How to Spot the Kubrick in Edvard Munch
Boaz
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/arts/design/19munc.html
Or, you can read it below. Check out the paragraph on Hanna Liden and
her comments on "Red Virginia Creeper."
Boaz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 19, 2006
Art
How to Spot the Kubrick in Edvard Munch
By ANNETTE GRANT
Is Edvard Munch a great painter? Is he over the top? Is he still
relevant? Do we feel his pain? Or is he just weird? Those questions and
more were discussed recently by six artists who took a tour of the
Munch retrospective, "The Modern Life of the Soul," that opened last
month at the Museum of Modern Art and continues through May 8. Their
comments ranged from a riff on stealing paintings (a reference to the
theft of "The Scream" in Oslo in 2004) to an examination of the
relationship of Munch (1863-1944) to advertising and cinema, especially
horror films. The artists all live in New York, although only one was
born here; their fields encompass drawing, painting, sculpture,
photography, video, printmaking and performance. All have had gallery
shows and four of them are in the 2006 Whitney Biennial; one was in the
2004 Biennial and another is represented in the print collection of the
Modern. Starting in front of a landscape, "Spring in the Elm Forest
III" (1923), the artists mused playfully on Munch's temperament and
style and on why his work still resonates today. Here are excerpts.
JORDAN WOLFSON, 25, born in New York; makes videos, films and
installations that refer to people, places and historical events. His
early ambition was to be a comedian.
"Elm Forest" would be the easiest painting to steal, even though it's
bolted to the wall. There's a straight shot through the door and down
the escalator. Whereas "Metabolism," one of the largest and heaviest,
would be very difficult to steal. There is a guard here and a camera in
the ceiling.
I guess this all connects somehow to the work, because it is about the
human experience, the modern experience. When I look at Munch I don't
think much about the formal qualities. I'm not as interested in the
paintings as in the cultural context. When I was in college I redubbed
the entire film "Home Alone" in my own voice and replaced Macaulay
Culkin's scream with a deep empty breath.
YURI MASNYJ, 29, born in Washington; expands drawings into sculptures,
like drawing in space, with architectural overtones, graphic elements
and references to modernist design.
Munch takes incredibly mundane subjects and infuses them with a
tremendous amount of emotional energy. "Angst," of 1894, still
reverberates with anxiety. You feel the artist is really tuned into it.
He wasn't unschooled; he made the choice to paint as he did. What he
was doing was new, not yet convention.
He worked in a way that was a real slap in the face of bourgeois taste,
which is very difficult to do now because there is such a wide range of
what is visually acceptable. To some extent Munch goes way too far,
he's very heavy-handed in his gesture and in his concept, but it's nice
that he pushed people to the limit, seduced them into understanding his
idea.
Today you have many images of daily life in advertising, and the more
normal people behave in commercials, the scarier they really look. I
often think of Munch when I see them.
JUTTA KOETHER, 47, born in Germany; a writer, painter, performer and
musician, she often makes site-specific installations.
For me "The Sun" of 1912 is a synthesis in Munch between highly
symbolic content and other work in which he conducts an ongoing
interrogation of his own existence. This painting brings back the drama
of his earlier work. I've always been attracted to this kind of
circular composition. It bursts open, going outside rather than inside.
It's raw and it punches out.
He was a kind of pop star for a time and then he went out of favor
after the war because he was liked by the Germans. Now his tradition
has been reinvigorated. I've known him since I was a little kid. We had
a reproduction of "Three Girls on a Bridge," which was my father's
favorite painting, and "The Scream" of course.
HANNA LIDEN, 29, born in Stockholm; photographs spooky masked and
hooded figures in landscapes.
The "Spring in the Elm Forest" is rather trippy, but I'm not
particularly attracted to it the way I am to earlier work. I prefer the
colder, darker melancholy fall landscapes that kind of sum up the
Nordic sensibility.
I also like "Red Virginia Creeper," which relates to contemporary
American cinema. The red vine on the cottage is like a wave of blood,
like "The Shining," for example. It feels like panic. There is
something wrong with the house, like it's bleeding from the inside.
NICOLA LÓPEZ, 30, born in Santa Fe, N.M.; produces exuberantly bleak
landscapes and industrial wastelands in drawings, collages and prints.
There is some optimism here, but I can't get away from the anxiety and
melancholy that is a large part of what is going on in this entire
collection of Munch's work. It's easy to say they're heavy-handed and
obvious, but they're also very honest.
There is also a lot of despair and angst going around these days, and I
think we'd be silly to say there isn't an edge of desperation about
where the world is going in general. The self-portraits are moving
because they have intensity accessed through an internal rather than a
predictable imagery. I think a lot of his work is very scary.
ERNESTO CAIVANO, 33, born in Madrid; has created his own mythology in
minutely detailed mural-length ink drawings of mysterious love stories
filled with flora and fauna, especially exotic birds.
I love landscape and will always stop to look at it. "Elm Forest" feels
like a transitional painting, as if he had seen some other painters,
like Bonnard. There seems in this work to be certain moves, like beads
or melodies, that were popular for a while, so everyone had to try them
out. But what I like in here is the subtlety; it's like liquid, or as
seen through a distorting glass. Yet Munch can be rather corny and
goofy. Some of his people look like actors who have never acted before,
like in Bresson films; you catch a lot of awkward moments that way.
For me, "Between the Clock and the Bed," his last portrait, is the
embodiment of all his work. This tells about his understanding with his
practice. It's like a retrospective of all his introspection, which he
executed as fast as he could and then left. The thing that gives the
painting away to me is the head, which is the most worked area. It is
sort of a diamond shape, reiterated throughout the painting. It's an
appropriate piece to have at the end of the show.
ichorwhip
Boaz wrote:
> I saw this in the New York Times today:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/arts/design/19munc.html
>
> Or, you can read it below. Check out the paragraph on Hanna Liden and
> her comments on "Red Virginia Creeper."
>
> Boaz
This is pretty good, thanks for posting... Munch certainly is the
embodiment of creepy existentialism in painting. I agree with a few of
the comments about him being fairly obvious, but what is not really
mentioned is the way Munch used color. I'd say it was a very
Cezanne-like approach although I don't think Munch devoted that kind of
painstaking attention to detail exactly. His style owes something to
the impressionists and post-impressionists, but he is distinctly
expressionistic, and it's no wonder why German expressionists to come
liked his often bleak, pessimistic and angst-ridden work. And the
German expressionists lead to Kubrick of course who was greatly
influenced by them.
BTW, here's a link to "Red Virginia Creeper":
http://www.humanitiesweb.org/human.php?s=g&p=c&a=p&ID=486
It is rather "bloody" for Munch, who is best known for casting a
grayish blue or rotten yellow on his canvases. This one goes more to
the violet, but you have to say to yourself, "What in the hell was on
his mind?" A little biographical investigation into Munch gives a lot
of clues. He was a disturbed invidual to say the least, and most
likely had bi-polar syndrome to say the most. Nevertheless, Munch's
catalog is impressive. I quite enjoy looking at his many varied and
unique works. This is a pretty good site that shows that Munch wasn't
entirely consumed by death and despair:
http://www.calarts.edu/%7Erjaster/edvard-munch/index1.htm
Although he sort of fell in with the styles of the time, his range of
subjects and use of color was fairly wide.
"Go check it out!"
i
"piop"
Boaz
ichorwhip wrote:
> Boaz wrote:
> > I saw this in the New York Times today:
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/arts/design/19munc.html
> >
> > Or, you can read it below. Check out the paragraph on Hanna Liden and
> > her comments on "Red Virginia Creeper."
> >
> > Boaz
>
> This is pretty good, thanks for posting... Munch certainly is the
> embodiment of creepy existentialism in painting. I agree with a few of
> the comments about him being fairly obvious, but what is not really
> mentioned is the way Munch used color. I'd say it was a very
> Cezanne-like approach although I don't think Munch devoted that kind of
> painstaking attention to detail exactly. His style owes something to
> the impressionists and post-impressionists, but he is distinctly
> expressionistic, and it's no wonder why German expressionists to come
> liked his often bleak, pessimistic and angst-ridden work. And the
> German expressionists lead to Kubrick of course who was greatly
> influenced by them.
>
> BTW, here's a link to "Red Virginia Creeper":
>
> http://www.humanitiesweb.org/human.php?s=g&p=c&a=p&ID=486
It does look as though the building is bleeding, or perhaps showing the
building with sores and blood blisters. It's as if the building is
suffering or dying. It is also interesting that the front stairs don't
touch the ground. I wonder what the building itself was?
> It is rather "bloody" for Munch, who is best known for casting a
> grayish blue or rotten yellow on his canvases. This one goes more to
> the violet, but you have to say to yourself, "What in the hell was on
> his mind?"
What did he "see" in that building that prompted such an approach to
his use of color? Was the building hiding some ghastly "secret," like
the Overlook?
> A little biographical investigation into Munch gives a lot
> of clues. He was a disturbed invidual to say the least, and most
> likely had bi-polar syndrome to say the most. Nevertheless, Munch's
> catalog is impressive. I quite enjoy looking at his many varied and
> unique works. This is a pretty good site that shows that Munch wasn't
> entirely consumed by death and despair:
>
> http://www.calarts.edu/%7Erjaster/edvard-munch/index1.htm
I was just up at CalArts last week, to see a series of short films by
the experimental filmmaker Jem Cohen. I didn't see anything about
Munch. I guess it is only on the website. It is interesting that the
most comments are focused on the paintings he did of women,
particularly "The Day After." The section with the "Death" paintings is
intriguing, if only because the colors remind me of Nathanson's room in
EWS. It isn't so much literal, but what the colors suggest in their
"feeling." Certainly the "Night in Saint Cloud" has the effect of blue
lighting coming through the window, much like that in the Harford
apartment in EWS. And the "Death of Marat" paintings make me think of
seeing Mandy, both after she OD'd and when layed out at the morgue,
even though the nude redhead here is standing. And even "Marat" layed
out on the bed, the sheets bloodied suggests Christ after being taken
down from the cross, especially the first one. The "Death in the Sick
Room" is interesting in its use of green; it recalls the green bathroom
of Room 237 in TS, and what Jack finds in there.
> Although he sort of fell in with the styles of the time, his range of
> subjects and use of color was fairly wide.
And it appears some of these colors had an influence on Kubrick's use
of color in his films.
Fascinating stuff, Ich. Thanks for finding these links.
Boaz
("I love the use of the color blue by the artist.")
Matthew Dickinson
ichorwhip
Matthew Dickinson wrote:
> Don't see a connection between Munch and Kubrick.
Is this the beginning of another of your "Officer Doofy" routines or
are you serious?
The connection is Expressionism.
"no time, no time...."
i
"piop"
Matthew Dickinson
What is dis Officer Doofy routine you speak? Munch paintings don't look
like Kubrick photography, duh. The shapes and lines-- he uses squirmy,
anxious strokes, and Kubrick is strong and square, and Munch is drunk,
and Kubrick is sober and rational, and just because Munch paints a wall
green, that doesn't mean it's some dumb influence on Kubrick 100 years
later, when HE uses green wallpaper in one of his movies. I mean golly.
ichorwhip
Matthew Dickinson wrote:
> ichorwhip wrote:
> > Matthew Dickinson wrote:
> >> Don't see a connection between Munch and Kubrick.
> >
> > Is this the beginning of another of your "Officer Doofy" routines or
> > are you serious?
> >
> > The connection is Expressionism.
> >
> > "no time, no time...."
> > i
> > "piop"
> >
>
> What is dis Officer Doofy routine you speak?
I mean I might actually attempt to discuss expressionism with you if
you don't just go what? what? what? what?
>Munch paintings don't look
> like Kubrick photography, duh. The shapes and lines-- he uses squirmy,
> anxious strokes, and Kubrick is strong and square, and Munch is drunk,
> and Kubrick is sober and rational, and just because Munch paints a wall
> green, that doesn't mean it's some dumb influence on Kubrick 100 years
> later, when HE uses green wallpaper in one of his movies. I mean golly.
Your miscategorizing Munch to a certain extent, but that I'll forgive
momentarily in the interest of the primary issue which is STYLE. Of
course Kubrick didn't match Munch's individual technique; that would
fly in the face of expressionism. However, there are several
identifiable traits extant in expressionism wherein any artist working
in this way may be compared to others within the discipline You need
a trip to Wikipedia if you can't grasp this. A little background in
fine art helps me with this stuff a bit, but I never stop reading
about.
ON MUNCH
See me seize the Monet and shriek,
My soul wholly unwhole,
My physique wrinkled to react
Triggering an eternal wail,
For eternity is the consequence of this woe,
This weltzschmerzed guilt of the dead,
Pale and appalling with hideous fixed smiles,
A soulless void where laughter replaces light.
Cut and paste is this spirit's picture,
My lips rotten, I can't help but gleam.
Unpurged animal, tortured psyche,
I hallucinate as one of the unliving.
i
"piop"
Matthew Dickinson
Yelps
"Matthew Dickinson" <stal...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:YISdnZfjgeXuer3Z...@comcast.com...
SK movies aren't Expressionism by any stretch of the imagination. His films
are Hyperreal, The article commecting SK and Munch is absurd.
dc
Boaz
> Matthew Dickinson wrote:
> > What is dis Officer Doofy routine you speak?
>
> I mean I might actually attempt to discuss expressionism with you if
> you don't just go what? what? what? what?
>
> >Munch paintings don't look
> > like Kubrick photography, duh. The shapes and lines-- he uses squirmy,
> > anxious strokes, and Kubrick is strong and square, and Munch is drunk,
> > and Kubrick is sober and rational, and just because Munch paints a wall
> > green, that doesn't mean it's some dumb influence on Kubrick 100 years
> > later, when HE uses green wallpaper in one of his movies. I mean golly.
>
> Your miscategorizing Munch to a certain extent, but that I'll forgive
> momentarily in the interest of the primary issue which is STYLE. Of
> course Kubrick didn't match Munch's individual technique; that would
> fly in the face of expressionism. However, there are several
> identifiable traits extant in expressionism wherein any artist working
> in this way may be compared to others within the discipline You need
> a trip to Wikipedia if you can't grasp this. A little background in
> fine art helps me with this stuff a bit, but I never stop reading
> about.
Don't waste your energy, Ich. You're merely casting pearls before
swine. Remember, these are the same people who voiceiferously attacked
a particular book about Kubrick and his films without ever having read
it. A lot of people don't know how to "read" a painting.
Upon looking at the "Red Virginia Creeper" painting more closely, it
appears the paint on the building itself was peeling away, revealing
its original red surface. Still, it looks like rotting or diseased
flesh that is now exposed, and this is no doubt what appealed to Munch
and inspired him to paint it, based on what I read of his bio.
<snip poem>
Boaz
("Ah, but this is one of my best pictures.")
ichorwhip
Another "valued contributor" speaks.... sigh. (It's okay Boaz. I
often make some of my best points arguing with the ignorant, arrogant
and narrow-minded hominids that choose to inhabit AMK. Why on earth
they bother posting or even lurking here is a very great enigma. It's
not as mysterious as the monolith however...)
So you deny that Kubrick took any inspiration from the German
Expressionists who in turn were highly influenced by Expressionism as
an art form, particularly Munch? Murnau, Lang and von Stroheim et al
meant nothing to Kubrick???? I think if I were Riedzsche, which I am
not thank bog, I'd be calling you an "idiot."
"I phoned some friends while you were having a bath."
i
"piop"
Bill Reid
ichorwhip <icho...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:1143068676.7...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> Yelps wrote:
> > "Matthew Dickinson" <stal...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:YISdnZfjgeXuer3Z...@comcast.com...
> > > ichorwhip wrote:
> > >> Matthew Dickinson wrote:
> > >>> Don't see a connection between Munch and Kubrick.
> > >>
Oh, a big word beginning with an "E", great, that explains "E"verything!
> > >
> > > Munch paintings don't look
> > > like Kubrick photography, duh. The shapes and lines-- he uses squirmy,
> > > anxious strokes, and Kubrick is strong and square, and Munch is drunk,
and
> > > Kubrick is sober and rational, and just because Munch paints a wall
green,
> > > that doesn't mean it's some dumb influence on Kubrick 100 years later,
> > > when HE uses green wallpaper in one of his movies. I mean golly.
> >
> > SK movies aren't Expressionism by any stretch of the imagination. His
films
> > are Hyperreal, The article commecting SK and Munch is absurd.
> >
> Another "valued contributor" speaks.... sigh.
I would just say a "typical contributor"...chicken birdbrain of a feather,
if
you will...
> It's okay Boaz. I
> often make some of my best points arguing with the ignorant, arrogant
> and narrow-minded hominids that choose to inhabit AMK.
Like when you wish death on people because they didn't like
"Dr. Zhivago"? Bore-Ass sure thought THAT was a "good point"...
> Why on earth
> they bother posting or even lurking here is a very great enigma.
I do believe that anybody interested in an INTELLIGENT discussion
of Stanley Kubrick movies will be majorly disappointed, so "good
point"...
>
> So you deny that Kubrick took any inspiration from the German
> Expressionists who in turn were highly influenced by Expressionism as
> an art form, particularly Munch? Murnau, Lang and von Stroheim et al
> meant nothing to Kubrick????
Well, what I'm wondering is whether Munch was influenced by
"existentialism" as you seem to imply:
On 3/20/06, "Quote Monkey" wrote:
> Munch certainly is the
> embodiment of creepy existentialism in painting.
---end of archived idiotic blather excerpt
So can you expand or just explain what you meant there, oh "Annie
Hall" line-stander except with even more patches on your worn-out
tweedy clothing?
> I think if I were Riedzsche, which I am
> not thank bog, I'd be calling you an "idiot."
>
Well, you kind of did, in a sneaky back-handed way, so maybe
you're "evolving". No "superman" stands so tall as when he laughs
derisively at "monkey-shines", it just "comes with the territory"...
---
William Ernest "You Hate Me, You Really Hate Me" Reid
ichorwhip
> Oh, a big word beginning with an "E", great, that explains "E"verything!
Idiot... I thought you wanted me to leave you alone. But you just
couldn't resist baiting me, eh Billy? Always the adversarial,
argumentative, insulting sickness...
<snip the rest and back to ignoring you>
"A big black mark I tell you for every one we don't reclaim."
i
"piop"
Bill Reid
> Reidrump flamebaited:
>
> > Oh, a big word beginning with an "E", great, that explains "E"verything!
>
> Idiot... I thought you wanted me to leave you alone.
I have always accepted the idea that "people" like you exist in the
world; I may not "like" it, but as I've said I use door locks and gates
and police and ISP "abuse" mails intelligently to minimize any
unwanted consequences of your psychotic behavior. I realize
that Usenet is a "rough neighborhood" these days but I still
walk its streets with precaution but not fear because otherwise
"the terrorists have won".
> But you just
> couldn't resist baiting me, eh Billy?
Sure, that's my goal in life...like when I read your "mind", realized
you were unhinged on the topic of "Dr. Zhivago", and deliberately
antagonized you personally by saying it was boring and laughably
stupid. I'm the ultimate troll, because I add the powers of ESP to
my provocative arsenal...
> Always the adversarial,
> argumentative, insulting sickness...
>
Yup, add in the stalking, racism, fascism, laughable stupidity, slow/low
reading comprehension, and death wishes, and I know you are...
> <snip the rest and back to ignoring you>
>
Ah, yes, the classic marker of the Usenet whack job, the revulsive editing
of your own hypocritical words. How can you go "back to ignoring
me" when you made the following statement in the post I responded to?
> > I think if I were Riedzsche, which I am
> > not thank bog, I'd be calling you an "idiot."
But I do have to be careful, because one of your classic behaviors
is that you get most crazed when your own demented words are
played back to you...the actual moronic death wishes, your disgust
at the "ugly noses" of Jewish actresses, etc.
But I honestly thought you might somehow make one of your
"good points" by actually responding to this question you "decided"
to elide:
> Well, what I'm wondering is whether Munch was influenced by
> "existentialism" as you seem to imply:
> On 3/20/06, "Quote Monkey" wrote:
> > Munch certainly is the
> > embodiment of creepy existentialism in painting.
> ---end of archived idiotic blather excerpt
Just like "JW 'More Existentialism' Moore" I actually had some
hope that you could come up with some "good points" that would
start an illuminating discussion about philosophical motifs in art,
but then we're all victims of our own perspective: you can say
I'm a dreamer, but it seems I AM the only one...
---
William Ernest "Fears No Evil In The Valley Of Idiots" Reid
Matthew Dickinson
> I saw this in the New York Times today:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/arts/design/19munc.html
>
> Or, you can read it below. Check out the paragraph on Hanna Liden and
> her comments on "Red Virginia Creeper."
This in the LA Times today...
A Silenced 'Scream' Haunts Art Heist Trial
Six men in Norway face charges in the theft of Munch's masterpiece,
which is still missing.
By Jeffrey Fleishman, Times Staff Writer
March 26, 2006
Oslo -- They whirled past portraits and Impressionist nudes, masks
pulled tight, chrome-plated .357 Magnum flashing, visitors scattering
for cover, highbrow chatter turning to fear. The men stopped at the
painting of the willowy figure with hands to his face, his mouth agape
in bewilderment.
"The Scream" was ripped from the wall. The gloved thieves turned to
another Edvard Munch masterpiece. "Madonna," her head tilted, her hair
black and tousled in a way that is at once erotic and spiritual, was
yanked from her silver cables.
The paintings were heavier than the men had anticipated. They struggled
as they hustled out the museum's glass doors. A metallic-black Audi
shimmied to life and roared away, speeding up a hill, pieces of pine
frames blowing out the window, leaving a trail of splinters in the
street. The car stopped near a train trestle. The paintings were shoved
into another car; the Audi was sprayed with a fire extinguisher to
smother fingerprints and traces of DNA.
ichorwhip
This is an interesting current event although it doesn't have much
specific to do with the original subject, or does it? Engaging and
descriptive journalism by Fleishman, I wonder if he's thinking about a
screenplay. This has all the elements of a pretty ironic crime caper.
The existential twist (assuming that the painting has not been
destroyed): This version of "The Scream" is kept completely isolated
surrounded by hostile and remote forces. If only "The Scream" could
scream.
"What, then, didst thou in thy mind have?"
i
"piop"