Much of drama, depth and dance of
Edvard Munch’s artistic output is because of sweet spot that he inhabits at the
cusp of art, cinema and photography. He
was deeply grounded in lyricism of painting and sufficiently interested in the
modern inventions of his time to create an eclectic idiom that could take the
best bits of the both the world. He painted cinema and photographs and he was
illustrator of many sensibilities and theories that were emerging at that time.
Illustrators don’t occupy the high pedestal in the pantheon of modern art. Photographs and cinemas are also treated as inadequate to address the exalted
cravings of an artist who picks up brush to deal with his or her creativity.
Not so with Edvard Munch. His perspective tricks, borrowed heavily from cinema,
lent him the urgency needed to sharp-focus the anxious core of his work. His
photograph like depiction- ‘Death in Sick Room’ is a case in point, portrait of
a stage or cinema screen (‘Dance of Life’ and ‘Ashes’) never degenerate into
the lifelessness of camera output. He said "Photography will never compete
with painting so long as the camera cannot be used in heaven or in hell."
Edvard Munch took it upon himself to take the device in heaven and hell, mostly
in hell. With all his modern tools and sensibilities he was ultimately an
illustrator of maladies.
Dance of Life
Peter Schjeldahl from New Yorker
Magazine gets it correct when he writes “His strongest works, dating from about
1890 to the early years of the last century, exalted pictorial
functions—narrative and illustration—that were being combed out of modern
painting as specialties more proper to literature and the popular arts.” This
was aided and reinforced by his ‘ardent theatricality’. He was influenced by
‘French painting (Gauguin and Van Gogh), Scandinavian theatre (Ibsen and
Strindberg), and German philosophy (Nietzsche)’. Furthermore, he was bound to
be aware of the developments that were taking place in the field of psycho-analysis.
These influences provided rich source for his dark repertoire. He was clued in
to the deepest anxieties of his times as interpreted by the leading theories of
his times. He had artistic wherewithal and imagination to bring them on canvas
with stark directness. He was at his best when his canvas was a narrative which
is something more than just depiction. One can get more out of his paintings if
one sees at least some of them as a screen shot or a moment on the stage.
However, camera or stage angle should be taken only as entry points as Munch
with is ‘radically impure’ style goes on chiselling newer realities of his
themes making them truly timeless. “His disdain for normal technique and
finish, his love of long, somewhat slurpy brush strokes that were more stained
than painted, made all the difference. They enable him to give new voice to the
rawest emotions, to be dramatic without sentimentality, and to fuse process,
subject and content” wrote another critic. His artistic eye made him keep on
paring the details till the vision is distilled to the emotional core of the
issue. He used the perspective given by the vocabulary of cinema and
photography but gave his characters intense inner life. It is the amalgamation
of direct representation of camera and radical impurity of a supreme artist
that creates a melange of raw emotions that transcends limits both camera and
canvas impose.
Death in Sickroom
Edvard Munch was born in Norway
in 1863, the son of an Army surgeon whose family was stalked by death and
illness. When he was 5, his mother died of tuberculosis; nine years later, his
sister Sophie succumbed to the disease, giving him potent memories for his Sick
Room paintings. Another sister was institutionalized for insanity. Munch
committed himself several times for treatment of alcoholism and depression and underwent
electric shock therapy. Although he had drawn since childhood, he entered
college in Kristiania (as Oslo was called until 1925) to study engineering.
Soon after, he transferred to art school and became involved with the
Kristiania Bohemians. Munch had a difficult relationship with his father who
was severe in his religious beliefs. He had an affair with Millie Thaulow, the
wife of his teacher, patron and distant cousin Frits Thaulow. The affair ended
badly but gave him raw material for many of angst ridden paintings such as
Ashes, Vampire. In 1885 Munch went to Paris and in 1889 enrolled in art school
there. For the next two decades he spent most of every year in Germany, with
summer trips to France and Scandinavia. He lived a long life and was active
till the end that came in 1944.
Apart from the collision of
emerging science with primal art, jarring rush of Munch’s art come from other
intersections. Robert Hughes has pointed out that Sigmund Freud’s notion that
self is the product of a battle between insatiable desires and unyielding
social structures has found expression in Munch. Similarly he also explored the ‘junction
between objective and subjective.’ All this resulted in a fertile arena where
‘personal achieves the velocity of the universal.’ It is this capacity of
turning personal into universal that made a critic write that source of Munch’s
longitivity is to “do with his extraordinary gift for coining both archetypes
and shapes.’ The thrust of his art “took in such existential matters as birth,
love, loss, emotional turmoil, the search for one's identity and the inevitable
decline into death. In these paintings Munch struggled to render his own
emotional and psychological traumas, including the deaths of his mother and
older sister, as well as his doomed first real love affair, into universal
images that resonated with the outside world. By so doing, he said, he hoped to
"understand the meaning of life" and to help others gain similar
insights.”
In this he was helped by his ‘self
abnegating submission to the emotional truth’. Often his narratives border on
melodrama, hence the talk of his ‘ardent theatricality.’ There is an element of
hyperbole in painting. His self portrait on operation table is filled with
exaggerated details- A nurse is holding a bowl filled with blood and a blood
stain is expanding on the sheet. Similarly ‘Scream’ is nothing is an
exaggerated expression of horror, anxiety or some kind of primal fear. He has
been called ‘exuberant miserabilist’ who
indulges in ‘exaggeration in service of truth’. “He has no shame when it comes
to self-pity, hypochondria, jealousy or grief, is never too proud to confess to
lust or depression. He is the friend who doesn't censor the story as the rest
of us might, doesn't pretend to resignation or serenity or forgiveness. His
emotions are open and energetically direct. His art is frankly invigorating”
wrote Laura Cumming in Guardian.
In being such a successful
illustrator of human maladies, Edvard Munch prepared the ground for anxious
sensibilities to be aesthetically pleasing. He taught the generations how to
appreciate the beauty of loneliness, melancholia, rejection or other such
afflictions. By making them alive on canvas he created an idiom of pain that captured
the universal appeal of a highly individual artist.



Very well written Dhiraj ! I too had written a piece on him that was published in Deccan Herald ( Sunday Magazine) . You may find it on my blog sujitchowdhuryblogspot.com.
ReplyDeleteVery well written Dhiraj ! I too had written a piece on him that was published in Deccan Herald ( Sunday Magazine) . You may find it on my blog sujitchowdhuryblogspot.com.
ReplyDelete