Talk:Edvard Munch

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)