Before for me the artwork was very emotional. The analysis showed me that it has sort of melancholy. This analysis taught me that at the same time artwork can be very “loud” but also “calm”. Also the sky always seemed to me very emotional and totally different. As the analysis say it is beautiful and has sort of melancholy and feeling of being “calm”. Also in the beginning I didn’t pay so much attention to the figures in the background, but now I pay more attention to them since analyzing them became more interesting to me.
I don't think it really did. It was an interesting analysis and interpretation of the work. It was simply an opinion of another person. I don't think it had that much of an effect on my opinion because I didn't have that much of an opinion of the work in the first place. I just thought it was a nice painting.
Because of the fact that art isn’t something that I think is important in our lives, so my perspective barely changes. The analysis barely changes my point of view of the artwork. It just gives me more information on what is occurring in the artwork and basically the purpose of some things that were included in the painting it self.
In general I would say that this analysis is very strange, unique in some way, sounds more like criticism, because I don’t think I have read anything positive about this artwork, rather I read a lot of negative and more like mistake pointing. As for me this artwork is gorgeous, I might agree with the thought that the artist had some issues with narcissism, but I think this art work had a different aim rather than pointing out self and “screaming” to get attention. I think it is more as a talking about how is it to be different. In conclusion I would like to say that I strongly think that this is not an analysis of techniques and themes of Munch, rather it is a criticism of the work and the underlining of negative and more irritating facts.
I think that before reading the analysis I have not noticed to what extend the perspective is being disorder and disorienting. This shows the violence and uneasiness of this picture. Also hitherto I haven’t noticed the people in the background because you instantly notice the person in the center that attracts all the attention and although that “crowd” in the back is rather subtle and gentle in comparison to that screaming figure they still express strong emotions. I think that details are things that really change our perception and the way we see things.
Seb G I can always listen or read someone's analysis or opinion. Although not often it changes my perspective. I would even say that it never changes my perspective but makes it wider. I also never consider anyone's perspective as the right one, because everyone's perspective is different and we can't understand it fully even if we think so. So by reading this analysis, it didn't change my perspective. It just showed me that someone's perspective ends on shapes and colours. This is not what I see in the painting and any other kind of art.
Before for me the artwork was very emotional. The analysis showed me that it has sort of melancholy. This analysis taught me that at the same time artwork can be very “loud” but also “calm”. Also the sky always seemed to me very emotional and totally different. As the analysis say it is beautiful and has sort of melancholy and feeling of being “calm”. Also in the beginning I didn’t pay so much attention to the figures in the background, but now I pay more attention to them since analyzing them became more interesting to me.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it really did. It was an interesting analysis and interpretation of the work. It was simply an opinion of another person. I don't think it had that much of an effect on my opinion because I didn't have that much of an opinion of the work in the first place. I just thought it was a nice painting.
ReplyDeleteBecause of the fact that art isn’t something that I think is important in our lives, so my perspective barely changes. The analysis barely changes my point of view of the artwork. It just gives me more information on what is occurring in the artwork and basically the purpose of some things that were included in the painting it self.
ReplyDeleteIn general I would say that this analysis is very strange, unique in some way, sounds more like criticism, because I don’t think I have read anything positive about this artwork, rather I read a lot of negative and more like mistake pointing. As for me this artwork is gorgeous, I might agree with the thought that the artist had some issues with narcissism, but I think this art work had a different aim rather than pointing out self and “screaming” to get attention. I think it is more as a talking about how is it to be different. In conclusion I would like to say that I strongly think that this is not an analysis of techniques and themes of Munch, rather it is a criticism of the work and the underlining of negative and more irritating facts.
ReplyDeleteI think that before reading the analysis I have not noticed to what extend the perspective is being disorder and disorienting. This shows the violence and uneasiness of this picture. Also hitherto I haven’t noticed the people in the background because you instantly notice the person in the center that attracts all the attention and although that “crowd” in the back is rather subtle and gentle in comparison to that screaming figure they still express strong emotions. I think that details are things that really change our perception and the way we see things.
ReplyDeleteSeb G
ReplyDeleteI can always listen or read someone's analysis or opinion. Although not often it changes my perspective. I would even say that it never changes my perspective but makes it wider. I also never consider anyone's perspective as the right one, because everyone's perspective is different and we can't understand it fully even if we think so. So by reading this analysis, it didn't change my perspective. It just showed me that someone's perspective ends on shapes and colours. This is not what I see in the painting and any other kind of art.