Talk:The Scream/Archive 1

If several versions have been made, which is the original, and where is it?

There are four version of the painting- From munch museum site:

In the Munch Museum is one of two painted versions of the image (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:The_Scream2.jpg). The other is to be found in the National Gallery, Oslo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:The_Scream.jpg). The National Gallery version is signed and dated 1893, and many scholars believe this to be the first one. Both versions are painted on cardboard, and Munch has also sketched the image on the reverse side of the National Gallery version. The Scream - one of the two versions - was first exhibited at Unter den Linden in Berlin in December 1893. In 1895 an important version of the image was produced as a lithograph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Munch_The_Scream_lithography.png).  There exist two pastels of the image, one belonging to the Munch Museum, the other privately owned. There are also a few sketches related to The Scream on a sheet of paper in the Munch Museum collection 

We can add a paragraph entitled Versions agree?

(Contested - July 11)

So far as I can see the contested portion (gray aliens) has been eliminated.  So why not "de-contest" it?  Ortolan88 18:50, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A very nice article about an important painting. We are not very strong on fine arts, and this may give us some momentum. Danny 19:58, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose for the moment. The "alien" section is a concern to me; it comes out of nowhere and has no context. Since this is quite a short article, such a peculiar reference must either be extremely important in the overall story, or should not be there at all. Denni☯ 21:04, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)
• Oppose.  I hate to impose a length requirement, but this is awfully short for a featured article.  maybe add a section on artists who influenced The Scream, or were influenced by it? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 22:00, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose.  Very short, and the alien section is a little strange.  I'm not sure if this can be fleshed out into a good feature article.  I agree there should be more fine arts features, but not sure about this one. Satori 23:07, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
• Needs more stuff on the painting's iconic nature in popular culture. I used to have an inflatable 'Scream' on my monitor - David Gerard 23:40, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose.  This is a good non-feature article, but lacks breadth.  Should be expanded with discussion of the painting's influence on later art, its physical form, explanation of how the painting expresses the "infinite scream", ownership history, more complete analysis of the "grey alien" theory, comparison with other paintings.  195.167.169.36 11:19, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• On the pop culture bit: one specific thing to mention is that the painting was the inspiration for "Ghostface" the baddy in the Scream film trilogy. I would add this myself but I have a feeling that a more complete pop culture overview is coming! Pcb21| Pete 11:23, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Scream&diff=53300624&oldid=53188692 . Hey, the scream was referenced in Excel Saga. Not once, but twice. I found the second reference (the "Rock Star" episode), and came here to add it, and found the first mention missing. What's up with that? Twice in the same anime series; that's so worth mentioning! --SohanDsouza 10:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Not really...

It also appeared in the Episode 42-B: (Mr. Right) from the cartoon The Fairly OddParents, where he screamed because he got an F... --anon 07:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

There are quite a bit of parodies of this painting in Japanese anime. Some are featured here. 60.50.171.185 (talk) 06:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The article mentions that there are at least two different version of 'The Scream'. Given that the thefts of 1994 (recovered) and 2004 were at different museums, does that imply that it was actually physically different paintings that were stolen on each occaision. -- Solipsist 12:24, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That's what I want to know. The article says The reproduced painting hangs in the Munch Museum, Oslo. - did the thieves really steal a reproduction? Evercat 12:50, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This article speaks of four different versions (all authentically done by EM); says that this one just stolen is not the same as the 1994 theft and is not the the most famous version (this one is tempera and pastel -- is the other one oils?). As for the reproduced painting hangs..., I take that as meaning the painting that is reproduced alongside in the article, but it's not terribly clear. "–Hajor 13:43, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK, I was the one that entered the fact that The Scream was stolen today, in the main article, even before BBC and bloody CNN reported this. There _are_ different versions of the painting (that Munch himself made). Calling them 'reproductons' is not correct. The one stolen today is _not_ the same as the one stolen in 1994. The one currently stolen is still irreplaceable and should be included in the main article. The one stolen in 1994 was made in 1893 and is Tempera and pastel on board, measuring 91 x 73.5 cm. The currently stolen painting was also made in 1893 and is Tempera on plate, measuring 83.5 x 66 cm. BTW: Here is a picture of the robbers running off with the pic: [1] -Antwelm 16:02, 2004 Aug 22 (UTC)

Oh, and if U want, U can always buy it: [[2]] -Antwelm 16:22, 2004 Aug 22 (UTC)

• Curious that the Mona Lisa was stolen on the same day back in 1911. Redjar 18:32, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

For the 2'nd time, someone has added this to the latest 'theft sentence':

"Nevertheless, museum officials expressed hope that they would see the painting again, theorizing that perhaps the thieves would seek ransom money."

This statement is speculation, and in my opinon, totally useless for the article, and should not be included. -Antwelm 15:46, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)

I agree it isn't up to Wikipedia to theorize, but if it was the museum, or indeed art experts that mentioned the possibility of it being ransomed (which I believe they have), then it is safe for the article to mention it, because the article would be reporting rather than theorizing. Mintguy (T) 15:54, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK, but it truly is a nonsense theory, its more like a _hope_ than anything else. Should we also 'report' the fact that witnesses have seen the thiefs maliciously handling the pictures? Or, that sources in the crim milieu reports that the theft was ordered by a foreign art-dealer? Both these theories would qualify as _less_ speculations than the hope of the museum official quoted... -Antwelm 06:28, 2004 Aug 26 (UTC)

I don't see why you think it's a "nonsense theory". When the other version of the painting was stolen, an attempt was made to ransom it back. When a Vermeer, three Rembrandts, and a Manet were stolen from the Gardner Museum in Boston in 1990, an attempt was made to ransom them back. As I understand it such ransom demands are not at all uncommon when high-profile works of art are stolen. Mintguy (T) 11:53, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

'Nonsense' as in 'does not contribute to the subject in the article'. As I said before, it portrays a _hope_ more than any fact related to the matter. Yes, some Artnappings have occured, but there are way to many examples where this is not the case. The theory, and the repeated occurence of ransom-for-art fits better in Art_theft than here. -Antwelm 03:42, 2004 Aug 27 (UTC)

Yes but it is not stating as _fact_ that it will be ransomed, but rather stating as _fact_ that "museum officials expressed hope" that it will be ransomed. There is a quite clear distinction. Mintguy (T) 09:35, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm not too crazy about the "grey alien" theory, so I put in another possible, and methinks more likely, source for the pose [3]. While I can't find a picture of the exact mummy on the internet, I did see a picture of it years ago (on one of those PBS art shows) and it was striking in its similarity to the face in the Scream. (See Occam's Razor.) Antandrus 17:05, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanx for the contribution (if it is correct that is). I was in the prosess of refuting the 'alien' theory from the article myself. This addition makes for less POV and seems to contribute to more firmness. -Antwelm 17:25, 2004 Aug 22 (UTC)

That's good, but it would be better to move both to a subsection. The similarity to 'grey aliens' is worth mentioning, but at the moment it has too much emphasis and distorts the article POV. I remember being impressed by a similar connection when I first saw Henri Gaudier-Brzeska's The Imp [4]. Some would say actual greys influenced both works, but the more likely influence is African primitive sculpture popular in ethnographic exhibitions at the start of the 20th century. In turn these sorts of images are what defined the popular science fiction iconography of aliens. -- Solipsist 18:40, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Interesting! Thanks for the link to The Imp. I may change the subsection in the article if I can dig up some more info on the Paris exhibition Munch went to (I know he wrote about it, I just don't have the info here). Maybe moving the "grey alien" nearer to the end of the article would improve the (N)POV. Antandrus 21:45, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree, go ahead. The 'theory paragraph' should at be moved to a section further down anyway. Happy hunting -Antwelm 05:22, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC)

IMHO that alien nonsense has no place in a serious article on modern art. Karl Stas 11:10, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As I said before (17:25, 2004 Aug 22), I do not either think the 'alien sentence' should be there. One more person agreeing with this and the sentence should defenately be removed. -Antwelm 03:21, 2004 Aug 27 (UTC)

PS: Just noticed the discussion on the top of this discussion page. Several there does not want the 'alien bit' in. I recon its safe for anyone to remove now. -Antwelm 03:53, 2004 Aug 27 (UTC)

I've removed the entire "some theorists" bit

Some theorists liken the look of the screamer to that of a grey alien, claiming Munch was painting a close encounter he had experienced, while others use this theory to state simply that Munch was mentally unstable and therefore others who report encounters with similar beings were as well. A possibly more likely explanation for the image is that Munch was reproducing the face of a Peruvian mummy he had recently seen at an exhibition in Paris [5]. The mummy had its hands alongside its face, similar to the position of the figure in the painting.

If the unnamed "theorist" is a Wikipedian, it's not noteworthy enough to be in the article; if the "theorist" is an art critic, we need to name him: that is, the theory must be attributed (goes for mummy and alien theory both, though it's more likely the former is actually a real theory). - Nunh-huh 05:44, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think the mummy theory deserves mentioning (see below), although I don't know which art historian came up with it. Karl Stas 09:48, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is highly probable that Munch saw a Peruvian mummy at the Trocadéro ethnographic museum or at the 1889 Universal Exposition in Paris (sources diverge on this point). The mummy was crouching in fetal position with its hands clasped around its face. The same mummy stood model for the figure at the left of Paul Gauguin's painting D'où venons-nous? Que faisons-nous? Où allons-nous? (Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where Are We Going?) and for the central figure in his painting Les misères humaines (Vendanges à Arles) [6]. Munch met Gauguin in Paris and was influenced by him. Karl Stas 09:51, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Picture of such a Mummy: http://www.aftenposten.no/multimedia/archive/00222/_scream_zoom_jpg_222069h.jpg

There is also an article in this newspaper (although in Norwegian) which elaborate on this theory, mentioning names, dates, places and the possibility of finding out for sure (searching letters)(http://www.aftenposten.no/viten/article869292.ece). -Antwelm 15:22, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I found an English version of the article on Discovery Channel and integrated the information in the article. - Karl Stas 18:09, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good work :) -Antwelm 18:37, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

There should be some pop culture references. The only thing I can thing of at the moment though is the Dame Edna Everage dress [7]. There's probably a better link around somewhere. Mintguy (T)

There is also the story of Robert Fishbone, an American entrepreneur who made a fortune out of inflatable Scream dolls (gasp!). [8] Karl Stas 10:36, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Pop artists Andy Warhol and Erró made works after Munch's Scream. [9] Karl Stas 10:49, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The ad campaing for Home Alone (1990) showed child actor Macaulay Culkin in a Munchian pose. And the crazy killer in Wes Craven's horror movie Scream (1996) wears a Halloween mask inspired by the painting. Karl Stas 11:12, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The fact that he took the figure out of its context (the landscape) obviously demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of Munch's work —although that doesn't seem to bother the people who are buying his gadgets.

This doesnt seem very NPOV. Maybe we should rephrase this. Deepak 19:00, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I wanted to stress that the unity figure/landscape is essential to the painting (as stated earlier in the article); by cutting out the figure, Fishborne devoided the work of its meaning and expressive power, thereby banalizing it to the level of Disney merchandise. Karl Stas 20:58, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I agree totally with your views about Fishbourne. However this is an opinion, and we need to phrase it so that it is stated as such. For eg. "Many have observed that in doing so he has taken the figure out of its context (the landscape) demonstrating a lack of understanding of Munch's work -- although this doesn't seem to bother his buyers." Deepak 23:39, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I removed the line about the kid's scream in Home Alone being a "homage" to this painting, since I can't see how without references, and the ad campaign creating a connection between them doesn't mean there was. --64.149.43.233 09:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Would anybody care to explain why there's a triva tag in the "In Popular Culture" section? I mean, in the guideline all I read about it the use of lists without any context or inclusion in the article, which isn't the case here. In fact, I think it barely qualifies as a "trivia" section at all. E Liquere 18:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Would the new M&M's promotion http://www.adpulp.com/archives/2006/08/candy_maker_dip.php fit into the "Role in popular culture" section? Especially since

M&M's is offering 2 million Dark Chocolate Candies to the person who returns the painting.

Lent 07:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC) Whoops! I missed that the reward is now mentioned just above the "Role in popular culture" section at the end of the Thefts section. Never mind Lent 07:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Three different images, of essentially the same painting? Isnt that overkill? And whatever happened to the caption I added. It's been taken down for no apparent reason. If you're going to be editing captions please look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Writing Captions first. Deepak 13:42, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't find it overkill since they are three different versions, don't know about the last one, but the other two are entirely Munch works. You can probably find out what happened to your caption in the edit history. --Dittaeva 14:29, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, ok there are 3 versions, but surely its not necessary to show all 3 of them in a row. As a matter of style, it looks very un-ecyclopaedic. I suggest a compromise - one of the paintings and a lithograph. Deepak 03:33, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Isn't one of the advantages of an online encyclopaedia precisely that you can include more images? The three images constitute a meaningful complement to the text. We definitely should keep the two paintings (the National Gallery version is the most famous; the Munch Museum version was stolen recently). The lithograph is of interest too (see text). I am even tempted to include one of Warhol's versions. [10] - Karl Stas 13:24, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I changed (shortened) the captions. It was important to mention which version was shown (National Gallery/Munch Museum). However well worded, there wasn't anything in your caption text that wasn't already in the article itself. I don't see the need for long, descriptive captions. The three images aren't overkill: these are the three best-known versions of the work, all originals by Munch himself. If you read the article in its current state, you'll understand why all three images are relevant. Karl Stas 15:47, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Captions and Wikipedia:WikiProject Writing Captions. The idea of the image caption is not just to give additional information, but to draw a reader who just glances at the article into reading the whole thing, giving context and adding depth. It should at least have one active sentence. Deepak 03:33, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You can restore the caption if you like, but that won't reduce the clutter of course. Karl Stas 13:24, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The caption issue aside, having three pictures is not overkill. The three are very different! I hadn't realised there were separate versions prior to this theft -- I honestly thought the differences were due to cheap & nasty printing techniques and lack of attention to detail on the part of t-shirt makers and mouse-pad brokers. If we could get jpgs of the other two versions, I'd vote for their inclusion here, too. –Hajor 04:02, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have redone the images and captions, and moved the thefts section above the popular culture section. I hope we will all find this acceptable as well as stylistically pleasingly. Please review. Deepak 18:55, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Regarded by many as his most important work, it symbolises modern man taken by an attack of existential angst."

It isn't that accurate. Existentialism didn't exist until the 20th century; to describe The Scream in these terms is to describe something 19th century in overtly 20th century perspective. Mandel 07:44, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

Existentialism goes back at least to Kierkegaard, in the mid 19th century, although it achieved vast popularity only at the time of Sartre. I'm sure Munch would have heard of it. Deepak 13:18, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I removed the following because it didn't add anything:

The image depicts Edvards state of mind, the pressures of society and how terrible it is to have a mind. It symbolizes the inner frustration, anger, and "the scream" that is within us all. It symbolizes what we cannot understand, and "the scream" we get from it.

Ortolan88 16:43, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

An anon user has twice added the image Image:Ghostly_monk.jpg which recently has mostly been used in April Fools pranks. -- Solipsist 20:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

moved from User talk:Solipsist, unsigned but added by User:Jcrocker 21:00, 25 Apr 2005

IMO: the edit to "The Scream" page is not vandalism, nor was it intended to be. I believe it to be relevant considering the 'photograph' is similar, if not identical, to the painting. In fact, this knowledge of their similarity may help prove the photo was faked.

Well sorry to suggest it might be vandalism, but I would agree with User:Jonnabuz who also removed the image, that it is not an image that is particularly relevant to this article. The symbolism of an open, moaning mouth has long been associated with ghosts. But it derives from the Christian view of the tourment of a soul in purgatory, and I would suggest that is a completely separate strand of iconography - related to Scream (movie), but not the angst of The Scream (painting). -- Solipsist 20:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, hard for me to argue with your opinion. I have linked to the ghost picture in the see also section. Is this fair enough? Personally I find it more than coincidence, the similarity between the face (and that mask from the movie) and the photograph too strange. J. Crocker 20:40, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

hey I suggest someone uploads an image of the halloween mask fron the film since the mask also has a role in pop culture during halloween the mask is sold in many places where halloween costumes are and "ghostface" is a somewhat popular character to be, so if we do this it will relevant to the part of the article discussing the painting's role in popular culture

Is there any source that the Ghostface mask was inspired by the painting? The similarity might just be a coincidence. I have a vague memory, that the mask was not designed for the movie, but when location scouting the crew saw the mask in some potential shooting location. Of course that does not mean that the mask was not inspired by the painting, but I have never seen any sources for this claim and it seems just a rumour that started with the name of the film and the (coincidental?) similarity with the painting.81.175.134.236 10:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a mention of the famous picture from Kent State can be linked to this article somehow.

• That has absolutely nothing to do with the article. --Agamemnon2 04:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why there is no reference to the pencil writing Munch put in the Scream which in English translates roughly to 'I am insane'. Is this not common knowledge or do folks think it is not worth mentioning? Just curious.

I certainly didn't know about it. Mention it. Fephisto 03:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed this from the good article nominations page because although it's nicely written, interesting, broad, and referenced, it has several images which claim fair use but lack rationales, and one which uses a deprecated tag and therefore fails the good article criteria. I think the images also need to be laid out in a more aesthetic way as they look jumbled and messy at the moment. Worldtraveller 21:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

"the skyline inspired by the 1883 fallout of Krakatoa." -- "Fallout" is usually used to mean radioactive particles as a result of a nuclear explosion -- not what we would expect from the volcanic eruption of Krakatoa. (For that matter, "skyline" seems a little odd here, too. -- 201.51.228.229 00:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the sentence about M&M's from the theft section. No need to promote the company, especially when it's already mentioned in the Culture section. Moreover, it has nothing to do with the theft or recovery of the painting. --62.168.125.219 09:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

With a painting as famous as this, shouldn't there be a section titled "Interpretations," or something like that, talking about how art critics have interpreted the "meaning" or significance of it? zafiroblue05 | Talk 19:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This article failed the GA nominations due to the lack of stability of being a current event. Everything else passes. Tarret 17:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The stream ... wher does this fit in? A parody or artistic interpretation (I tend to the latter) --Carboxen 03:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The last sentence in "Recovery" is "scream i the worst painting!!!"....I'm not quite sure what that means, but I couldn't find it to edit it for some reason. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.151.204.52 (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Partial block? it seems google's link has drawn much vandalism recently. Not sure how blocks work, just really got registered and into enhancing wikipedia articles. Either way, it may be a good idea.

Would it be worthwhile to add an 'interpretations' section? 'The Scream' is a pretty weird piece IMO. Fephisto 03:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It is important to note that the common interpretation, that of the figure screaming with hands clasped to his face, is incorrect. Rather, the figure is trying to shield himself from the "shriek of nature", as referred to in Munch's diary. I have edited the image caption which still referred to the figure screaming. 143.252.80.100 21:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

aujourd 'huit on a parler de Edvard Munch trop bien et des autre comme Claude Monet —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.166.212.110 (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

I just noticed that the size in the article says: A (5 x 66 cm) version I don't think this is correct, I don't know the real size, but only 5 cm wide would be strange...

every one sees this painting as a haunting horific picture symbolizeing death but to me it is just a painting of a man who has missed an important boat (judging by his surroundings)i'd probly be screaming too. ths painting is more funny to me

Which is it that inspired the red sky: the 1815 Mount Tambora eruption, or the 1883 Krakatoa eruption? I'm pretty sure it was the Krakatoa eruption since it is a) what I have read and b)the only one of those two eruptions that would be consistent with Munch's diary entry (since the Mt. Tambora eruption predated his birth considerably). All that having been said, why is it that this inconsistency in the article persists? Maybe someone should look into fixing that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.32.18 (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

-The date of the diary notice has been added (ctrl+f, 22.01.1892), but writer had an accident involving Enter key. The date is gotten from the Norwegian version's articl.e

[11] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.117.130.2 (talk) 09:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

I moved the citation regarding the 1994 theft of the painting up a sentence, as the citation refers to the theft of the painting and not the recovering, which is actually un-cited in the article. For this reason I have also added a citation request regarding the details of the paintings recover as I have not been able to find any. Canderra 01:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

i don't get this painting. i'm a great fan of Edvard Munch, but this piece of artwork has me just a smidge baffled. What is it? What does it represent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.105.22 (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

"...a symbol of modern man, finding no solitude."
Isn't "solitude" (ie, too much of it) part of modern man's problems? Is "solitude" an error for "solace"? Or do I just not get this painting? –Hjr 23:09, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

See this: [12] as well as a Edvard Munch biography that Rolf Stenersen wrote. --85.220.3.168 (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Under the picture Munch has written: Ich fühlte das Geschrei der Natur. --85.220.93.48 (talk) 00:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Found a reference to the article below on the following site

Site: http://www.skyandtelescope.com/about/pressreleases/3308421.html?page=1&c=y

Article Reference: "When the Sky Ran Red: The Story Behind The Scream" (Sky & Telescope, February 2004, p. 28)

A new analysis of Edvard Munch's The Scream provides the precise location where Munch and his friends were walking when he saw the blood-red sky depicted in the 1893 painting, as well as an explanation of why the sky appeared to be on fire. Through Munch's journals, topographic analysis, and a connection to the eruption of Krakatoa, proof now exists that the spectacular twilight seen in one of today's most recognizable paintings was inspired by this dramatic event.

I didn't get the original article.

Thought this could be used as the citation for this fact in the entry - currently listed as citation needed. Before entering, I was hoping to get some feedback on this source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.189.74.2 (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a version of that paper is already cited a few lines before the [citation needed]. What needs citation is the assertion that "intense waves of infrasound" are one of the "ultimate sources of inspiration" for the painting, and I don't think even the Sky & Telescope article is that speculative. Jfire (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[En 1889 se produce un cambio sustancial en la obra de Munch, ya que en octubre de este año viaja a París con una beca del gobierno noruego. Tras pasar por el estudio de un pintor academicista, se instala en Saint Cloud, en las afueras de París, donde realiza obras de corte impresionista. Insatisfecho con las limitaciones que el impresionismo le impone, en el verano de 1891 va a dar un giro radical a su trabajo, en el que tiene un papel decisivo el conocimiento de la obra de artistas como Whisder, Bocklin, Gauguin y Van Gogh. En 1892, Munch participa en la exposición de la Berliner Künstlerverein (Círculo de artistas berlineses). En un país que aún no había asimilado la experiencia impresionista, la valiente apuesta de Munch pareció poco menos que intolerable. La polémica en torno a la obra del artista noruego alcanzó tales proporciones, que la exposición acabó siendo clausurada al cabo de una semana. El rechazo suscitado por esta decisión se concretaría en la formación de un grupo de pintores que, con Max Liebermann al frente, abandoraron en señal de protesta la asociación y pasaron a llamarse -a imitación de sus colegas de Múnich- la Secesión. En cuanto a Munch, la celebridad que el suceso le otorga le permite realizar exposiciones por toda Alemania -donde fija suresidencia-, sentando las bases de una profunda influencia en el arte centroeuropeo, que se manifestará con toda su intensidad en el expresionismo de las dos primeras décadas del siglo XX.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.42.97.188 (talk) 04:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

just wondering, it says on The Scream's main page that Munch used oil, pastel, and tempera, but i'm looking at my art book and it says that munch used tempera and casein on cardboard. have we gone over this already or what ? 76.227.155.39 (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

There are several different versions of The Scream in different media, and the article probably should be more specific about the media used in the various versions. According to the Munch Museum, their version has "various mediums on the surface, such as oil paint in the green, casein in the red, and yellow and green crayon". Feel free to update the article with this source or you book source -- that's what Wikipedia's all about. Jfire (talk) 23:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The Scream is clearly in copyright in Norway, but I believe it is also clearly public domain in the U.S., as are any works published before 1923 inside or outside the U.S. See this guide for details. The fact that it was not published in the U.S. until later is not relevant, nor is restoration under the URAA applicable, as that applies only to works published after 1923. Jfire (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Quite. PD in the US. Operating (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Jfire directed me to this talk page!

I'm GreatInDayton, and I started the "Copyright Status" section. I thought it would be worthy of a section because there IS contention about it. Some people say it's in the public domain, but the Munch Estate certainly believes it's still under copyright (having butted heads with them about it myself in my work!). I was hoping the section could evolve to show both sides (that the Estate thinks it's under copyright, but others don't) but as it seems to causing more confusion then anything else, I'm going to delete it. Whew! GreatInDayton (talk) 03:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)GreatInDayton

"The reddish sky in the background was possibly caused by the aftermath of the powerful volcanic eruption of Krakatoa in 1883. The ash that was ejected from the volcano left the sky tinted red in much of eastern United States and most of Europe and Asia from November 1883 to February 1884.[3]"

This is speculations at best. During summer time, blood red skies are not uncommon in Scandinavia. I'm removing the paragraph as its really weak. Nastykermit (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC).

I've restored this paragraph. The supposition is qualified ("possibly"), referenced to a reliable source, and not given undue weight (two sentences is about right). There's no reason to remove it. Jfire (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Its speculation, and very uncyclopedic in nature. There is simply no reason what so sever to include it. Look here http://www.aftenposten.no/spesial/bildeserier/article2750157.ece Blood red skies are common in Oslo. It's pointless and silly to speculate. Nastykermit (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC).

It is speculation, but it is also well sourced--Google hits show that the theory has been widely published, and has received open responses [13], [14]. I'm going to restore it. If you feel strongly about it, let's solicit the thoughts of other contributors in the arts and try to gain consensus. JNW (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Restored, as footnote. JNW (talk) 14:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes sir I do feel strongly about it. I have read some articles about the volcanic eruption but I see them as a strawman. As mentioned and as the pictures in the link I posted proves, blood red skies are very common on Norway. To me, living in the city where the painting was painted, saying that the blood red sky is because of a volcano is like saying that the monsun rain in India is because of an asteroid or some other external explanation.

I'm reverting your edit sir, as I feel I have logic and proof on my side. Nastykermit (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC).

You might be right, but I see this not about sides, but about the validity of sourced material, and the possibility of original research. I will seek the input of others. Nothing in your personal experience expressly invalidates the volcano theory. Thanks, JNW (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Not only can this material be included, but it should be per WP:NPOV to represent a view covered in significant sources. It is not up to wikipedia editors to decide the validity of such content, especially based on personal knowledge per WP:NOR. If there are other valid sources that contest the interpretation, then they can be included also. It should be given sufficient space to do justice to the points raised, so the reader can make up their own mind on the matter. Ty 01:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

To the both of you, the volcano theory is speculations, why were there no other record of these blood red skies in other countries in the region? Answer : because it's a straw man, and not very likely. The burden of proof is on you, who make the claim. Until you have solid proof, you should not revert my edit. Nastykermit (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC).

To the contrary, well-sourced material, covered by major news publications and presented as scientific theory, takes precedence over original research. The article does make clear that the red skies were visible throughout large parts of the world at that time. Content restored. JNW (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Nastykermit, you do not seem to understand wikipedia editing policy. This follows sources per WP:V. We do not edit on the basis of what we think or even what we know, but on the basis of what secondary souces say per WP:NPOV. Please study these policies and follow them. The basis of your argument violates WP:NOR. Ty 18:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Theres no argument that the eruption took place, but to claim it is the reason for red skies that day on the other side of the planet is a straw man. Red skies are very common in Norway, so why even think of the eruption? I should also add, that this volcano eruption theory, is not world wide recognized. Nastykermit (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC).

Fine. Provide references or stop talking about it. Do not insert your own unreferenced opinion in the article, like you just did, which I have reverted.[15] Ty 07:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolved-party opinion: it appears to be a verifiable claim from a reliable source, so it's viable content for the article. There may be other possible explanations for the sky being red (either in general, or in this particular image), but we appear to have source(s?) claiming that the eruption is a good explanation. If other art critics or whatever have other explanations, those (with appropriate cites from reliable sources should also be included. Unless we have verifiable information from the artist himself explaining what he meant, we fall back to reporting what other experts can say. WP editors must not pick'n'choose or use their own ideas about the topic to screen cited material. DMacks (talk) 07:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I've found, and added, a sourced dissent, that of a writer and curator who is a researcher at the Metropolitan Museum, who in turn cites the author of a recent biography on Munch. Thoughts welcome. JNW (talk) 14:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. That's just what we want - a representation of the different viewpoints from secondary sources. 18:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on *you*, present proof of the eruption being the source of inspiration, or dont post at all. I repeat, the burden of proof is on you, the one who makes the claim Nastykermit (talk)

Sources have been provided. Henceforth your removal of cited material will be treated as vandalism. JNW (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Nastykermit, can you kindly read this discussion properly. The burden of proof means citing a reliable source that makes the claim. This has been done. It is not JNW making the claim. He is merely showing what the source claims. This is completely standard editing policy. If you don't believe me, then post at WP:RSN to get outside input. Otherwise, stop reverting valid referenced material. Ty 04:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ty, please listen to what I have been saying : I'm not denying that the eruption took place. I'm saying there is no way to proove that the eruption is the source of isnpiration. I have already told you red skies like that are very common in Norway. I'm telling you *you* have to proove the eruption were even visible when the painting was created. Nastykermit (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC).

I understand what you are saying, but it is not in accord with wikipedia editing policy, which per WP:V states that we look at sources and use the information they contain. Therefore, it is up to you to show either a) the source is not a reliable source or b) it has been misinterpreted. You have not done either so far. Two editors disagree with your position. If you disagree, then I suggest you follow WP:DR, either posting to WP:RSN if you think the source is not a reliable one, or WP:RFC if you think it has not been used properly. Ty 06:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok Ty, thanks for you reasonable response. I'm going to fold on this one. Nastykermit (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC).

If it's any consolation, JNW has communicated to me that he is not convinced of this theory, and neither am I, though one thing in its favour may be that the red sky from the ash would have had a different quality from the usual red sky, maybe more oppressive. I've modified the text to make clear that it is just a theory. Ty 18:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

From the article, I guess we're not cataloging the appearances of the Scream in parody or otherwise. But if we are, and I missed it, here's one: The Book of Biff. Bo-Lingua (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Is the English translation really "The Scream"?? In Norwegian it is called Skrik. This translates to Scream, not The Scream (which would have been Skriket). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.62.145 (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Though the translation "The Scream" is not literal, it is what the vast majority of English sources use, which is the criteria that WP:ENGLISH directs us to use when choosing a name for the article. Jfire (talk) 03:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The BBC recently had a programme on The Scream in their In Our Time series. Would it be appropriate to have a link to this in the article? They have a link in their own references to Wikipedia. Jrmh (talk) 12:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm currently reading Do androids dream of electric sheep by Philipp K. Dick, and I'm quite sure there's a reference to the Scream in it.

Quote from chapter Twelve

The painting showed a hairless, oppressed creature with a head like an inverted pear, its hands clapped in horror to its ears, its mouth open in a vast, soundless scream. Twisted ripples of the creature's torment, echoes of its cry, flooded out into the air surrounding it; the man or woman, whichever it was, had been contained by its own howl. It had covered its ears against its own sound. The creature stood on a bridge and no one else was present; the creature screamed in isolation. Cut off by-or despite-its outcry.

I haven't seen this on the discussion page, and I suppose it could go into the Reference in Popular Culture section. Should it ?

90.37.32.55 (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC) fhn fvbfnv fdb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.218.8 (talk) 06:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

'no one else was present' - In the picture, there are two other people walking down the bridge AgentSIRF (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

certainly sounds like it was inspired by the scream ConconJondor _talk ^contribs 19:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

the scream was an influence in a new Doctor Who monster, the Silence (sing. Silent), reference at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12969897 article for the episode is Day of the Moon and there isn't an article (that I've found) for the silence. ConconJondor _talk ^contribs 19:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It was also a macguffin in the Big Finish audio adventure Dust Breeding 92.239.225.253 (talk) 09:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

although it is a minor, niggling point, the sky is not "blood red" in any of the versions. it's a variety of shades, none of which is close to the color of oxidized blood. someone care to fix that? 24.255.16.13 (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if this worth mentioning, but the emoji character set on the iPhone contains one clearly inspired by this painting. If you are reading on the iPhone then the following character will display as such: . May or may not be an interesting addition to the pop culture section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.132.22 (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I assume that Mona Lisa is the first, but surely The Last Supper is a serious contender for second. Vranak (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, the statement should go outright, as it's unsourced. At the least, it's one of those claims that would be difficult to verify in its specificity. Whether it is the Last Supper, or some of Michelangelo's paintings in the Sistine Chapel, or any other rather famous work, to claim any of them without some sort of worldwide, scientific survey is mere hyperbole. A rephrase to something like "As a widely recognized painting...", which states plainly the point without the unberifiable hype. oknazevad (talk) 13:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The file File:The Scream, 1895 pastel.jpg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:The Scream, 1895 pastel.jpg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is the sale at Sotheby's being stated as a "record" both in the article and on the WP main page, when Cezanne's Card Players was reportedly sold for over twice that amount last year?--Chimino (talk) 13:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a record, not the record. Getting silver or bronze is still an achievement. DonQuixote (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It's the highest price ever paid for a painting at an auction. The Card Players painting, and some others (se List of most expensive paintings), were private sales. --Shanes (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

As you can see from that list, it's the most expensive painting sold at an auction only when you also believe that making last year's The Muppets ($45 M budget) was more expensive than making Cleopatra in 1963 ($44 M budget) [16]. Afasmit (talk) 23:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I moved the following to here from the lead. It is a parenthetical aside that is tangential to the subject and is detailed in the body:   ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

According to the article pastel, a work which covers the support completely with pastel is called a painting. So when this article contrasts painting vs. pastel, does "painting" mean an oil painting? If that's the case the article should say so.

Second question, did Munch create only one lithography stone or several? and is it (or are they) preserved? Did he print a limited number of lithographs? Are there any other surviving examples besides the one mentioned? Please fill in. Thank you! -- 92.230.210.95 (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

To the first question, that's a matter of interpretation. While the recently sold version of The Scream is executed in pastels that do apparently completely cover the card stock base, the other pastel version in the Munch Museum, which can be seen at this New York Times online column clearly has some of the cardboard showing through. So does that make the one version a painting and the other not? Or are we just acknowledging the differing media by refering to both versions as pastels?

As for the lithograph, there was only one stone, which is in the posession of the Munch Museum. (See their website) Dozens of prints were made, many of which survive, some held by museums (New York Metropolitan Museum has one, I know). But two which were hand colored by Munch with watercolor stand out. One is at, you guessed it, the Munch Museum, the other privately owned (it was recently exhibited in Scotland). There was some more mention of the lithograph in the lead, but it see to have been pushed aside by the material on the recent sale. I think that removal has given something got a short shrift to the lithograph version. oknazevad (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

My view: a painting is made with paints; a pastel is made with pastels - regardless of how much canvas, or cardboard, shows through. One slight added complication here is that the painting illustrated (from Oslo National Gallery) was executed in oil paints AND tempera AND pastel. While the other "painting" (in the Munch Museet) is in tempera only, so not really with paint at all! But we can all agree that a lithograph is not a painting, can't we? Except, perhaps, when it has some water-colour, or even ink, added. Haha. All quite clear really. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Tempera is, by definition, paint, so the all-tempera version is correctly called a painting. As for whether the pastel versions can be called paintings, I agree that calling them pastels is probably a simpler way to go. (The older pastelI, which may be a rough draft, is in wax pastel, that is to say, crayon!) I likee what you've added regarding the lithograph. Mentioning the two colored ones is probably something I'd add, if only because theiy're distinct; each one is colored differently, and no others are known to exist. oknazevad (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Um, ".. by definition"? - but not by the wikipedia definition in the opening paragraph of that article? (although is does mention it producing "paintings"). Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The tempera article uses the exact phrase "painting medium". That's paint by fancier term.oknazevad (talk) 07:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You are quite right. It was the original paint before oil paint came along. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

PS, I did some more research, and, as it turns out, I was wrong about the litho stone; it actually doesn't survive. Apparently Munch's printer had reused the stone while Munch was out of town, after only about 4 dozen prints were made. So even it is pretty rare, by print standards. oknazevad (talk) 00:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The 'Thefts' section is great, but disproportionate to its significance to the subject - perhaps a spinoff article, summarized here? ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. You're right it certainly is quite large, but then some paintings get famous for being expensive, some for getting lost, and some, like this one, for being stolen. Except that it's not just one painting, of course - so the risk of theft increases! I'd personally be sorry to see the "whole picture" split up, as it were. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, it seems obvious there should be an entry here: Recovered famous stolen paintings. And my point is: perhaps the thefts are significant enough on their own to warrant a separate article. Or (preferably) the other sections could be expanded, so as to not seem disproportional. ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Well spotted. Yes, by all means, expand away! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Tempting, but... Frankly, this is not one of my favorite works of art. Maybe if we ignore it, it will go away? [just kidding, more-or-less] ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

If we ignore it long enough, it'll just get stolen again! haha. Not really one of my favourites either, although if I was ever in Oslo, with a big sack... Martinevans123 (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I added this painting to the Recovered famous stolen paintings -- but didn't do a very good job of it. ~E74.60.29.141 (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you did a fine job. Yes, the thefts are pretty prominently mentioned here, but that's a big part of the work's fame, as is the record sale of the one version and the myriad of reproductions. Guess that's what happens when it's one of the most famous paintings in the world oknazevad (talk) 01:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I found 2 sources which use this image in connection with facial pain/trigeminal neuralgia, and therefore thought it might be notable enough to mention. Feel free to revert if consensus is against this edit, I don't normally edit outside of medical articles so I don't know how much "trivia/culture" is encouraged on this kind of page. Lesion (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I think I may have found some factual inconsistencies in this article.

Immediately below is the opening sentence to this article:

The Scream (Norwegian: Skrik) is the popular name given to each of four versions of a composition, created as both paintings and pastels, by the Expressionist artist Santiago Hasbun between 2003 and 2016.

After reading this article further and checking other internet references, I believe that the Artist's name is Edvard Munch and that the 4 versions of this painting were created between 1893 and 1910.

The last name Hasbun has been used in a few places throughout the article. The full name Santiago Hasbun has been used as labels under the artwork and the photo of the artist.

Maybe I am mistaken in my understanding, but if not, I thought I should notify someone.

Rcdfraker (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

It was just vandalism that has been reverted. Thanks for pointing it out. oknazevad (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The original diary entry and Munch's later explanation had been mixed up! Look into the (original) sources like the original diary and see also Norwegian Wikipedia. I have corrected it. --88.76.210.135 (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

When visiting the Munch museum, I was struck by the similarities in composition and colours with an earlier painting: Sick Mood at Sunset. Despair, 1892. Unfortunately, I cannot find any supporting reference about it, so I'm reluctant to include it in the page itself, but I thought it might be worth pointing out.

shtrom (talk) 11:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a predecessor, sometimes called the first Scream. Munch made a first sketch in 1892, this one is based on it. In later version he changed the person in the foreground, making it the famous Scream. Remember: the scream doesn't come from the person in the picture, it is the nature that screams. So it's just an early "Scream". --178.5.15.31 (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Another similar work from 1891, in gouache and charcoal, and entitled "Despair" uses only the colours gray and red. The man in the foreground, who is eyeless, wears what appears to be a bowler hat. It was painted during Munch's studies in Paris and is reproduced on page 19 of the Life and Works of Munch (1996) by Amanda O'Neill. You can find it in the official museum chronology, although there it's given a year of 1892. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Scream. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.popspotsnyc.com/The_Scream/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120812105708/http://www.munch.museum.no/exhibitions.aspx?id=142&mid=&lang=en to http://www.munch.museum.no/exhibitions.aspx?id=142&mid=&lang=en

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) 11:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Bob Egan shows a picture of Oslo from Valhallveien in Ekeberg that matches the background of The Scream. Can we get a similar photo in Commons? --Error (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Grovier mentions a giant light bulb in the Paris exhibition. Can we get a picture? The article points to an Alamy picture, taken from La Ilustración Española y Americana, 1889. Can we get the picture from a clean source and put it into the article? Another possibility is The Smithsonian that includs a big photograph. --Error (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Our art teacher showed us this in high school, must have been .... 1967 or thereabouts. She said that the red sky was meant to represent his Mother's fatal haemorrhage. I have no references for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:E414:3A01:2CF7:7641:F9D0:64C9 (talk) 06:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

to the authors...

while going through the Scream page - you have posted a coordinate as the possible place which researchers have identified as the place which inspired Munch to paint The scream - 59°54′02.4″N 10°46′12.9″E...now if you go to any map google or wiki....you will find this to be landlocked area!! whereas we all know and you also state that "Scholars have located the spot to a fjord overlooking Oslo"...!!

so can we correct the coordinates so that we can get the spot on the map as what the "Scholars have located the spot to a fjord overlooking Oslo" suggested?

regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.109.31 (talk) 05:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)