Edvard Munch - founder of German Expressionism (the eve of the exhibition in the Pushkin Museum)

[Мунк]

Сообщение от LCR

I do not understand on what grounds Munch and Hamsun recorded in the naturalists. these two (perhaps more Lagerlöf) to naturalism, in my opinion, had nothing to do

I understand your question. Regular surprise! Of course, from the standpoint of the 20 th century, annex Munch word "naturalism" sounds paradoxical. Let me explain what had in mind, some critics and artists in the late 19 th century, calling Munch's "naturalist". It was one of the views in the context of the state of the art at the moment. Here two things: some called him so, looking back, and others - looking forward.

Читать дальше... 

If you stay in the field of art history, the 1880-90's years as the direction of expressionism in art has not yet arisen, but in French or German, the symbolism of that time Munch did not fit. He had his own way (see first post), who attempted to comprehend.
First the first, who was happy to call him a "naturalist" to the amendment. Norway realism flourished in an effort to comply with the general direction of development of art in Europe in the direction of subjectivity and idealization. And the art of Munch, with its extremely subjective perception of nature, focusing on emotions and feelings - is the best confirmed this evolution. Therefore, the Norwegian realist Christian Krogh, Erik Verenshelyu, Fritz Taulovu - fellow Munch by trade, by which he was able to study in Paris at the money the state - want to see Munch in his camp as an artist, inspired in naturalism (realism), a new life. So they became known as the art of Munch's "subjective naturalism.
Now about the second. In the past two decades, the 19 th century in Europe there was the craze psychophysiology and everything to do with the unconscious man. It was claimed that the fate of the human subconscious forces govern the soul. Images Munch, reflecting the inner life of man, as well as possible consistent with this fashionable intellectual currents, so their not objective in his support, and art is sometimes called "psychological naturalism. But only in the sense that the images of Munch reflect the truth subconscious life of the soul. And with that context, I agree 100 percent. To reinforce this view cite a quote man, who invented the art of Munch's this term. This Stanislaw Przybyszewski - a close friend of Munch and the publisher of the first book about his work. He wrote in 1894: "Munk - the first artist who has recreated the state of naked soul in the form in which they occur quite independently and completely independently of brain activity. His paintings - is simply the art products of the soul in moments when everyone falls silent voice of reason, ceases all activity of thought, - preparations of the soul, as she weaves in wild gusts rises on its hind legs when she dries up in a gloomy stupor, screaming in pain and howls of hunger.
But the formal features and the very concept, of course, does not mean a kind of naturalism. Munch in the first year of study in Paris (1889) realized that you can not convey the deep feelings and the critical state of the soul formal methods of naturalism. In his method, he chose the path of Gauguin, after a quarrel with those who supported him in Norway.
Hamsun showed mental life of the soul as if through a magnifying glass (very reliable="natural"), as Munch. He seemed to be issued in the same year as the "Hunger" his essay "Of the subconscious life of the soul." Only in this sense meant "naturalism" Hamsun. So I tried to explain the combination of the word "naturalism" with Munch. It provides an additional key to understanding his art. About Hamsun unlike Stridberga and Ibsen, I have nothing more I can not say. I do not know whether you satisfied answer. If not, then the remaining questions with pleasure answer privately.

[color="# 666686"]Added 3 hours, 29 minutes[/color]

Сообщение от Meister

saw Munch Museum in Norway, an indelible impression ...

Meister, and what you remember most? "Madonna" and "Scream" is probably not able to see? They are back on display after the theft only by May of this year ... By the way, in Norway there are more than 90%of the creative heritage of Munch. In recent years, the artist's life did not sell pictures, gathering a collection for the future Munch Museum, which was to become a monument of his life. In 1940, the eve of the German occupation of Norway, Munch was a testament, which passed on his collection municipality of Oslo on the condition that it will not be sold or divided. In 1944, after his death, the municipality of Oslo in 1008 inherited oil paintings. In addition, the city received a 4443 figure and 15 391 impressions. He also passed all the literary heritage of Munch. The Munch Museum in Oslo, opened in 1963. It has the largest collection of his works. The next largest collection is in the National Gallery of Oslo: 50 oil paintings, written before 1910, and hundreds of prints. Then there is a museum in Bergen, a former trader Rasmus Meyer collection. Fourth largest collection is Tilskoy gallery in Stockholm, the former collection of the banker Ernest Thiel.

[color="# 666686"]Added after 4 hours, 0 minutes[/color]

Сообщение от LCR

I remember reading his magazine, or some note - he has a very interesting, very unusual habits of thought ...

Yes, Munch was a contributing artist. He left five journals (diaries) and a lot of disparate texts. His memories of playing for his role in the development of creative motivation. In fact, he painted, based on his memory, and these records. Most of his images - retrospective (from the experienced past). So now, it's still possible to judge the author's conception of the artist about a particular painting. This is important because subsequently had a lot of subjective interpretations of his work from literary friends. But in a pure form of his diaries to be published. A small part of them published in the form of doctored to make it easier to read. However, the authors of these revisions state that sought to preserve the author's style to the maximum. I believe them, because strong distortion Munch Museum would not be allowed. I read all these books in English. Fiction - not an easy one. Even in doctored form style complex, and given the depressing content, then read sad. But of course, Munch was from a family of hereditary intelligentsia and wrote beautifully. His grandfather was a prominent Norwegian historian, shifting epics, in the family were artists.