Talk:The Scream

Edison lamp

I added the following:

Kelly Grovier has suggested that another exhibit at the Paris exposition may have inspired the head of the figure. A collection of 20 000 light bulbs in the shape of a giant bulb was in the pavilion celebrating Thomas Edison's inventions.

but User:Oknazevad has deleted it with:

The Kelly Grovier theory has little evidence and seems to be not widely supported.

I leave it here in case someone finds it interesting or wants to explore further support. --Error (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the definition of the theory. It’s harmless. Marty Mangold (talk) 12:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

References

The German title

Why is the German title given so prominently in the lead and the infobox picture caption? In the lead it even takes precedence over its Norwegian name. I can't find anything in the article to suggest why a German title is important, was given by Munch etc. It seems a weird irrelevance. Either if it was relevant, it should be explained why it is relevant, or removed - this is English Wikipedia, not German Wikipedia after all. 86.129.171.122 (talk) 10:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Tend to agree, given that the title Der Schrei der Natur is not mentioned at either the de.wiki Der Schrei or at the no.wiki Skrik. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

It's mentioned because it's the original title. The work was created while Munch was living in Berlin and made its public debut at a Berlin gallery show. Munch titled it in German. This has been discussed previously (see the archives) and the full German title is sourced in the article. That the German and Norwegian articles miss that detail is if no bearing in the facts. oknazevad (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: thanks for reminding me. I looked in the Talk page archive, but could not find any previous discussion. Which source is that? Do you think it's fully justified in the infobox? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I couldn't find it in this article's talk page archives either, nor in the FAC discussions. I think this should be explained and sourced more clearly in our article. German Wikipedia's article writes that it was "Geschrei" originally (see also this lithography which has both "Geschrei" and "Ich fühlte das große Geschrei durch die Natur" written on it, but not "Schrei der Natur"). Not doubting what Oknazevad wrote, but obviously it's confusing readers, and it's hard to see which sources apply here. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I see that User:Pnyeg has now simplified the opening line. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

No, what he did was completely remove the title in Danish and German completely, despite it being sourced. It was not an improvement on the least and I'm reverting it outright. oknazevad (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

We best not forget this is en.wiki? But I agree those other, sourced, titles should certainly not be removed. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Native language titles are included for artworks even when there's a common name in English. Just as foreign language films include the title in the original language, or pretty much anything that has a non-English native name. No one is proposing moving the article, so omitting the native titles (which again are the title under which it was first exhibited in Berlin, and the artist's native language) removes key information. So, yeah, definitely do not remove them. oknazevad (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I used to add the fact that he created the series in Berlin some time ago but it was deleted, though I believe for several reasons the location of the creation of a work is in deed relevant for its reception. Seoulmate1 (talk) 10:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Who is screaming?

In Britain at least, most people and the media seem to think that the *woman* is screaming. As we see from Munch's title this is completely wrong, it is the surrounding Nature that is screaming, and the woman is covering her ears not to hear it; her mouth is only open in horror. I think this misapprehension should be more clearly brought out and corrected in the the article, as it is a very commonly held belief. 86.187.236.58 (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear from the text and Munch's quotes that it is nature that is screaming. Wikipedia works on sources, so if an art critic, historian, or author has further comment on this it can be used to clarify. The human figure, though, is part of nature, and could be seen as joining with the rest of nature in its scream. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Plus the figure is not a woman. Not inherently, anyway. oknazevad (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, as you say, *careful* reading shows 'seems pretty clear . . . that it is Nature that is screaming' - I don't think any extra sources need to be referenced. It is just that a lot of people (especially those with pre-conceived ideas) *don't* read things carefully. I was merely suggesting slightly more emphasis on it. And yes - I had the preconceived idea the figure was a woman! Along with a lot of other people, so perhaps this should be more emphasised as well. I really don't think they are joining in, why cover the ears if that is the case?86.187.169.16 (talk) 14:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, as mentioned above, the original title, in German, was Der Schrei der Natur. But I don't see how The Scream can be "completely wrong " if Munch himself also also used the title Skrik for later versions. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Scream/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ceoil (talk · contribs) 00:52, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The article is nowhere near GA. Ceoil (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Comment: This review has been started for 48 days. If it doesn't meet the criteria, shouldn't it be failed @Ceoil? Also pinging @Lankyant as the nominator if you have anything to add. There's no reason to keep the review open this long if no progress is being made. -- ZooBlazer^talk 01:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I would close...no work and the nom was well intentioned but premature. Its clear that the nom was from a pop culture rather than art history pov. Ceoil (talk) 02:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ceoil If that's your decision, just mark it as a GAF on the parent article's talk page. -- ZooBlazer^talk 05:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Ceoil, as you opened this review, it is your responsibility to close it. The instructions are at WP:GAN/I#FAIL, if you think it should be failed per the good article criteria. Please finish what you started. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I didnt start anything BlueMoonset, the nom was effictively withdrawn as there was no real work...this was their last edit to the page[1]. Anyhow, closed. Ceoil (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Date of creation

Are there any sources for the date this was painted? I was expecting to see one alongside the year "1893". But I can't see any. I tried to add some "citation needed" tags. But I've now been told I'm a vandal who is "too lazy to click on a reference." Apparently it's "sourced at least a dozen times in the article". Was also interested in what date it was first exhibited. Article just says "1893". 205.239.40.3 (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

And I'm not too sure that "Like every reference mentions the date." The lead section has two references: the first is this book (why archived in Slovenian exactly?), which gives no dates, and does not even appear to be searchable online. The second ref is the geographical Lat/Long of Oslo (which to me really looks a little irrelevant to this article). 205.239.40.3 (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, first off, the first source is sufficient, as there is zero requirement that sources be online sources. There's additional sources in the body of the article, including the museum that holds the very painting. That alone would be sufficient; please read WP:LEADCITE.

As for the coordinates, that's the location of the spot depicted in the painting. It's a fairly famous vista in part because of the painting. oknazevad (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I've now added two sources in the main body. But note this source says: (emphasis added): "In 1892, Edvard Munch had been invited to exhibit his paintings in Berlin, long before the start of the Secession there. When that exhibition opened in November, his work was considered so shocking that it provoked outrage, and the exhibition had to close prematurely after only one week." That seem to mean November 1892? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Same source says "From Despair came The Scream, shown here in its first version of 1893..." Schazjmd (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Seems to contradict itself. Unfortunate that no month is given. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

How does it contradict itself? The Scream was not Munch's only "shocking" painting. Nothing in that source indicates that The Scream was part of the 1892 exhibition. Schazjmd (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I see. So we can say it was first shown in 1893 in Berlin? We just don't know when the exhibition was or for how long it lasted? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Huh? That source doesn't say when or where 1893 The Scream was first shown. Schazjmd (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, so "shown here" means "shown in this image above", not in a particular city. So it's another good source for it having been created in 1893. But we still don't know where or exactly when it was first exhibited. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

This source says "This is by far the best-known version of The Scream. It was first exhibited in 1893 in a solo exhibition of Munch's work in Berlin. It was purchased by Norwegian industrialist and artist Olaf Schou, who in turn donated the work to Norway’s National Museum in 1910." Is that a reliable source for use in the article? Perhaps those details are all given somewhere in the 1984 Arne Eggum book. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 17:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:LEADCITE seems to say that claims should be sourced in the main body, not the lead. If the supporting detail is not even visible in a reference, a quote from the book could be given, or even a page number? Do you have that book? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

And you're sure that the book supports the entire contents of the first paragraph? I don't know without going to get a copy from the library or buying one. But WP:LEADCITE seems to say that unless material is contentious, there's no need to put the source in the lead section. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Art historian Michelle Facos (2011, page 361) says: "Having already produced works entitled Melancholy and Jealousy for "The Frieze of Life", Munch added Despair, now known as The Scream, in 1893." Shouldn't this be added? There is no mention of "The Frieze of Life" at all in the article. Perhaps it first exhibited in Berlin under the title Despair? [2]. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 09:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

1892 version of Despiar

1894 version of Despair

Anxiety

Despair is a different painting. Facos is plainly incorrect. It's obviously related, featuring the same background of a vivid abstract sunset overlooking Oslo, but the central figure is entirely different. There are two versions of it with rather differently featured central figures, one from 1892, the year before The Scream debuted, and another from 1894, the year after The Scream. The latter was accompanied by Anxiety which also draws on the same background introduced in Despair. Here's the three of them for comparison:

oknazevad (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that. I'm really surprised that a respected art historian like Facos has got that wrong. Perhaps it was a misprint? But I still think that maybe "The Frieze of Life" should be mentioned. It was obviously a set of connected paintings. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the first painting was created in 1893. My copy of Ydstie (2008) says, on page 77: "The first is signed and dated 'E. Munch 1893'." It's the second version (the one in the Munch Museum) that has no date. And it is no surprise that it was shown first in Berlin, as that was where Munch was mainly living at that time. He painted a portrait if Strindberg, in Berlin, in December 1892 (Ydstie 2008, p. 18). Martinevans123 (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)