch" it does not directly link to the article. And last time I checked Wikipedia was only the third or fourth result anyway and the protection policies do not allow for protecting pages because of predicted vandalism that hasn't happened yet. --WikiSlasher 02:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

OK so there was a little bit of vandalism I admit. --WikiSlasher 02:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Should be unprotected now, I think. 70.104.16.182 03:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yea I agree, there shouldn't be much problem now. ParsifalTG

Well, I just came here on this page by the google logo, so at least in Switzerland (UTC+1) it's still current. In future, one should maybe wait some other hours after 00:00 until unprotecting again. --CHamul 06:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Edvard Munch is #2 at this Google Search (from the image click) [3] — Deon555^talk_desk 05:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit request

The section "Of the five siblings only Andreas married, but he died a few months after the wedding. He would later say ..." makes it seem that Andreas is talking from the grave. Maybe someone can clarify; this could be a simple matter of changing that last "He" to "Edvard", if that is indeed who is being quoted. I don't want to make any precipitate changes while the page is featured on Google MarkBrooks 22:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference for Quote Needed

This article includes a quote attributed to Edvard Munch:

   "From my rotting body, flowers shall grow and I am in them and that is eternity."
   —Edvard Munch 

This is attributed to Munch elsewhere on the internet. However this quote is also attributed to Thomas Moore:

   * From my rotting body, flowers shall grow and I am in them and that is eternity.
         o Thomas Moore in Lalla Rookh — The Veiled Prophet of Khorassan (st. 42)

...which can be seen at Wikiquote.

From searching on Google Book Search it looks as though the Moore quote is wrongly attributed and is not found in the book mentioned. It would be nice however to have a reference for the Munch quote. --Whoredom 19:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It's quoted in the biography by Sue Prideaux (p. 327, "flowers will grow from my rotting corpse and I will live on in those blooms...death is the beginning of life, the beginning of new crystallisations."), and sourced to Christian Gierløff (1953). Edvard Munch Selv. Oslo: Gyldendal, p. 44.  Jfire (talk) 04:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jakac in the infobox

An infobox provides a quick summary of essentials—birth/death dates, nationality, and perhaps other information. In an artist bio, the other information may include "movement" , "influenced", and "influenced by", and these fields are often a source of problems. The best course of action may be to leave them empty unless there is a strong case for filling them in—in the case of Munch, for instance, diligent research would probably turn up dozens of artists, and probably also a few writers, musicians, actors, etc., who have mentioned Munch as an influence on their work, or whose biographers have found Munch's influence in their work. But listing dozens of names in the infobox turns it into something like a trivia list, which seems undesirable in an infobox. The remedy for this, since everything in WP is supposed to be supported by sources, is to include only names that are well-sourced in the literature on Munch.

For example, virtually any book on Rubens will tell you that he influenced Jacob Jordaens and later Eugène Delacroix, so these would be appropriate & uncontroversial choices for the infobox. John Singer Sargent is not such a good choice; even if I've got 2 books on Sargent that emphasizes the Rubens influence, the Rubens literature doesn't generally recognize Sargent as his disciple. The naming of Božidar Jakac as an artist influenced by Munch can (as far as I can tell) be sourced only in the literature on Jakac, and, while it may be correct information, it is the kind of thing that will strike some as inappropriate for the infobox, because so many artists could be included on similar grounds. For another discussion of this issue, see Talk:Gustav Klimt.

I don't think having Jakac in the infobox is a terrible problem, but it does imply a stronger connection than may in fact exist, and I think this issue about infoboxes is ripe for more discussion. Ewulp (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

And just to clarify: the issue is not Jakac's notability. He is notable. The question is whether he, or any artist, should be given this particular role in the Munch infobox. Ewulp (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree, Ewulp. Munch was a seminal painter; the number of artists counting him as an influence no doubt numbers in the hundreds. It seems odd to single out this particular one for inclusion. Jfire (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree too, and think this issue should be discussed in a more visible place. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 22:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've placed this at Template_talk:Infobox_Artist to see if other contributors have suggestions. Ewulp (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The infobox should be a skeleton summary of the article, not include new information. There's no mention of Jakac in the article, so there's no justification for including it in a summary of the article. Ty 11:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

In my view this field should be used sparingly, and usually only in cases of artists who were pretty contemporary to each other. We know Velazquez influenced John Singer Sargent 250 years later, but i don't think the infobox should say this. Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)