Talk:Madonna (Munch)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

Norway

	Norway portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Ye olde stuff

I have moved the page Madonna_(painting) to Madonna_(Edvard_Munch) because there are hundreds of paintings by different artists depicting the Madonna. Karl Stas 16:04, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

All good. Also, thanx for adding the actual page. I'm incapable of research right now, so someone needs to get rid of the Stub remark by adding:

1. The fact that there is several versions, made by Munch.

2. Explain the differences in the originals (measurement and/or material used and/or condition).

3. Current ownership of the originals (One was with the Munch Museum (See 4., one is with the Bergesen's).

4. The today's theft -at gupoint- of the painting from the Munch Museum, Oslo, Norway -Antwelm 17:56, 2004 Aug 22 (UTC)

5. The painting is part of The Frieze of Life (as mentioned on the Edvard Munch page).User:dash 06:58, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)

Where is the painting?

The article says that the theives were caught, and their car was found, but does not say what happened to the painting. A simple "the location of the painting is unknown" would help (if this is the case).

Mistress?

I think that the news story on the U.S. Munch exhibit said that this was based on his mistress? Rmhermen 22:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She is said to be based on a woman named Dagny Juel.Possibly his mistress.//Cecilia Löwen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.216.32.21 (talk) 01:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Text on poster of painting

I have a poster of this painting with the following text underneath:

Your face holds all the love in the world. Moonlight steals across your face so full of Earthly beauty and Grief. For now Death extends her hand of Life and a bond is made between the thousands of generations who are dead and the thousands of generations to come.

Does anybody know about the text?--Oxonian2006 (talk) 00:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

Ameba mcare (talk · contribs) Has entered unsourced controversial content, along with an image that's pretty clearly not an autograph work. In short, unless someone can substantiate this, it looks like a hoax. JNW (talk) 18:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've again reverted the contention that Munch made a final version in 1922. The sources behind this, and from which the text was lifted, are in no way reliable, and indicate WP:COI [1], [2]. Nor is the image of a quality that would suggest Munch's, let alone any experienced artist's hand. I don't know if the intent is based upon the honest enthusiasm of someone who believes they've found a lost masterwork, or something less respectable. JNW (talk) 13:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely correct. Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ameba mcare What are all the contents edited by Ameba mcare and removed by wiki in Madonna [Edvard Munch] article are based on reliable sources not of fictitious one. In the edited content only second half of the edited article is required Re-citation particularly in the section of the image of Madonna [final version 1922] uploaded. All remaining content of the edited portion of article is based on reliable sources . Even the image of final version of Munch's Madonna is an AUTHENTICATED ONE as per the private collector who is presently holding Final version of Madonna (1922)it is purely on the side of RE-INVESTIGATION grounds by the concerned Artwork Authenticated experts and also this matter is between the present holder of Munch's 1922-Madonna and the art experts.So the removal of second part of the edited article by wiki is agreeable. But there is no solid reasons to remove the first part of the edited article which is emphasizing and pointing out the mistakes in the original article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna_(Edvard_Munch)

on the number of versions for Munch's Madonna is --------

The Norwegian expressionist Edvard Munch painted five versions of a composition showing a bare-breasted half-length female that is usually called Madonna between 1894 and 1895, using oils on canvas, and also produced versions in print form.

which is incorrect.The correct statement should be Munch's Madonna painted eight versions [ to be exactly say as per current 1922 version proved it's authentication it should be Nine versions of Madonna if we include this one. till the result of final version 1922 proved it shall be set aside for the time being assumed that the total versions of Madonna is eight as on date not five as mentioned in wiki's current article. Another mistake pointed out is Madonna .... in wiki's current article it is mentioned as ....... usually called Madonna between 1894 and 1895...... This time periodicity also erroneous one. As per following reliable sources the start up period of Madonna is from 1892 upto year 1914[ of course the year 1922 version proof is undergoing] So the corrected one shall be Madonna between 1892 and 1914 not 1894 -1895 as mentioned in current wilki article

For both the above corrections we have solid reliable sources which are mentioned below :

The reliable sources are 1]National Gallery of Art, Washington US government http://www.nga.gov/press/exh/3109/3109_list.pdf

2]Elizabeth Prelinger is the Keyser Family Professor of Art History at Georgetown University narrates as in the published book "Edvard Munch:Master Prints " Scholars and general readers alike will gain a much richer and more nuanced appreciation for this great Norwegian artist. ISBN9783791350592

3]Andrew Robison is Andrew W. Mellon Senior Curator of Prints and Drawings at the National Gallery of Art narrates as Munch created an image of such evocative power that it became the standard version of the theme representing the most frequently printed color combinations and sequence of the matrices. ISBN3791350595

Do you think above resources are not reliable one? Even the US Government's National Art gallery publication is not a reliable source then what else Please respond (unsigned)

I have changed "five" to "several". The date range covers paintings, not the various lithograph versions. I can't see a painting from 1892 in the PDF. I think that covers your points, no? Johnbod (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The periodicity starts from the Nude original first piece of Madonna is in the year 1892 ^[1] the above references are from the published books [that too published by US Government's National Art gallery publication] as mentioned earlier. The excerpts and extracts of the said books are published in http://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/7005

Here, we can see the correct period of Madonna is from 1892 and as far the VERSIONS concerned there is no count for Painting and Prints separately.If we go to calculate the version counts of one particular Artist it shall be inclusive of all type of creation modes not simply brush work only. That is why the National Art gallery Publication mentioned eight versions[both Paints and Prints] of Madonna from the year 1892 to 1914[ including the initial Nude Madonna Munch exhibited for the first time. The current final version 1922 has been not calculated as this master piece is under AUTHENTICATION PROCESS. Thereby we can come to a conclusion for the time being it is EIGHT VERSIONS So the corrected statement shall be :- Eight versions of Madonna from the year 1892 to 1914. After the approved AUTHENTICATION of final version of Madonna which is in the year 1922 it shall be re- edited as Nine versions of Madonna from the year 1892 to 1922. Till then, the previous statement is correct for the time being. You agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ameba mcare (talk • contribs) 17:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"several" is enough detail for us, especially given the prints. The blog is rather self-contradictory:

Among the master works, a series of eight Madonnas dated from 1895-1914. The most famous is a Madonna depicted as a nude; in 1892 when it was sent to a show in Berlin it so shocked the public that the show was shut down.

I've found a better ref though; in fact it was painted in 1886. Johnbod (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As long as no reliable sources or scholarship confirm the authenticity of the '1922' work, I'd suggest you cease referring to it at all, as it's a conflict of interest and looks like an attempt to use Wikipedia to promote the work. If you continue in this vein I'll ask you be blocked for promoting an interest. The rest appears uncontroversial for the moment. JNW (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is reference to blaming of oneself for deliberately promoting one work. We as team of Research Scholars working with cultural assets we happened to find the mistakes mentioned about Madonna. That revealed a lot of darker side of historical truths whether hidden purposely or accidentally that is not known. Hence we pointed out the errors. No motive of any promotion of art products. particularly the 1922 work of Madonna. So far many people believed that Madonna started in the year 1895 but the corrected one is it is 1892[ even wiki mentioned it as 1895]

Why it is keen on year of making is for the sake of future research of all available and hidden versions of one particular artist. That is the main reason. We agree for the year 1922 work is not to be represented as long as it is proved — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ameba mcare (talk • contribs) 17:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With which museum or academic institution is this team of research scholars affiliated? It may be in Wikipedia's interest to contact the museum or university directly. JNW (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our team is NGO based private project[advanced] team for the sake of development of OLD AGE and Disabled people,based at India Our affiliation and recognition is less important as the core subject is for cultural peoples welfare and developmental policy.Meanwhile We want to know the corrections to be made in Madonna article as mentioned above is under scrutiny or no? ie: The excerpts and extracts of the said books published in in http://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/7005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ameba mcare (talk • contribs) 18:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then I take it yours is not a recognized research project in the field of fine art. Your primary purpose, as indicated by the websites you're affiliated with, and which I've linked to above, is the promotion of an image whose authenticity has not been proven. The article is fine; there's nothing in it that contradicts current scholarship on the artist. JNW (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/7005

Further sources

Here are more sources, including quotes from Munch referring to the painting [3]. I will be away and can not add anything for at least a week, so please go to it, PB and Jb. JNW (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the year of creation shall be 1892-1914 not 1892-95 Correct?--Ameba mcare (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Madonna (Munch painting). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100402014031/http://www.csulb.edu/~karenk/20thcwebsite/438mid/ah438mid-Info.00004.html to http://www.csulb.edu/~karenk/20thcwebsite/438mid/ah438mid-Info.00004.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Edvard Munch - Madonna - Google Art Project.jpg +1 to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Edvard Munch - Madonna - Google Art Project.jpg +1 will be appearing as picture of the day on May 16, 2018. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2018-05-16. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the day

Madonna is a title given to a composition by the Norwegian expressionist painter Edvard Munch. He painted several versions of the composition between 1892 and 1895, using oils on canvas as well as lithography. Several interpretations of the bare-breasted half-length female figure have been offered, including that she represents the Virgin Mary, a femme fatale figure, or a paradox of "sensuality shot through with imagery of death and corruption".

Shown here is an 1894 version of Madonna in oil, held by the Munch Museum in Oslo.

See a version in lithographyPainting: Edvard Munch

Archive – More featured pictures...

[1] ttp://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/7005

[1]