• 'The Scream' sold for nearly $120 million
    48 replies, posted
[QUOTE]New York (CNN) -- Edvard Munch's iconic painting "The Scream" fetched nearly $120 million from an unknown buyer Wednesday at Sotheby's in New York, setting a new world record for a work of art sold at auction. Experts had expected the piece to break new ground at the famed New York auction house; its presale estimate of at least $80 million was the highest ever listed at Sotheby's. It sold for $119,922,500, which includes the premium paid to Sotheby's. Previously, the most expensive painting ever sold there was Pablo Picasso's "Nude, Green Leaves, and Bust," which brought in $106.5 million two years ago. The previous record for a Munch work of art was just over $38 million. The version of "The Scream" on the block Wednesday was one of four painted between 1893 and 1910, and is one of the best-known images in modern art. It's also the only version a private collector can get their hands on at public auction. The other three are housed in the National Gallery of Oslo and the Munch museum in the Norwegian capital. Munch's use of color, art historians say, is a distinguishing characteristic of this version. The piece also remains in its original frame. Dubbed "the portrait of a soul" and "the face that launched 1,000 therapists," "The Scream" depicts a distorted human figure -- hands flat against its sunken face, eyes and mouth wide open -- in the foreground of a nightmarish landscape. The painting is being sold by Norwegian businessman Petter Olsen, whose father is thought to have been a friend and patron of the famed artist. "I was walking down the road with two friends when the sun set; suddenly, the sky turned as red as blood," Munch wrote, describing how the idea for the painting came about. "I stopped and leaned against the fence, feeling unspeakably tired. Tongues of fire and blood stretched over the bluish black fjord. My friends went on walking, while I lagged behind, shivering with fear. Then I heard the enormous, infinite scream of nature." Few pieces have crossed the $100 million benchmark at public auction, said Sotheby's spokesman David Norman. "The Scream has really entered the collective conscience, whatever nationality, whatever country, whatever attitude or age, it really sort of speaks to that sort of existential terror that everyone experiences in the world," Norman said. [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f4/The_Scream.jpg/220px-The_Scream.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Source: [url]http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/02/us/new-york-the-scream/index.html?hpt=hp_t1[/url]
It is a nice painting
It is a painting.
[QUOTE=joost1120;35802339]It is a painting.[/QUOTE] Oh, I thought it was a sound
if you're gonna hate modern 20th century art you might as well start with this piece. i think The Scream's been stolen at least a couple of times.
Wait, if modern art is anything up until the 70s, why is it called modern?
[QUOTE=Sharker;35802525]Wait, if modern art is anything up until the 70s, why is it called modern?[/QUOTE] Its not based upon chronological order but rather different intellectual and artistic developments [editline]3rd May 2012[/editline] oh and technological
[QUOTE=Sharker;35802525]Wait, if modern art is anything up until the 70s, why is it called modern?[/QUOTE] Because we're in the "post-modern" era, supposedly.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;35802612]Because we're in the "post-modern" era, supposedly.[/QUOTE] we're not in a supposed era, post-modernism is a specific line of thought as a rejection of modernism.
Nas once said real millionaires spend $60 Mill on paintings, but damn, I did not expect anything to go double that.
I don't like it. I'm not a fan of Van Gogh-esque paintings. They seem really pretentious.
[QUOTE=gamefreek76;35802669]I don't like it. I'm not a fan of Van Gogh-esque paintings. They seem really pretentious.[/QUOTE] saying Van Gogh themed paintings are pretentious is quite hilarious seeing how the very man himself was a manic depressive who shot himself in a field and hated his work.
I prefer starry night myself.
[quote]"I was walking down the road with two friends when the sun set; suddenly, the sky turned as red as blood," Munch wrote, describing how the idea for the painting came about. "I stopped and leaned against the fence, feeling unspeakably tired. Tongues of fire and blood stretched over the bluish black fjord. My friends went on walking, while I lagged behind, shivering with fear. Then I heard the enormous, infinite scream of nature."[/quote] That is [I]extremely fucking[/I] overdramatic. I can't stand shit like this. Like this by Mary Oliver: [quote]Or, here, fields where the roses hook into the dunes, and their increase is manyfold. All summer they are red and pink and white tents of softness and nectar, which wafts and hangs everywhere— a sweetness so palpable and excessive that, before it, I’m struck, I’m taken, I’m conquered, I’m washed into it, as though it was a river, full of dreaming and idleness—I drop to the sand, I can’t move; I am restless no more; I am replete, supine, finished, filled to the last edges with an immobilizing happiness. And is this not also terrible? Is this not also frightening? [/quote] Nobody is "immobilized" by nature. Virtually every instance of an artist claiming so is overdramatic shit. It annoys me to no end, in part because it is clearly dishonest.
[QUOTE=gamefreek76;35802669]I don't like it. I'm not a fan of Van Gogh-esque paintings. They seem really pretentious.[/QUOTE] van gogh-esque? you say pretentious, and then you compare the scream to van gogh to look insightful, while utterly failing in the process considering it really doesn't have anything in common with van gogh.
[QUOTE=gamefreek76;35802669]I don't like it. I'm not a fan of Van Gogh-esque paintings. They seem really pretentious.[/QUOTE] You're joking, right? Van Gogh drew some crazy shit, but it was a different style than this. I mean, just look at this stuff: [IMG]http://www.martin-missfeldt.com/images-pictures/cezanne-van-gogh/vincent-van-gogh-selfportrait-without-ear.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://www.trinity.edu/mkearl/death05/skulls/van%20gogh.jpg[/IMG] You can tell the style is different right off the bat. These are both Van Goghs, just compare it to The Scream.
[media][URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LG1zGY7lE1U[/URL][/media] good documentary
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;35802752]That is [I]extremely fucking[/I] overdramatic. .[/QUOTE] I recall that it was based on a volcanic eruption that occurred in the place he lived in, I would probably freak out if I were in a natural disaster myself.
[QUOTE=Doneeh;35802868] [IMG]http://www.martin-missfeldt.com/images-pictures/cezanne-van-gogh/vincent-van-gogh-selfportrait-without-ear.jpg[/IMG] [/QUOTE] what the fuck is that?
Oh. Well in that case, if it were in response to such a thing, all I could do is retract my statement about him. Mary Oliver continues to be dumb though.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;35802949]Oh. Well in that case, if it were in response to such a thing, all I could do is retract my statement about him. Mary Oliver continues to be dumb though.[/QUOTE] why are you starting a crusade against mary oliver in a thread about the scream?
[QUOTE=thisispain;35802946]what the fuck is that?[/QUOTE] A self portait. Here is a more conventional rendition, note similarities. [img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/VanGogh-self-portrait-with_bandaged_ear.jpg[/img] [editline]2nd May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=thisispain;35802961]why are you starting a crusade against mary oliver in a thread about the scream?[/QUOTE] I am good at derailing threads after all, you know that by now. But I used her as an example for why Van Gogh was overdramatic, when further details were revealed that negated that, I had to maintain that she (and many other artists) still are painfully overdramatic.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;35802970]A self portait.[/QUOTE] not a van gogh self-portrait. so not a self-portrait at all considering that's not a van gogh painting. [editline]2nd May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Elecbullet;35802970] But I used her as an example for why Van Gogh was overdramatic, when further details were revealed that negated that, I had to maintain that she (and many other artists) still are painfully overdramatic.[/QUOTE] you used her as an example of why van gogh was over-dramatic? in a thread about The Scream? i mean mary oliver is a poet, poetry is supposed to be dramatic to some extent.
[QUOTE=thisispain;35802995]not a van gogh self-portrait. so not a self-portrait at all considering that's not a van gogh painting.[/quote] The image URL would have implied otherwise, as did the post containing it, but cripes I dunno about it now. [quote]you used her as an example of why van gogh was over-dramatic? in a thread about The Scream? i mean mary oliver is a poet, poetry is supposed to be dramatic to some extent.[/QUOTE] She served to clarify why, you bum
[QUOTE=CoolKingKaso;35802924]I recall that it was based on a volcanic eruption that occurred in the place he lived in, I would probably freak out if I were in a natural disaster myself.[/QUOTE] No, it was in Indonesia. 'Skrik' was painted in Ekeberg overlooking the Oslofjord, in Norway. Quite the distance. But the volcanic ash in the atmosphere made the sunsets and sunrises unspeakably beautiful. 'Skrik' was stolen a few years ago, I still remember the media stir it caused.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;35803084]The image URL would have implied otherwise, as did the post containing it, but cripes I dunno about it now. [/QUOTE] uh it's pretty obvious that's not a van gogh. like really really obvious. [quote]She served to clarify why, you bum[/quote] i don't know what you are clarifying. poetry is dramatic? big news flash there.
[QUOTE=thisispain;35802995]not a van gogh self-portrait. so not a self-portrait at all considering that's not a van gogh painting.[/quote] The URL and post implied otherwise but I dunno now [quote]you used her as an example of why van gogh was over-dramatic? in a thread about The Scream? i mean mary oliver is a poet, poetry is supposed to be dramatic to some extent.[/QUOTE] She was serving as an example you bum
Van Gogh is one of my favorite artists ever. I can't say I'm not a tiny bit jealous but I could never pay anything near that for it, good on them.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;35803084]The image URL would have implied otherwise, as did the post containing it, but cripes I dunno about it now. She served to clarify why, you bum[/QUOTE] i hate when artists make art and then talk about their art with emotion emotion just makes me so gerr why can't everyone think about things logically like me The reason they're able to make emotive pieces is because everything in life is blown out of proportion for them. IE; Lovecraft wrote good horror because he was a legitimately crazy terrified nervous wreck. Philip K. Dick wrote good sci-fi because he was a fucking nutter who couldn't draw the line between fantasy and reality. People who make really good flowery happy things usually see flowery happy things as very flowery and happy, and people who make disturbing violent things usually see disturbing and violent things as particularly disturbing and violent.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;35803163]i hate when artists make art and then talk about their art with emotion emotion just makes me so gerr why can't everyone think about things logically like me The reason they're able to make emotive pieces is because everything in life is blown out of proportion for them. IE; Lovecraft wrote good horror because he was a legitimately crazy terrified nervous wreck. Philip K. Dick wrote good sci-fi because he was a fucking nutter who couldn't draw the line between fantasy and reality. People who make really good flowery happy things usually see flowery happy things as very flowery and happy, and people who make disturbing violent things usually see disturbing and violent things as particularly disturbing and violent.[/QUOTE] But what about the ~depth~*~?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.