LII‘QI‘I.L<2‘I'\‘Q‘I o. “i 'I III“ ' I4 I'I" 'I I'I‘I I , LII. . I} I.“ II II, >1.va I ‘III “‘33:; "‘3‘ . ‘ I TI‘CI‘I I‘r‘lr' ‘LI‘II'IIhI'I I II. ‘ I #3? I I)!” I:I IlgI'I': 4;: ,'. ”‘72' II. I I II I I‘ "L‘I'. I’ “:5' III I'O’O‘d' Illliil ‘ u I I I I ’,' I II I If! ‘I {L‘g‘l‘;“ Wu :f-h II JI‘ ‘ lL‘1'L'IL :‘2‘ ' L.‘ ‘IIH ‘H‘II “089$“? ., ,I LI. I ”I “: I I'I'II ‘I‘I' I‘, I '1 _ ‘- II ”I'1‘~.I"I‘III‘ | ‘IFI'i'Jf‘. - I‘LILI I. my Inf.” ‘Lllt‘ D ' I II _ , I‘IKIIZI“ I I. I\t,' '." 2,3 .I I'III It: ‘I‘ ‘3'“ 4;) I III“ . (‘1 I L! :‘z‘TOI.Iil‘I;\W IIG‘ ' I I ,. .‘IIILJa :hl: II II “III I51, Maia," ‘ f: ‘ I'III .. IN dd}? ‘17,}? III;‘i“I\ ‘3. ‘I.)‘ fi,‘.).f‘LII “WWII, I‘I;;‘:I;‘:) V I )II’. " II))1;.‘"‘I3 I I ,III I . ’I‘H)‘ (H IIIIJII : III/N ‘ INLLL" :‘ :5 ““3““ III‘ ‘IIU Ividfi‘rfé‘ ' a a? II II. I . ':'III, LIILII, . I ‘ , I m»- -“.' ‘zI‘ I' I ..'I‘ 'I‘ILI 'II .I I “a“ {I'I‘I . 8);}; ‘5“). $553]? "E I {I I’: If I,“ 1 . 1:13,: . In if”... illI'lv. :,I‘:N J)“ qtn‘lml YI'W" ' 'II .I) L ' ’IEI‘I I 'L'I‘I‘ LI!) , pf”: :qu H L” ’1‘" ' I.‘ I)‘ II..:.:III .I r II . ‘I 33:128.“!i”. '34, I I! 43/3,? ISIII. “II . ;‘::' I" :w 3'). l‘ ‘ I. A“? ‘ I,‘ ,I“ 22:31. fw‘a; I: I 'II. 5,, III "5‘99“ "4’ I “III'f‘ ’Ir V .Léér _ {.- za .4 V . I ._ i. 3?. ,.r may- 7' IA. ‘2 ['3: .9 f A a, £21” - . —‘ ~47; . :32”. f“ I. I: .21” Ya ’a‘flIE I LLI'LI. ‘I’IJI What" ,I (15):}. I"; ‘ .IE‘IQL, ‘ 7.17.1: 3a,, EI‘IJH '2ng ‘l L If“ ‘11 ‘ 'I‘ IIIIIzI‘IIIIIIIzI w, :‘I I.“ m I5)“. III ,III a “Erma "I .I,, In If ‘1‘ ' LEIII‘IKII {gi- N "kt-$11.13” LEM‘I'ILI “fig-II II" I'I'II'I I . 1" I 9&ng I" UL ..'I ‘ .‘I G‘ I‘ .-, :3” II III III.“ 'I'.I guy‘s, ?: ”I "I; L wiIII ‘MIL EII‘ If‘fi -,--“II \‘5 A II'.I.V',: " I'IL:I‘I‘I‘ ‘ ‘ L I‘ILI'I; ,ILHI )S‘:' “I‘\'- ‘I‘: I PO“ I 7' I 5“,“ “I I :1“ I I I . “I‘ :I}‘imh ILIE' “2'3? I ‘I! ‘ ‘IMIL “‘1." I LL If I 2~~ IIIII' .I] III-3* :5”: n If I‘d! ,3, I, Mug :2. 8I‘I '1; I‘ gab“.- 1‘ 345:» ‘A-I Ir :‘Etvw :1: 87". ,fi! I “fit: A”, ”a. I. 9n ‘ . .‘...I :7 III . "1"“‘1I'H, 2.30:,“ I I I , I I \I' ' “I ,‘II‘L‘I‘,’ \n I 'INW Lq-':I.,-. ) gm Hub, kI‘O‘B“ V ' fig; 5571'“ H “II I I‘: 31%;" ”3:“ ”U ":88 L. AV! ‘1 ‘I'VJI 13' 833,1!” L231 I;I8£,'I;I§ ”$5: “I,“ 1“?“ $835. ”ELI I31!- $13; "9 RIM - IIIIIIIII 'I ‘Sfl ' .I WI I; ‘I-r :‘gfilm ’I‘x‘ ~ I._ ' 1 L ,3 ' j“. "Ifiwlwtfisfiv’x‘é "I“? 'I. 5 ' I I ’I‘ 2km I quéf 335'; "ME: “I". I»: “fiéfi ::.I:I I g, .. ‘I‘fifizfii I“: .I . I: 38' I «,3. V THESlS [Date 0-7639 Llfis'fi , ,1;ng J3Q5(U&.;3a h University Michigan 5% (a -v.' “v” f aura-x?” '."- . This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE LANDSCAEEQ‘ OF EDVARD MUNCH: A MEDIUM OF COMMUNICATION AND THE CONTINUATION OF A TRADITION presented by Katherine E. Anderson has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Masters Art History degree in ' ’— Eldon Van Liere Cal 4 7 > MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Instilution Ill )V1ESI.} RETURNING MATERIALS: P1ace in book drop to LJBRARJES remove this checkout from .—:,—.. your record. FINES will — V be charged if book is returned after the date stamped be10w. fl , THE LANDSCAPES OF EDVARD MUNCH: A MEDIUM OF COMMUNICATION AND THE CONTINUATION OF A TRADITION By Katherine E. Anderson A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fquiliment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ART Department of History of Art 1985 Copyright by Katherine E. Anderson 1985 ABSTRACT THE LANDSCAPES OF EDVARD MUNCH: A MEDIUM OF COMMUNICATION AND THE CONTINUATION OF A TRADITION By Katherine E. Anderson The major problem with Munch's landscapes is how they relate to his figurative works and the history of landscape paintings. There is a lyrical quality in the landscapes not found in Munch's figurative works. To solve this problem, I looked at as many examples of Munch's pure landscapes as possible. For the main body of this work I concentrated on color reproductions of oil paintings. Arne Eggum's definitive study was the most valuable for this purpose. To support my theories I studied other works on Munch, writings about landscape painting, and contemporary histories. I chose twenty landscapes which were representative of the complete body of works available. These were divided into four categories: night scenes, wood scenes, winter scenes, and light and atmospheric studies. The biographical section focuses on the landscapes and supporting figurative works. In conclusion I found that Munch's landscapes were a form of therapy for him and a product of his Scandinavian heritage. Munch's use of nature is also a continuation and culmination of the Northern Romantic tradition. His assimilation of styles and techniques in the landscape set him apart from his contemporaries. This is dedicated to my husband, without whose continued help and support this would not have been possible. 11 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to acknowledge and thank several people who gave freely of their time and energy to assist me in the completion of this thesis. First and foremost is Dr. Molly T. Smith, who despite a very full schedule made time to listen to each and every page. Thanks also go out to the remainder of my committee, Dr. Eldon Van Liere, committee chair and Dr. Linda 0. Stanford. Both of these individuals helped me considerably, each in their own way. Special thanks go to my family and the other graduate students in art history for putting up with and listening to my trials and tribulations. East Lansing, l985 KEA TABLE OF CONTENTS 3:333 List of Plates ........................ v List of Figures ....................... vi Introduction ......................... 1 Chapter l .......................... 5 Night Scenes ......................... 5 Wood Scenes ......................... l7 Minter Scenes ........................ 28 Light and Atmospheric Studies ................ 40 Chapter 2 .......................... 53 Biography .......................... 53 Chapter 3 .......................... 74 Continuation of Northern Tradition .............. 74 Northern Romantic Tradition ................. 77 Reaction against Naturalism ................. 83 Influence on Others ..................... 89 Chapter 4 .......................... 92 Conclusion .......................... 92 Notes ............................ 97 Appendix A .......................... l02 Appendix B .......................... l39 Bibliography ......................... l42 iv Plate Plate Plate Plate Plate Plate Plate Plate Plate Plate Plate Plate Plate Plate Plate Plate Plate Plate Plate Plate 0'1th £0me 10 11 12 13 14 15 l6 17 l8 19 20 LIST OF PLATES .Page Starry Night .................... 6 Winter Night .................... 8 White Night .................... ll Summer Night .................... l3 Moonlight on the Beach ............... l6 Landscape with Birches ............... l8 Flowering Meadow in Veierland ........... 20 Wood ........................ 22 From Thfiringerwald ................. 24 The Yellow Log ................... 27 House in Winter Landscape ............. 30 Winter Landscape, Elgersburg ............ 3l Winter in Kragerd ................. 34 Winter Landscape .................. 36 Red House and Fir Spruces ............. 39 The Seine at St. Cloud ............... 42 From the Shore in Nice ............... 44 Train Smoke .................... 46 Am Holstentor ................... 48 The Sun ...................... 50 Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure \JOWU'l-wa L000 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 LIST OF FIGURES The Voice ..................... Starry Night OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Fertility ..................... Evening ...................... Rodin's "Thinker" in the Garden of Dr. Linde Montagne Ste.-Victoire OOOOOOOOOOOOOO Old Aker Church .................. From Maridalen OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO The Railroad Bridge, Argenteuil .......... Spring Day on Karl Johan Golgotha The Dance of Life ................. LUbeckerhafen ................... The Sun ...................... The History (detail) The Alma Mater (detail) .............. From Maridalsveien The Infirmary at Gardermoen ............ Girl Kindling the Stove .............. Night in St. Cloud vi Page 102 104 105 106 107 108 110 112 113 114 116 117 118 Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 The Mysticism of a Night ............. Moonlight on the Shore .............. Death in the Sickroom The Scream .................... Sphinx ...................... Still Life (The Murderess) ............ Spring Work in the Skerries Dying Tree-Trunks The Ladies on the Bridge ............. Presentation in the Temple and Flight into Egypt . Les TrES Riches Heures of the Duke of Berry Madonna with Chancellor Rolin Danube Landscape near Regensburg ......... Adoration of the Magi Tribute Money Woman in Morning Light .............. Ruins of Abbey at Eldena ............. Mountain with Rising Fog ............. The Sower The Sick Child .................. The Three Brides Cupid and Psyche ................. vii Page 120 120 121 122 123 124 124 125 127 128 129 130 131 131 132 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 INTRODUCTION A quick glance shows a distinct disparity between Edvard Munch's landscape paintings and his figurative works. The landscapes are very lyrical and bright while the figurative works are full of intense, painful emotions and oppressive colors. Obviously the landscapes do not fit into the general category, Expressionism, to which the figurative works are assigned. The problem then is to define the place into which Munch's landscapes fall in relation to his own work and the history of landscape painting. In this thesis I am dealing with a selection of Munch's pure landscape paintings as a separate part of his life‘s work. No source that I have been able to discover has ever done this. Only a few sources even acknowledge the large body of landscape paintings done by Munch, usually with one or two examples. I feel that this is an entirely different side of art that deserves greater study separate from his figurative works. There is a continuation of tradition and a completely different focus in these landscapes than in any other portion of his work. There is a very limited body of literature available for study concerning Munch's landscapes, especially compared to the vast amount of work done on the figurative paintings. A great deal of the available information on Munch has been produced by a small number of scholars. Foremost among these scholars is Arne 2 Eggum, chief curator of the Munch Museum in Oslo, and author of the most definitive book on Munch's life and work, Edvard Munch: Paintings, Sketches and Studies, published in English in 1984. Mr. Eggum is also the author of several articles and commentaries in exhibition catalogs. Previous to Mr. Eggum's book, Ragna Stang's book, Edvard Munch, published in 1972, was considered quite thorough and still has its specific use. However, her coverage of his land- scapes is sketchy. Reinhold Heller, who has concerned himself with Munch's The Scream since his Master's thesis in 1969 at Indiana University, has recently published a comprehensive biography, Munch; His Life and Work, which is particularly helpful in the area of contemporary reactions and Munch's personal writings. His viewpoint is nonetheless tinged with his all-encompassing opinion of the psychotic qualities inherent in all of Munch's works. This viewpoint, in my Opinion, is not relevant with regard to Munch's landscapes or purpose. Dr. Heller relies on "modern psychological" aspects to explain Munch's work when truly it is more concerned with the nineteenth century idea of the psyche and not the psychotic. Re-visioning Psychology by James Hillman comes closer to the idea of psyche in Munch's day and a reordering of his work in terms of this is another thesis topic entirely. It is not my intent to deal with the psychotic aspects of Munch's work as put forth by Heller. J. P. Hodin's book Edvard Munch, published by the Oxford Press in 1972, is good, general reading and an excellent starting point for a study of Munch. Many of the other books I found by different scholars either dealt with his figurative works exclusively, 3 his graphic work or simply repeated what had been said in the above cited volumes. Many general art historical writings do not even mention the landscape paintings by Munch. In addition to these monographs I relied heavily on Robert Rosenblum's Modern Painting and the Northern Romantic Tradition: Friedrich to Rothko and Roald Nasgaard's Mystic North exhibition catalog. Rosenblum, in particular, states in a clear and concise manner many of the ideas I formed during my study of the landscapes. Nasgaard added some interesting points that fit in well with Rosenblum's and my theory. My approach to the problem of where Munch's landscapes fit into his work and the history of landscape painting and how to classify them started by choosing a representative amount of land- scapes to discuss. Because of the large number of landscapes, nearly fifty, I chose twenty to work with and classified them accord- ing to their main focus. The canvases chosen were all landscapes without figures and unless noted otherwise are part of the Munch Museum collection. The four categories have five oil paintings each. The first chapter consists of a detailed description and analysis of each painting with additional works, both landscape and figurative, used to contrast and support the analysis. The first category is night scenes followed by wood scenes, winter scenes and light studies respectively. At the beginning of each category is a short introduction defining the classification. Due to the relative obscurity of Munch's landscapes in terms of visual access, this analysis is very important to the develOpment of my thesis. ‘- ‘ _\ \ 6“ Wk. \0 \ 4 Chapter 2 consists of a biography of Munch's life that focuses on when the twenty landscapes were painted, the influences or Specific inspirations and how they relate to well-known figurative works. The third chapter deals with the history of landscape painting beginning with the Northern Renaissance. It focuses on how Munch's canvases continue the Northern Romantic tradition and provide a culmination point for it; it also stresses the importance of his Scandinavian heritage in influencing those landscapes. CHAPTER 1 Night Scenes Munch's night scenes date from 1890 to 1923. The five paintings to be discussed in this category were done around the turn-of-the- century, from 1893 to 1905. From 1892 to 1899 Munch was dividing the major portions of his time between Christiania and Berlin.1 Symbolism was a major influence during the 18905 and achieved pri- marily by formal means of composition and color.2 Starry Night (Plate 1), 1893, is an example of the symbolist influence and also shows Whistlerian overtones.3 This painting which uses oil, charcoal, and casein on canvas measures 135 x 140 cm and is from the Wuppertal Vonder Heydt - Museum der Stadt. Heller says, "the mystical view of a Starry Night rendered in Whistlerian tones of blue, green, and silver sets a contemplative and melancholy mood, and its nocturnal view of the Christiania Fjord again recalls Munch's identification of the sea as both the Cabbalistic source of life and a simile for artistic creation."4 A recurring theme of Munch's landscapes and figurative works is seen here; the moon's reflection, seen as a long, slender column on the water's surface. The Voice (Figure l) of the same year, is a well-known example of a figurative work with this same element. In Starry Night this element is very subtle and unobtrusive, unlike Plate 1 Starry Night 7 the figurative work. The reflection of the moon does nothing to eliminate the elements of the scene which are dominated by a large round object on the right, enclosed by a white fence. This fence runs diagonally through the picture from the bottom right corner towards the middle of the left side. It leads the eye very quickly into the space of the moon and its reflection on the left. This reflection, the fence and the opposite shoreline, are the only straight elements compositionally. The near shore curves in a wavy, sinuous line which also helps direct the eye towards the moon's reflection and eventually forms the dark masses on the right. The entire surface of the painting seems to be in constant motion; swirling and twisting with the visible brushstroke, as well as areas of dripping paint and sparsely covered canvas all of which help produce a feeling of unease. Often Munch would repaint specific scenes over and over, like Monet and some of the other Impressionists. Unlike the Impres- sionists however, Munch repainted his motifs specifically to create a feeling of unease and tension. This Starry Night is one example of a painting which looks very similar to another Starry Night (Figure 2) of the same year that is part of a private collection. Upon close examination, most of Munch's works with the same titles have major differences in color or slight differences in composition which affect the "feel" of the work. The concentration of the decorative application of color, line, and plane to the canvas5 in Munch's work is seen in Winter Night (Plate 2) from the Kunsthaus, Zurich. This painting which measures 80.5 x 120.5 cm, was done in the winter of 1900-1901 in Christiania Plate 2 Winter Night 9 where Munch generally spent the winter months from 1897 on.6 Night_is much more lyrical than the previous night scene with a flowering art nouveau line evident in the foreground trees juxtaposed to the sharply pointed fir trees in the middle ground. This and the overall blue tones used again indicate Whistlerian influences. The forms are beginning to be broken up into basic repetitious shapes: circles, triangles, and curves. This was started to some extent in Starry Night, but is moving to full fruition around 1900. Also seen more clearly here is the repeated inscribing of forms where Munch outlined the shapes with a different value, lighter or darker, on the inside as well as outside the shape. This is easily visible on the fir trees to the left, where the white snow is used to depict the repetitious branches, somewhat around the curving forms of the foreground trees and deep into the background along the mountains beyond the fjord. No evidence of the moon or sun appear in this painting and the scene is fairly evenly lit. It is difficult to tell from viewing it whether it is a night or day scene, aside from the darkness of the trees and the shadows in the snow below them. The sky is a pale blue with a lavenderish undertone which is picked up in the water. As mentioned above, Winter Night is painted in tones of blue and white with touches of green in the trees and water and some red used in the tree trunks and echoed in the background on the right along the point of land extending into the fjord. In this work, Munch is again turning away from the individual in the choice of theme and is striving for the monumental.7 A parallel work of 1898, Fertility (Figure 3) is another example 10 of this monumentality and lyrical quality. Eggum says, "the keynote of this picture is not unlike the great French Naturalist Millet's heroic presentation of the peasant living in close contact with "8 Without the two profile figures, this painting, like nature. Winter Night, would retain that monumental quality. White Night (Plate 3) from later in the winter of 1901, repeats the same planar composition and similar forms as seen in Winter Night. The foreground of this 115 x 110 cm canvas in the National Gallery, Oslo is dominated by two tree groupings, the one on the left is very similar to the one in the previous painting and much larger than the fir trees on the right. Both tree groups are monumentalized shapes, reinforced by the incising evident around the silhouettes and in the trunk structures. The middle ground again contains the row of fir trees seen in Winter Night, although there is now a domestic building set neatly in the middle of the painting. The foreground trees act as a framing device for this building and other elements of the painting draw the eye to this spot. Beyond the line of fir trees is the fjord. The brushwork in the top half of the painting is very active, almost calligraphic, and contrasts with the definite outlines and repetition of forms in the bottom half. Another contrast between top and bottom is in value. The top is much lighter in value which creates the illusion of distance. Although the composition is balanced and nearly symmetrical, the eye is led from the lower left in a diagonal direction toward the middle right where it is directed back to the center of the canvas to the rest on the building. Several elements aid this movement. First and foremost are the diagonal shadows of the trees which move the eye te Night Nhi Plate 3 12 directly to the building. The darker elements of the painting totally surround this structure again focusing attention there and the lightness of the upper portion adds to this by the tone and through the deliberate direction of the brushstrokes. The pale blue-white swirling element in the fjord directs the eye back to the building after it has been taken there by the shadows, trees, and the white circles which appear in a spiral pattern. These circles start on the left and spiral counter clockwise up through the pine trees on the right to bring attention to the fjord which, in turn, drops it back down to the building. Similar circles were seen in Winter Night, but they did not have a definite pattern. The colors in White Night are more descriptive of night than in the previous Winter Night. Overall, the painting has a green cast with pinkish undertones. There are touches of lavender and yellow also, especially within the white portions of the work. The whole scene seems very close to the picture plane and very alive, as if activity will break out any minute. Tiny stars and possibly a moon appear in the sky. Although there is no corresponding reflection and they are almost lost in the brushwork, they echo the circles found in the lower half of the canvas. The fourth night scene is totally different from the previous ones discussed. Summer Night (Plate 4) from 1902 could be categorized as a seascape. This 103 x 120 cm canvas in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, is definitely a night scene. The reflection of the midnight sun dominates the somewhat darker colors of the painting. The scene is of a shore, a confused view where the foreground which looks like a beach is covered with green and yellow vegetation. 13 Summer Night Plate 4 14 and an impression of rocks is seen next to the incoming waves. This tends to make the viewer feel as if the vegetation is close to the picture plane and so is the sea. The conclusion, after looking for a while, could be that the view is from a cliff or ground overlooking the shore directly below. The composition and colors used in Summer Night are so evocative that the sound of the waves lapping against the rocky shore can almost be heard. In this work, Munch has again monumentalized nature, but he has also very skillfully depicted the movement and transparency of the waves. This painting follows the compositional devices used during the previous winter; the frontal and parallel sense of depth, the division of the canvas by color values and tone and by application of paint and a central focal point. Unlike the winter night scenes, this was painted from Aasgaardstrand where he returned in the summer if not traveling in Europe.9 The art nouveau-inspired language has been toned down and the repetition of similar forms has been heightened. Circular forms dominate the lower portion of the painting in the rocks, bushes and highlighted areas of the vegetation. This is echoed by the sun itself at the top of the canvas, and in the bottom portion of the reflection. In contrast to the winter night scenes, this painting uses very warm colors, predominately greens and yellows, with touches of blue and violet in the fjord, to produce an entirely different response. Here there is a feeling of heat and restlessness, of a yearning for something as yet unknown. According to Heller, "underlying the calm silence of the painting is a pregnant sensuality which reaffirms Munch's faith in the life of nature which overcomes 15 all death."10 The feeling of yearning and restlessness is related to sexuality and is very similar in feeling to the figurative Evening (Figure 4) of 1889 which shows Inger sitting on rocks on the beach staring off into the distance. However, the pure landscape is much more powerful in this instance. Moonlight reflecting on the water, a recurring theme mentioned earlier, is the main subject of the last of the night scenes chosen. This work, Moonlight on the Beach, (Plate 5) of 1904-05 is very spontaneous and quite a departure from the previous styles. Broad, lightly painted surfaces with canvas showing through to play a major role in the composition characterize this work. There is a general sense of lightening in the technique and palette and a greater sense of abstraction in form and color. Again, this is a rocky beach with waves rolling into the shore. The sun is directly in the center and divides the top half of the canvas which is still a lighter value than the bottom. The overall feeling of the painting is one of cool airiness and brightness. This relatively small canvas, 90 x 65 cm, is almost completely abstract in relation to previous examples. Barely discern- able are some rock-like forms in the foreground ranging in color from pale green to lavender to yellow. All the forms are outlined in a sketchy manner with a contrasting color. Areas of the ground are left unpainted or with the paint hurriedly applied to leave the white of the canvas showing through. The art-nouveau-inspired line and basic forms seen from around 1900 are evident here but have become confused in the paint application, color abstraction and expressionistic treatment. The only clear forms are those Plate 5 Moonlight on the Beach 17 of the moon and its reflection and the finger of land. The moon and its reflection is painted a rich golden yellow with a light highlight running down the right side of the reflection. The shoreline is very similar to that in Starry Night with the point of land jutting into the fjord, a compositional device used to focus on the moon's reflection. The flattening of the perspective aids the effect of forms piling up and also helps focus the painting on the column of light. The echoing of colors found in the lower half by those in the sky serves to pull this painting together as it does in all of Munch's work to some extent. This painting of Moonlight on the Beach could have been what the German art historian, Richard Muther, thought of when he “emphasized Munch's harmonious distribution of patches of color, and his ability even in a small format to give his motifs a monumental effect."H Clearly, Munch has become much freer with his color and his technique moving towards a more expressionistic style. Wood Scenes Landscape paintings with woods or trees as the subject span a greater period of time than night scenes. Although they occur between 1880 and 1927, the five examples chosen for discussion range from 1880 to 1912. In May of 1880 Munch bought his first oil paints and brushes.12 In late summer or early autumn of that year he painted Landscape with Birches (Plate 6). In a private collection, this small, 39 x 31 cm, painting is reminiscent of the plein d'air paintings 18 th Birches 1 Landscape w Plate 6 19 of the French, especially in the golden, grayish palette similar to Camille Corot.13 This painting depicts birches in the foreground covering the entire right half of the canvas. The sky is overcast and the ground and background are generally dark and hazy. Light is illuminating the trunks and golden yellow leaves of the frontal birches but not highlighting details in any of the other parts of the scene. This is a very careful study of nature painted from a sketch.14 Following in the footsteps of the Naturalists this painting of birches is completely true-to-life with no sense of abstraction whatsoever. It is a generalized landscape and could be anywhere. The feeling here is simply a record of nature. There is no sense of restlessness or mystery; the painting seems completely still, frozen in time. This is still an accepted representation and Munch is still experimenting with the medium. Flowering Meadow in Veierland (Plate 7) of 1887 shows Munch using a nontraditional style of painting. This painting in the National Gallery, 0510 measures 66.5 x 44 cm and was part of a group of works not sent to the 1887 Autumn Exhibition in Oslo.15 This "painting bathed in an intense sunlight which dissolves all forms into a rich harmony of bright colors,"16 gives a suggestion of one point perspective delineated by the wall on the right and the dark line starting in the lower, left corner. Both forms appear to converge on the horizon to the right of the center. The white sun is positioned high and central, where the moon will be in future works like Moonlight on the Beach. It shines hotly down on the scene which is seen from slightly above and the glare dissolves Plate 7 Flowering Meadow in Veierland 21 much of the form. The paint is applied very thickly in broad brush- strokes clearly visible throughout. The color is still naturalistic but the forms have been abstracted. This abstraction is a result of nature and the effects of atmospheric humidity and not the artist's imagination. The realistic rendering of humidity pushes this work back into the realm of Naturalism. As in the painting, Landscape with Birches, there is very little movement in the Flowering Meadow. What does manage to come through is due to the energetic, impressionistic brushwork. The Naturalistic palette is based on greens and blues with touches of warm colors, red and orange, in the bottom portion of the canvas and also echoed in the sky. There is an overall impression of springtime, sunlight, and the full-blown maturity of nature. This painting while nontraditional in relation to Naturalism is still acceptable because it is utilizing an older style looking to the past rather than toward the future. A painting related to White Night is the 1903 work Wood (Plate 8). This modestly sized canvas (82.5 x 81.5 cm) contains monumentalized forms. Color plays as important a part as form does in evoking a response or producing a general feeling. Wood has taken the ideas and elements of White Night one step further. The composition is very complex with forms layered closely behind one another. The whole scene is dominated by the three straight pine trunks in the foreground. These trunks are centrally placed and set up a screen through which to view the remaining elements. Overall, there is less incising, and more use of broad flat color patterns. Behind the tree trunks are fir trees moving off into 22 Wood Plate 8 23 the background to the right. The sky is a deep, intense blue which becomes increasingly light in value as it moves to the right. All the elements of the painting become lighter in value moving from left to right. This tonal change gives the work a sense of movement. Unlike the previous works discussed, this canvas is not divided into zones which correspond to depth. Part of this is due to the fact that the dark pine trunks extend nearly the full length of the canvas. Another area of the painting which creates some ambiguity concerning depth is the golden yellow shape on the left. This appears to be behind the tree trunk in one area, but overlaps the trunk at its base. A sense of the trees floating on or within the lower portion of the canvas is created. The yellow, green, and orange shapes in the lower section are obviously vegetation. However, the form is indistinct and a question of what type of vegetation arises. As a whole, the scene shown in this work is nonspecific and somewhat confusing Spacially. The abstraction of color and form plays an increasingly important role at this time. Munch has denied depth somewhat and created a flat pattern on canvas. Even though the forms are depicted essentially as shapes on a flat surface they still say, "tree," "trunk,“ and "sky." The foreground color, which is the most abstract in terms of a Naturalist palette creates most of the ambiguity with its loosely painted areas of yellow, orange, shades of green, and the blue and red trunks. Abstraction of color also plays an important role in a later work, From ThUringerwald (Plate 9), of about 1905. This 80 x 100 cm 24 43.1%: 14.7%»? . .1._ 1. ..1? ...1l.l\.1r .1 HJ. 1......11mwh1... , (.3). . 1.. : nu.» . .1” n11 4 r fflhfftlfe "‘4’: 7. .,. p... dmuhcmAA/nifin 1d ur1ngerwa From Th Plate 9 ‘hérfl--« l 0.. : 25 canvas has a wide range of pastel colors used in what would be called the Fauvist style of painting. In 1906, when the Fauvists were in full strength, Munch's work was shown in the same room with Karsten, Vlaminck, and others at the Salon des Indépendants.17 It is possible that From Thfiringerwald was included in that exhibi- 18 tion, although there is no conclusive evidence either way. This painting shows a blue ridge in the background which serves as one of the now familiar horizontal divisions of the canvas. The midsection contains individual pine trees, grass, and a large, unidentified pink form while the foreground consists of horizontal bands of alternating yellow-green and pink-toned zigzagged strokes. A departure occurs here with the middle section and the bottom or foreground band in that they start on the left horizontally, but a third of the way across the canvas they angle down towards the right, still dividing the canvas into three sections. Color abstraction creates a sense of ambiguity. The blue ridge could be a mountain range but is actually a forest of pine trees in the distance as seen by the delineation of tree trunks visible on the right edge of the shape. There is an abstract golden- yellow shape on the right in front of the ridge which is indistin- guishable. Another similarly toned shape is on the left closer to the picture plane, outlined in orange and dotted with green and orange strokes. The large pink area in the middle of the canvas creates the most ambiguity. There is really no hint of what this represents, although it is full of movement both in brushstrokes and color patterns. Perhaps it represents a river or flowers or plowed earth. A similar streak of color appears, on the right, 26 half-way up the canvas. This streak looks as if it might be a river creek flowing in front of the pine trees. The palette in From ThUringerwald is more harmonious than Moonlight on the Beach, even though there is a freer use of color in terms of abstraction in the former. Rodin's "Thinker" in the Garden of Dr. Linde (Figure 5) of 1907 utilizes the same color scheme and also prompts the same feelings of serenity and spring, although the styles are different and From ThUringerwald is clearly a late summer/early fall scene. Strong verticals dominate The Yellow Log (Plate 10) from the winter of 1911-1912. This 131 x 160 cm canvas from the woodland interior of Kragerd uses all the colors of Munch's palette, a change from the landscape seen previously in which he used strong distinctive contrasts of color. The central focus of this work is created by an exaggerated perspective rushing into the center of the canvas. This perspective of the yellow log creates a dynamism which is transferred to the forest itself and contrasted by the verticals of the surrounding pine trunks. Munch's use of static and dynamic effects in this period, according to Eggum, contains analogies with Italian Futurism and the motion effects of the film.19 A "sketchy" brushstroke is used in this painting and patches of canvas show through, mostly between the trees and the blue sky. Repeating lozenge shape patterns define the texture of the tree trunks. Shadows in the snow are painted in many colors, including red, yellow, green, blue, and lavender. These colors are reflected in other areas of the painting. Lavender as the color of the tree trunks, red to delineate distant trunks, yellow in the bark pattern, .. Afl . .2 .n .. ., . ..1 . . ., . 1 I. .. .. . . 1. . , , _ . . 1 . . 1 . x .,.1 . .1 1 1 _ r . .. ... . . .. . >1 1 A 2 . 1 . .. 1 1 .. . . .1 . .1 1 /3 . . . 2, 1 . m "a l 1 ., m. a. w . The Yellow Log Plate 10 28 and green on the branches. Small areas of the canvas have thickly applied paint, most notably in the lower third and upper sections of snow. There is a hint of a Cézanne influence in the juxtaposition of forms. The tree trunk in the foreground extending to the t0p and bottom edge and several branches which look as if they could belong to more than one tree are stylistic elements similar to those found in Montagne Ste-Victoire (Figure 6) of 1885-87 by Cezanne. At this time, Cezanne, more than any other master of modern art, engaged Munch's attention.20 A vibration of light is achieved in this painting by several techniques. First and foremost, the Open patches of canvas give a shimmering effect around the trees. Using all the colors of his palette also makes the canvas vibrate with light, although this does not contribute to the effect as much as the other reasons. Finally and most importantly, centering the brightest, warmest tone of yellow in the log and echoing that all around the canvas gives it a radiating quality like the sun or moon in the earlier landscapes. Winter Scenes 0f the landscapes chosen for discussion, winter scenes cover the greatest amount of time from 1880 to 1927. Although some works discussed in the previous categories also depict scenes with snow, the five canvases to be discussed next deal only with winter and the different ways Munch depicted it. 29 A small canvas (14 x 17.5 cm) from 1880 shows a delicate balance of color and a hint of the experimentation found later. House in Winter Landscape (Plate 11), one of the paintings Munch executed in the first winter after he decided to become a painter,21 shows a peaceful, naturalistic rendering of a house and a fence subjugated by the elements. As with other landscapes from this period (Figures 7 and 8) the sky fills most of the area of this privately owned work. In House in Winter Landscape, Munch has used delicate pink tones with streaks of light gray brushed through to describe the sunrise. Light clouds break across the upper left corner of the painting highlighted with a still lighter peach underneath. The snow appears very light, but is somewhat flattened and does not rest on any of the birch trees, only the roof and the ground. The only sign of habitation is the light in the single window of the small brown building on the right side of the canvas and the fence which leans with the wind and is nearly buried in the snow. The trees, bushes, and fence are expressive lines brushed across the surface of the canvas, a hint of Munch's Expressionistic qualities which come to fruition later. This simple, quick painting gives a feeling of stillness, peace, and serenity. As with many Naturalistic paint- ings, nature herself is really the subject and even a small format shows her grandeur. Winter Landscape, Elgersburg (Plate 12) from 1906 continues the experimentation started in the above painting. The expressive use of line and color and the monumentalization of nature are powerful elements in this 84 x 109 cm canvas. The abstraction seen here 30 - «anz—u‘ ‘+. .2569»; an: 1. Inm‘ Nut '1 .\ " .“1 ’ O law-,1"? Mat: ‘ ;%3;>-1 .1 n4?»- mflaéfi 1 31.4, 113': . - 1 . 7 . . “3;! . . II! .V L g. Ag: . 1 ,‘1 ‘ ' (.1. "13 "‘. "‘ -. )1. I l 11.1% « :" ’. . ‘Q 1, ‘ :“f‘ - , " 1 11. ‘2'!- , \ \ M ~ “39,1115" ‘1 -. .-_— .1219 1 ”‘3“ r I -1 F 1 '. l . . ,\\.. ,‘t 1‘ 1‘. A A; ‘7 l 1 , , 1 l .1» t 1-. T11 ”‘7‘ a. . ,~—A.~» 1112' ' ’ ’ - .I . I \ ' . O 1; 1, 3H 1". ' 1 [PH 2 ’ 1...". I V‘ ’1 1‘. ‘ 1 A ' '1 2 «V ’r ’ -.a 1;. Plate 11 House in Winter Landscape 31 Winter Landscape, Elgersburg Plate 12 32 was discussed earlier in conjunction with Moonlight on the Beach from the same period. In Winter Landscape the sense of stacked perspective seen earlier in 1904 to 1905 has been superseded in favor of a realistic rendering of perspective, of rolling plowed fields covered with snow. Color abstraction in both the earlier work and this one continues. Warm brown and red tones are used in the foreground to describe the furrows of earth protruding through the snow. Touches of forest green, yellow, gray, and blue are also evident in this portion of the canvas. The middle ground is characterized by cooler pastel tones of aqua, pink, green, yellow, and peach that give the impression of plowed fields, rather than accurately describe them. Violet, blue and white compose the background which consists of a few hills and the narrow strip of overcast sky. In the background on the left is what appears to be a building with a red roof. This is totally submerged into the setting and heightens the effect of the dominance of nature. The overall composition of Winter Landscape is chaotic and abstract. Some of the foreground lines are vertical and converge in the center leading the eye towards the middle ground. Other portions of the foreground have horizontal lines while other parts have randomly placed lines at vertical and diagonal angles. After moving from the foreground to the middle ground via the converging lines in the central portion, the composition becomes more regularized with parallel lines delineating the furrows running across a hill from front to back or receding further into space. The background has a definite st0pping point in the nearly solid blue line which 33 runs horizontally across the canvas from left to right. This st0ps the movement from foreground to background and an independent con- scious leap must be made to view the sky. Of all portions of the canvas the sky is the least abstract. Despite the disorder of the parts the composition works as a whole saying “plowed field in winter." The large format and simplicity of strokes lends a feeling of monumentality to the everyday scene. Where the abstraction of color gave an ethereal feeling to Moonlight on the Beach, in Winter Landscape, it serves as an aid in the sense of rolling hills and objects receding in space. The descriptive qualities of the composition and the application of paint tend to negate any opposing effects that color abstraction has here. Hence it appears to be descriptive of the actual scene with a touch of exaggerated color for expressive purposes rather than to create an illusionary image or feeling. In Kragerd, a small Norwegian coastal town, Munch painted 22 several monumental winter landscapes. Winter in Kragerd (Plate 13) of 1912 is one example. This 131.5 x 131 cm canvas is similar to The Yellow Log, discussed earlier, in the patches of thickly applied paint and lots of canvas showing through, particularly around the trees, and in the Cezanne-like composition. Winter in Kragerfl shows a snow-covered hill with bare patches of dark rock in the foreground. Beyond this, the scene develops into another hill covered with geometrically formed houses separated from the foreground by a majestic pine tree with spreading branches on the left side, and a yellow ochre building extending off the right edge of the canvas. Two blue, rectangular patches of sky show 34 Winter in Kragerd Plate 13 35 through the white and yellow sky area. Yellow, blue, red, and white are the primary colors used in this painting, but touches of green are also evident. Composition and color balancing in this canvas is performed, in large part, by the proud and vigorous pine tree. The spreading branches draw the viewer invitingly into the scene and through similar colors down to the foreground area and back up toward the building covered hillside. A sense of protection, a haven, is created by the way the branches spread over the buildings nestled into the hillside. This shows the protective aspect of nature. By including the two rectangular patches of blue in the sky, Munch has prevented that part of the painting from dissolving into nothing- ness. The blue echoes and reflects the blueness of the shadows in the snow, on the roofs, and surrounding the trees. The same use of yellow and green throughout the work serves to further cement the composition. An impression of man working and living in harmony with nature is the message of this landscape. More sombre tones and the dissolution of forms characterizes Winter Landscape (Plate 14) of about 1918. This 59.7 x 73.7 cm painting is part of the collection of the Wadsworth Atheneum in Hartford, Connecticut. Broad, Spontaneous patches of color are thickly applied to the canvas. Brown and green tones show through the white to materialize into bits of the shoreline, rocks, and vegetation. There is no sense of depth, the perspective consists of forms moving up the surface of the canvas, rather than receding into the distance. This is partially due to the composition-—a curving shoreline moving from the lower left corner toward the Plate 14 Winter Landscape 37 left side with a snow-covered hill at the t0p of the curve in the middle ground--and partially to the broad flat areas of color. However, if the scene is seen as if from a high viewpoint, the land forms tend to recede, while the water of the fjord lies along the picture plane and flattens that portion of the painting. This flatness creates an ambiguousness that is aided by the dissolving forms. In parts where it looks like water, splotches of green and ochre have been added to create a sense of ambiguity concerning the actual substance depicted. The same thing happens in portions thought to be land. There is a large patch of blue, similar to that used for the fjord in the lower right corner. This area of the painting is visually part of the shore, but the addition of the blue tone is drastically different from the rest of the shore. Munch has again used a horizontally divided canvas in Winter Landscape, which is similar to the earlier Winter Landscape, Elgersburg from 1906. The sky fills a quarter to one-third of the canvas and the remainder is land and water. Of the works where form is abstracted greatly, this painting is the most disharmonious. The colors are not used to cement the whole together as before, the perspective as mentioned is not cohesive throughout and there is an overall sense of death and decay not seen in any of the earlier winter scenes. Eggum says, "during the remaining years of his life, Munch painted a great many landscapes of the area around Ekely, where Winter Landscape was done, often with death as the 23 underlying motif." Winter Landscape shows the saturated dampness of nature near the end of winter when the ground previously frozen 38 begins to thaw and absorb the abundance of moisture. Although moisture is necessary for growth and renewal, it can also cause death and decay when there is an abundance as represented in this work. The last painting in the winter scene group is from around 1927 and titled, Red House and Fir Spruces (Plate 15). This average sized canvas, 100 x 130 cm, uses an almost monochromatic palette to represent the artist's impression of the winter scene. The aquarelle-like tones shine with a lyrical strength, according to 24 There is also a bright crystalline quality of this canvas Eggum. that is very descriptive of the intense dazzling brightness of certain winter days. The strength of this work lies in the simplicity of the palette and watercolor effect of the thin oil paint. An abstraction of depth is utilized in Red House and Fir Spruces to give it the lyrical quality and brightness it possesses. This is heightened by the clear blue tones of oil paint that look like watercolor and contribute a transparency like nature encased in ice. The foreground, middle ground, and background are only defined in the limits of the four fir spruces, the red house and the bank of diaphanous trees to the left. These objects actually rest on expanses of color, not ground or vegetation or snow. They do not cast shadows, but themselves seem to be cast in shadow. The whole canvas is washed in an expanse of blue with bright bits of white canvas that show through and give it the sparkle of a jewel. Nature is heightened here by exaggerating her colors in a poetic but believable manner. The red house catches the eye, but 11"‘1‘ — » *1 g 40%: Plate 15 Red House and Fir Spruces 40 it is always led away and around the canvas to record the information represented. Only the most relevant objects have been given defini- tion, everything else is extraneous and therefore subjugated to the total impression through the use of blue tonal expanses. This painting gives the impression of a crisp, clear, harsh winter's day where everything is so cold that the air itself almost crackles. The five winter scenes discussed above show the greatest range of experimentation with style and technique. They succeed in showing winter in every phase; from the first snow seen in the early dawn to the final stage of saturation in the early spring. Winter and snow was a popular subject of Northern artists, particu- larly Scandinavians and Munch spent a great deal of study and effort to depict it in its many forms. Light and Atmospheric Studies Edvard Munch did many landscapes involving the sea. Included in such a group of seascapes would be many of the previously discussed works, all of which fit into other categories such as night, woods, and winter. There are some works which do not easily fall within a single group. Five of these works have been chosen to be discussed together. The unifying element of these five paintings is the depiction of light or atmospheric effects on light. Each work to be discussed depicts a definite feeling connected to the way light has been seen and recorded by the artist. The earliest work is from 1890 and the latest from 1912, although light studies Span a greater amount of time. The five chosen are representative of 41 the many different forms in which light manifests itself in nature and in Munch's landscapes. The Seine at St. Cloud (Plate 16) from 1890 is one of a group of light studies with the same title based on the view from Munch's room and looking across the Seine. There is consistency in the execution of these small pictures, this one only 46.5 x 38 cm, that recalls Monet's long series of the same motif depicted with 25 varied illumination. The Seine at St. Cloud is very impressionistic in style and similar to figural studies from the same time, such as Spring Day on Karl Johan (Figure 10). In both these paintings, Munch appears to be trying his hand at the pointillist technique of George Seurat. The Seine at St. Cloud shows a clear, sunlit spring or summer day. A slender tree in the foreground, right on the surface of the picture plane provides an entry into the scene itself. Beyond the tree is an iron railing, a dock, and the river itself with a long boat moving into the picture from the left, behind the tree. The background consists of the opposite shore lined with multi-storied buildings and shrubbery. Pale, pastel colors are used ranging from white to yellow, green to blue, or orange to red. There is an abundance of white and the lightest tones of each color to create a shimmery, light-filled effect. Most of the brushstrokes are visible, and consist of small "touches" of paint or feathery strokes. Close Up most of the forms dissolve in the manner of Monet, Seurat and Pissarro. This, for Munch, is a relatively conventional style of painting. Quite possibly the fact that he was immersed in studying with Léon Bonnat and the full spectrum of Parisian art at this 43 time explains his experimentation with Pointillism, Impressionism, and other styles of painting. The shimmering, hasty, broken light of The Seine at St. Cloud contrasts with the languid, airy atmosphere of the Mediterranean. In 1891 Munch went to Nice because of the favorable climate and in 1892 during his second trip to Nice he painted From the Shore in Nice (Plate 17). This Impressionistic painting is only 46.5 x 69 cm and gives the viewer an image of the curving beach with the waves rolling languidly towards the sand. Nice proved a source of inspiration both for Munch's paintings and for his "diary." In a letter sent to Verdens Gang, a newspaper, he wrote: The sea lies there, blue--just a shade deeper than the air--a marvelous blue color as airy as naphta, and a long swell rolls languidly toward? the beach, breaking with a great booming noise. 5 This description in simple, direct language expressed the same image as the painting does. The listless, lazy feeling is expressed in From the Shore at Nice by the brushstrokes and the palette. The brushwork is very evident and it follows the contours of the forms gently and softly. The waves are painted with repeated curving strokes which accurately define the motion of the tide and also allow a glimpse of the sand below them. Basic, simplified forms are used to suggest the objects in the background, a rectangle of white for a building, circular forms of green for vegetation and wavy blue and white strokes for the slender portion of sky visible in the upper right corner. Again, Munch is using a develOped palette, and carrying colors 44 From the Shore in Nice Plate 17 45 throughout the canvas, rather than concentrating them in one spot. The reflection of the air and sea in the beach sand and conversely the peach tone reflecting into the water from the beach reinforces the feeling of listlessness by giving the work an overall bluish tone like the air Munch described in his letter. A feeling of the laziness prompted by a humid summer's day is the response this painting evokes. In all of the light study paintings direct observation of nature by the artist is evident and this is no less true in Train §Eg§g (Plate 18) of 1900. Although Munch used direct observation as the basis for his landscapes a sense of the decorative quality of paint was an important part of many works. This reflected his study of past art and artists and his assimilation of current styles like the art nouveau seen here. About the same size as Winter Night (84.5 x 109 cm) which it resembles in style, Train Smoke is part of a series of forest and fjord scenes set in the melancholy 27 The moodiness of dusk in the autumn, winter, and early spring. forms, colors, and techniques all work together to set the mood and describe the atmospheric qualities. Large, pine trees with Spreading branches define the picture plane. Like the trees in Winter Night, these are incised with darker and lighter colors defining the shapes of branches, trunks, and silhouettes. In the foreground is the white, fluffy smoke from the train's smoke stack. It, too, is outlined, here by black and gray, with an art nouveau-inspired line. The train, itself, is difficult to pick out as it is only a half dozen horizontal and vertial lines in the lower right corner. The triangular tree Plate 18 Train Smoke 47 ridge defines the edge of the foreground. The fjord with its two sailboats sketched in and its islands in the distance are the middle ground. Smoky blue forms in the background delineate the Opposite Shore and act as a transition for the creamy evening sky. All of the forms look very heavy and solid. There is nothing ethereal in this painting, not even the smoke which seems to hang in the air without dissipating. The heavier forms and application of paint occurs in the foreground Objects and this lightening of the surface helps the recession of space. By using particularly effective changes in technique, Munch creates a heavy, still, Oppressive atmosphere. The mottled, blue, and cream colored sky with dripping paint on the left and right edges gives an impression Of a heavy, cloud-filled sky about to come crashing down on the fjord in a torrent of fury. Smoke, which is generally diaphanous in quality, here is very solid, almost a permanent part of the scene. This reinforces the stillness of the air and the sense of waiting for something to happen. As a whole, this painting is decorative rather than symbolic and reflects Munch's trip to Rome where he was inspired by the 28 work of Raphael to create decorative art. Golgotha (Figure 11) and The Dance of Life (Figure 12) are additional examples of a whole series of monumental and decorative works. These works in the form of large murals will be particularly helpful in providing Munch with a starting point for several public works on a large scale. In Am Holstentor (Plate 19) Munch assimilates young French Fauvist art. This painting is part of the Nationalgalerie, Berlin,29 measures 84 x 130 cm, was painted in 1907 and is composed of broad, 48 Am Holstentor Plate 19 49 brightly colored brushstrokes depicting a river scene. In the foreground is a reflection of the blue, cloud-filled sky in the river. The reflection is much clearer than the sky itself which tends to be a white mass of paint. A greenish building can be partially seen in the lower left corner. Across the river are several boats of many different types lining the shore and being reflected in the water. Two large buildings are situated in the middle ground, on the left is a large red structure with twin spires surrounded by trees and bushes and in the center is a large many- windowed, paler red, mansard-roofed building. The complex scene is filled with trees, lawns, and bushes. There are what appear to be a couple of walkways running parallel to the picture plane. As mentioned above, the sky, which constitutes the background, is almost entirely white. There are a few strokes of blue, notably around the spires and outlining clouds in the center. By using a bright, clear palette and well-defined forms Munch has succeeded in depicting a study of light and atmosphere that gives an impression of clarity and crispness of form. This is a different type Of crispness as that seen in Red House and Fir Spruces which depends on the impression of frozenness. Am Holstentor defines the clarity of air that is unfettered by humidity or moisture. Munch does all this with a few quick, summary brushstrokes which even in a black and white reproduction (Figure 13) shows the same clarity of air and light. The final canvas in the light study category is The Sun (Plate 20) from around 1912. This 163 x 205.5 cm canvas is truly a "study" as the work in its final form is part of the Oslo University Festival The Sun 51 Hall decoration (Figure 14) and measures 455 x 780 cm. In the version under discussion, The Sun traveled to the continent where it was well received before the committee in Oslo authorized money to do the final version.30 A strong emphasis on the central axis characterizes the compo- sition Of The Sun. The palette includes a full range of colors, almost the complete spectrum as it were. The sun shines out from the center of the canvas, as its rays radiate towards all edges of the painting. Focus on the small circle Of the sun, itself, is through the use of color. That area and the immediately surround- ing portion is the hottest and brightest. The rays of the sun are predominately white, yellow and golden, but other colors are used including blue, green, and red. A reflection of the sun is seen in the blue water which occupies the middle ground. Surrounding this sea are land forms which rise up to become hills or mountains on each edge of the canvas. A cliff-like land form marks the Opposite shoreline. These hills and cliffs are mostly a lavendar shade, except for two areas, the exact center, flat area which is green and what appears to be a bush on the picture plane just to the right of the center. The rays and ever-widening concentric circles surrounding the sun break up the other forms on this canvas and give it an almost "cubist" look. A sense of fractured sunlight or a prism reflecting the sun is the effect Munch achieved in this light study. Although he was preoccupied with the Renaissance art of northern Italy, particu- 31 larly Masaccio and Giotto, it is not as evident in this canvas as it is in the works done for the sidewalls of the Festival Hall 52 (Figures 15 and 16). There is a use of Renaissance perspective in this canvas of The Sun; however, the horizon line is too high in relation to the viewer in the Festival Hall version. Heller says that in these murals Munch "sought to fuse Naturalistic Obser- vation with simplification in order to arrive at a sense of unchanging monumentality."32 This is the essence of all of Munch's landscape paintings--the sense of monumentality, of a universal. In the following chapters, the place that landscape painting holds in Munch's oeuvre and how it fits into the history and tradition of landscape painting will be discussed. The success of Munch's land- scapes on their own and within the tradition of landscape painting should become evident. CHAPTER 2 Biography Edvard Munch was born December 12, 1862 in Laten, Norway to a military doctor, Christian Munch, and his wife, Laura Cathrine BjOlstad. He was the second child of five and the Oldest boy. The Munch family contained many prominent and well-known citizens, including clergymen, army Officers, teachers and the famous P. A. Munch, an historian.1 Shortly after Edvard's birth, the family settled in Christiania, now called Oslo. Because of Christian Munch's firm convictions towards the poor, the family lived in a slum area of the city. Five years after Edvard was born, his mother died of tuberculosis and her younger sister, Karen, took over the running of the household. To make up for the loss, Edvard increasingly turned to his Older Sister, SOphie, for compassion, understanding and support. When SOphie was fifteen, however, she also died of tuberculosis. Munch reacted to this additional and tragic loss in an extreme manner. Because of his age and the fact that Sophie's ordeal was not hidden from the children, her death affected Edvard more than the death of his mother. He develOped great feelings Of alienation and guilt from this that would stay with him forever and repeatedly surface in his figurative works. Many years later, he wrote: 53 54 From the moment of my birth, the angels of anxiety, worry and death stood at my side, followed me out when I played, followed me in the sun of Springtime and in the glories of summer. They stood at my side in the evening when I closed my eyes, and intimidated me with death, hell and eternal damnation. And I would often wake up at night and stare wildly into the room: Am I in He1122 This is how Munch felt of his entire life, as if he was constantly haunted by death and insanity, both of which he believed were inherited tendencies he could not escape. Two years after SOphie's death, in 1879, Munch entered the Technical College to begin training to become an architect. Several of his architectural drawings (Figure 17 and 18) may be regarded as preparation for the entrance exam and show an independence and surety of touch which will continue to be evident in his landscape paintings. However, due to illness, to which he was easily suscep- tible, Munch missed long periods of school, and by May 1880 he turned to oil painting. Munch returned to his studies that autumn but by November he had withdrawn from the Technical College and noted in his diary that: "I have in fact made up my mind to become 3 a painter." Landscape with Birches (Plate 6) is from this beginning period Of Munch's career as a painter. Shortly after this, Munch started attending evening courses at the School of Drawing in Christiania. While there, he was considered one of the best pupils and worked under the tutelage of sculptor Julius Middelthun. As a landscape painter, however, he was clearly influenced by the Naturalist, Fritz Thaulow.4 In From Maridalen (Figure 8) a sense of Munch's bold, experimental style can be seen in the loaded impasto sections and in his attempts to capture the essence of daylight. 55 Munch chose to be a painter at a time when a belief in the non- academic study Of nature and art made it feasibly possible for him to do so. Previously an artistic career consisted of study at foreign academies or under a particular master. The high fees necessary for this would have prohibited Munch from pursuing such a course. Naturalism, the prevailing international style, was rooted in direct study of nature and permitted young artists to paint without any formal training. Often, however, young artists grouped together and were supervised by an established artist. In 1882, Munch and six other artists rented a studio and worked under the supervision Of Christian Krohg. Munch exhibited work for the first time in 1883, participating in the Industries and Arts Exhibition in Christiania. A small paint- ing of a young red-haired girl that was “characteristic and alive" represented him.5 In the same year, Girl Kindling the Stove (Figure 19) was exhibited at the second Christiania Autumn Exhibition. This figurative work is very similar in feel and style to the Landscape with Birches mentioned earlier. It sincerely depicts the working class with sensitive feeling much like Millet did earlier with his field workers. The Autumn Exhibition, in its first few years, proved to be very beneficial to the young contemporary artists as it accepted their works. This provided the young artists with an opportunity to come before the public for an appraisal of what was actually little more than apprentice work. This was almost without parallel in any other country.6 Also in 1883, Munch visited Fritz Thaulow's "open-air studio" in Modumn, Norway. This studio was imbued "with a French atmOSphere" 56 and inspired his second entry in the 1884 Autumn Exhibition, which had become an Official institution entitled the Annual State Autumn Exhibition. Morning still reflects Krohg's influence but breaks from it in the importance of the light. This increased presence Of light in Munch's work shows the beginnings of French influence and his continuing tendency to experiment with styles and techniques. In May of 1885, Munch traveled to Antwerp to attend the World Exhibition in which he exhibited a portrait of his Sister, Inger. While in Antwerp, he had the opportunity to see some of the major works of Puvis de Chavannes and Bastien Lepage, among other things. From the World Exhibition, Munch traveled to Paris to visit the Louvre and the Salon. Although he spent three weeks in all, he had a good opportunity to see major Impressionist paintings at the art dealer's, Durand-Ruel, and Monet and Renoir at Georges Petit's. It is not absolutely certain exactly which exhibits he frequented, aside from the Louvre and the Salon. With the 1885 Autumn Exhibition, the media launched a full attack on Munch and his painting skills. Not only the newspaper, but the Christiania critics too, denounced Munch's entry as contemptible, "a caricature of art,"7 and too arrogant. Eventually, the unfavorable criticism resulted in problems at home, ranging from one of Munch's best canvases being destroyed by his father, to comments from other relatives and lack of funds to purchase new supplies. The storm of protest continued, fed by the entry of The Sick Child, Study (Figure 4) in the 1886 Autumn Exhibition. Originally, this work showed clear Signs of technical experimentation not visible today, after being painted over in the 1890's. These included 57 scoring the heavy impasto layers of paint, letting thin paint drip down the canvas and repainting it many times originally. This painting experiment contained many elements which Munch would carry through later stages and it also included problems that would engage other artists and produce artistic trends later in the twentieth century. Munch himself said, "The first break with Impressionism was The Sick Child--I was looking for expression (Expressionism)."8 A landscape painting from 1887 shows a further leaning towards Expressionism. As discussed in Chapter 1, Flowering Meadow (Plate 7) shows the artist's impression of the glare and haze of the sun shining down on a field Of flowers. Munch has tried to express his feelings while standing in the sun, painting in such a way that the viewer receives the same feeling from the canvas that the artist did from nature. In a visit to Copenhagen in 1888, Munch had the opportunity to view other examples of Norwegian and Scandinavian Naturalism at the great Nordic Exhibition and compare his work to that as well as to French art at the French Exhibition, which ran at the same time. Along with viewing works by Monet, Manet, Sisley and Puvis de Chavannes, Munch could see examples of Delacroix, who was represented as the great forerunner of modern French art. During this visit to Copenhagen he became familiar with the Danish painter and art connoisseur, Johan Rohde, whose interest in avant- garde artists such as Van Gogh and Gauguin is well documented.9 At this time, Munch's figurative compositions were painted in a typically naturalistic manner. As seen in Flowering Meadow, however, the pure landscape canvases are still experimental in 58 style and technique, and continue to appear radical in terms of the prevailing accepted form--Naturalism. His contemporaries con- tinued to perceive only the radical elements Of his work, and after this time Munch became a solitary, experimental pictorial artist in a narrow-minded capital where formerly he had belonged to a group of young anti-establishment artists. Because of this isolation as well as the need to clarify himself, Munch opened a one-man show in the spring of 1889. In the Student Union in Christiania he exhibited sixty-three paintings and a large number of drawings, including Spring. With this exhibi- tion, his first, a small amount of understanding and enthusiasm for his art was generated. The Dagbladet critic described him as a "mature artist,“ while Christian Krohg wrote an article for Verdens Gang that stated in part: He paints, or rather regards, things in a way that is different from that of other artists. He sees only the essential, and that, naturally, is all he paints. For this reason, Munch's pictures are as a rule 'not complete,‘ as people are so delighted to discover for themselves. Oh, yes, they are complete. Art is complete once the artist has really said everything that was on his mind, and this is precisely the advantage Munch has over painters of the other generation, that he really knows how to show us what he has felt, and what has gripped him, and to this he subordinates everything else.1 This excellent description of what Munch is trying to achieve, although written about figurative works, is also relevant to his landscape paintings. In all twenty works chosen for discussion herein, Munch sought to present to the viewer what he sensed before the view and to record an impression of nature that will evoke the same feeling in the viewer. This is very similar to the idea 59 that Caspar David Friedrich expressed in the statement: Close your bodily eye, so that you may see your picture first with the spiritual eye. Then bring to light of day that which you have seen in the darkness so that it may react upon others, from the outside inward.n Munch was trying to produce images that worked on the viewer in much the same way--from the visual, outward to the mind, inward. This contributes to the universal quality Of his work and explains, in part, the changes in style and technique. Succinctly stated by Munch in an illustrated diary from 1890, "It's not the chair that should be painted, but what a person has felt at the sight of 1t."'2 After the success of the one-man exhibition, Munch applied for and received one of the first state art scholarships, enabling him to travel to Paris to study under Léon Bonnat, an influential but conservative portrait painter. Arriving in Paris in October 1889, Munch spent much time finding his way in Parisian art circles and viewing modern EurOpean art of all types from the World Exhibition at the Champs de Mars to the Volpini Exhibition of Impressionists and Synthetists and at the Salon des Indépendants. Working in Bonnat's school, however, was not what Munch expected, and he tired of it rather quickly. To escape an outbreak of cholera and work in peace, Munch moved to St. Cloud on the Seine, outside Paris. In Norway in November of 1889, Munch's father unexpectedly died. The mood Of Munch's paintings at this time, while still in France, became immersed in melancholy and concentrate on depicting psycho- logically oriented figure-studies rather than landscapes. Night in St. Cloud (Figure 20), the chief work from the winter 60 of 1889-1890, shows a shadowy, hunched figure by a window through which light enters the otherwise dark room. This work plays a major role in the analysis by Heller of Munch's emotionally charged paintings.13 However, the emotional expressiveness of the work is not under discussion here. Basically, this work is a light study and relates, therefore, to The Seine at St. Cloud (Plate 16) from the spring of 1890. Most of the other paintings composed in St. Cloud are also light studies based on the view from Munch's room overlooking the Seine. In the recording of light variations, direct observation of nature again plays a dominant role, although now a somewhat impressionistic style has been adopted to help define the artist's reaction to the view. The Seine at St. Cloud shows the knowledge of George Seurat's pointillist technique, which was a prominent part of the Salon des Indépendants from March 1890. This work shows also the influence of French art in Munch's resumption of Impressionism. In May, 1890, Munch returned to Norway, spending the summer in Aasgaardstrand and Christiania. He exhibited in the Christiania Autumn Exhibition, and in November left for the continent on his second state scholarship. Although he initially planned to go to Paris, Munch went straight to Nice, where the climate was more favorable to his rheumatic fever. Munch continued to experiment with impressionistic and pointillist effects, and the scenery in Nice appeared to be very inSpirational. The summer of 1891 was again spent in Norway, and in September Munch was awarded his third state scholarship. The National Gallery in Christiania acknowledged Munch as a painter by purchasing Night in Nice, which had been 61 exhibited at the Autumn Exhibition. On his way to Nice, Munch visited Copenhagen, Hamburg, Frankfurt, Basel and Geneva. During the autumn of 1891 and Spring of 1892 in France, Munch composed most of the main features of The Frieze of Life motifs in addition to continual experimenting with different styles and techniques that take form in landscape paintings. From the Shore in Nice (Plate 17) is from this period and again can be classified as a light study. This appears to be a continuation of his work from the previous year in Nice, even though he has begun in earnest the Symbolist paintings for which he becomes known by the general public. It can be said that Munch pursued two paths within his work as a painter, the path based on his experiences with life and death, which results in The Frieze of Life, which are basically paintings of a Symbolist nature, and the path which is rooted in a Naturalistic and Northern Romantic tradition that produces the large quantity and variety of pure landscape paintings. Occasionally these two paths merge or cross one another. This makes it difficult to separate them at times. For the first time since 1884, Munch was not represented in the Autumn Exhibition of 1892. Instead, he organized his own one-man Show which ran more or less concurrently with the Autumn Exhibition. The result of Munch's Show was to have his art discussed in relation to another Scandinavian avant-garde artist, J. F. 14 Willumsen, who exhibited in Christiania that autumn also. Munch was considered by the critics to have revealed a sensitive observa- 15 tion of nature which made him "almost a classic." Landscapes like The Mysticism of a Night (Figure 21) and Moonlight on the 62 Shgre (Figure 22) caught the attention of the neo-Romantic authors who felt that these paintings were as much a direct expression as a poem. One of the authors maintained that these works of art in themselves were just as much a part of nature "as a flower or a leaf."16 With this private exhibition, Munch severed all ties with the Norwegian art establishment; never again did he exhibit at the Autumn Exhibition or any other exhibitions adjudicated by a committee connected to the art establishment. Nor was Munch represented at the World Exhibitions of 1893 and 1900 or the Norwegian Centenary Exhibition in 1914. An important event occurred as a result of Munch's "Secession Exhibition." He was invited by the Berlin Artists' Association to exhibit in their building, the Architektenhaus. Although the exhibition committee agreed unanimously to give Munch his first important debut on the international scene and all the customary ceremony was present, the exhibition created an unprecedented furor. Munch's exhibition was the popular tOpic of conversation-~the public considered it an insult to art-~and the bad sentiment resulted in the closing Of the show one week after it opened. The scandal created quite an income for Munch and the art dealer, Edvard Schulte, from the ticket sales for admission to see the exhibition in Cologne and Dusseldorf. Later it was shown in Copenhagen, Breslau, Dresden and Munich strictly as a money-earning Show. The Mysticism of 17 a Night was one landscape shown. The following four winters were Spent in Berlin, where Munch was the only avant-garde pictorial artist in the capital and remained detached from the other artists. However, he became totally immersed 63 in the literary and intellectual activity centered in Berlin. Starry Night (Plate 1), done in Christiania in 1893, shows a hint of influence from the German Symbolist painters, although as a whole Munch felt "a sense Of disgust and loathing"18 for German art. He traveled quite a bit and lived fairly well from the sale of admission tickets to his exhibitions on art dealers' premises. This outlet was Munch's most important and possibly was one of the reasons why he had little influence on the work of German and Scandinavian art of the 1890's. A great deal of Munch's time from 1893 until 1896 was spent on graphic works. He did his first etchings and lithographs in 1894, had a folio with eight etchings published by Meier—Graefe in 1895 and printed color lithographs and his first woodcuts in 1896. Another family member died in that time, Munch's brother Andreas in 1895. These graphic works were repeated motifs from paintings in addition to new subjects from the Berlin Bohemia. Important figurative paintings, such as Death in the Sickroom, (Figure 24) from 1893, were also conceived and completed. Many of these canvases became part of the Frieze of Life scenes. The most well-known works which have become symbols for the angst-filled reality of modern man and taken as representative of Munch's oeuvre include The Scream (Figure 24), Madonna (Figure 25), The Voice (Figure 1) and Sphinx (Figure 26). Compositionally, these figurative works relate directly to the landscape paintings done from 1893 (The Starry Night) until Summer Night (Plate 4) from 1902. They all depend on a fluid linearity inspired by art-nouveau and con- trasting with horizontal, vertical and diagonal elements. 64 In July of 1897, Munch returned to Aasgaardstrand, where he bought a house in which to spend the summers. From 1896 to 1898, he lived the winter months in Paris, following in the footsteps of Julius Meier-Graefe and August Strindberg, who had been part of the Berlin Bohemia. Many of the artistic impressions felt in Paris at this time surface in Munch's paintings around the turn— of—the—century. While in Paris, he exhibited frequently at the Salon des Indépendants. In 1897 his works were taken seriously and were included in a few favorable reviews. Munch also executed his first decorative assignment during this period, a wall panel depicting a mermaid along the Christiania shoreline rising from the fjord with the familiar reflection of the moon seen in Summer Night (Plate 4) and Moonlight on the Beach (Plate 5).19 The continued success Munch received from Paris art exhibitions, critical reviews and commissioned work was reported in Christiania. In September of 1897, Munch set up a comprehensive show, 180 works, including sketches and studies, graphic works and paintings, in Christiania. The reception was markedly different from before, as the general public, now more familiar with modern trends in art, realized that Munch was becoming important on the continent and deserved another more tolerant look. Rosenkrantz Johnsen's comments in Dagbladet summed up the public's new approach: A fair amount of these pictures have been exhibited before. In my opinion, these improve on acquaintance. One has gradually got used to what was at one time so impossible. There is this about Munch's art, that if one is staggered the first time one sees it, and can find no place for it among one's accustomed ideas, gradually new room will open up of itself in one's conceptions.2 65 A major impact on Munch's life, starting in 1898, was his relationship with Tulla Larsen. From this point until about 1902, she was the cause of much Of the turmoil and artistic uncreativity of Munch's life. In dividing his time between trying to keep away from Tulla and being worried about her, Munch had neither the time nor the strength to Spend creating art as he wanted to. Some very good work came from this period, however it wasn't nearly the amount he had been producing previously or would produce once the affair was settled. In the summer of 1899, Munch and Tulla went on an extended tour which included Paris, Nice, Florence and Rome. While in northern Italy and Rome, Munch studied Renaissance monumental art. He was greatly inspired by the work of Raphael to create decorative art in the form of large murals. Results of that inspiration can be seen in Golgotha (Figure 11) and The Dance of Life (Figure 12). These works show Munch's concentration on decorative application of color, line and plane in a monumental format. Many of the winter landscapes from the turn-of—the-century reveal the continued interest in decorative paintings. Train Smoke (Plate 18), from 1900, is a good example of the lyrical and sensitive mode of expression Munch develops. Winter Night (Plate 2) and White Night (Plate 3) Show the lack Of experimen- tation seen earlier in the landscape paintings and hint at a sense of definite commitment, on the part of the artist, with regard to the depiction of nature and the world around him. At this point, Munch moves more and more towards the universal, perhaps in an effort to forget about his all too personal and consuming 66 relationship with Tulla. These paintings were completed while Munch was separated from Tulla in Gudbrandsdalen. Even though his personal life was a source of consternation, he continued to paint some fine canvases. Many of these paintings were included in Munch's exhibition at the 1902 Berlin secession in which the Frieze of Life was exhibited as a frieze for the first time. All four walls of the large entrance hall were hung with paintings that could conveniently be grouped together. There were four major divisions under the composite title Frieze, Presentation of a Series Of Pictures from Life; they were The Budding of Love, The Flowering and Dissolution of Love, Fear of Life and Death. This was also the first time the love and death themes had been shown together. From this point on, Munch continued to include the Frieze of Life in his exhibitions until 1905, space permitting. At this exhibition, critics emphasized Munch's mastery of color and primitive form-language. Although The Frieze of Life consists of figurative studies, Munch's landscapes also exhibit his primitive form-language and mastery of color. Summer Night (Plate 4) is another example of the type of painting where Munch is concerned with color and form in a decorative attitude, as is Train Smoke and other works from around 1900. His landscape art was very popular and well-received in Norway. The National Gallery in Christiania purchased two winter ones in 1901. However, Munch's figurative paintings, while enjoying success on the continent, continued to prompt questions of his viability as an artist and the subsequent soundness of his mind, or were simply ignored. During the summer of 1902, while in Aasgaardstrand, Munch 67 shot himself in the hand during a confrontation with Tulla Larsen. She left for Paris and married another artist the following year. Munch felt humiliated by this incident and depicted his bitterness in literary notes and lithographs. March of 1903 found Munch exhibiting in Paris at the Salon des Indépendants for the first time since 1897. Many of the works shown highlighted Munch's strong use of color. .ngd (Plate 8), from this period, is an excellent example of this coloristic mode. The strong color of this canvas and later ones like Moonlight on the Beach (Plate 5) and From Thfiringerwald (Plate 9) predate the work of the Fauvists. Portrait paintings became a prominent part of Munch's art at this time. Paul Cassirer's organized a show with Munch sharing space with Goya's portraits in accordance with their policy of showing two kindred Spirits together to help each explain the other. This provided Munch with some important commissions, often prompted by his first important patron, Dr. Max Linde, for whom he did many paintings and other projects. Munch's success on one hand seemed always to be clouded by defeat on the other. At a comprehensive exhibition in the Manes Art Association in Prague in 1905, Munch displayed seventy-five paintings and fifty prints, which received an extremely cordial reception. The exhibition had been prompted by his success at the Vienna Secession Exhibition of the previous year. Throughout this success, Munch's drinking problem was becoming increasingly troublesome and added to his general deteriorating mental condition and nervousness. The success Of the sale Of Munch's prints was 68 balanced by the loss of the Linde nursery frieze commission and the complications of various contracts governing the sale of subse- quent prints.21 Again, Munch's drinking resulted in a violent quarrel with the only painter who could be regarded as his pupil, Ludwig Karsten, and their friendship ended. Cassirer's again held a showing of Munch's most recent work in 1907. This exhibition consisted of new portraits and landscapes, executed in varying techniques with powerful coloristic eXpressions from the last few years. Included in this showing could have been Winter Landscape, Elgersburg (Plate 12) from 1906 and Moonlight on the Beach from two years earlier. Both works show a drastic change in technique but still employ strong color contrasts. Still Life (The Murderess) (Figure 27) was probably the central motif. Here is seen the continued preoccupation with the shooting incident at Aasgaardstrand as the woman clearly has Tulla Larsen's features and the man has been shot in the chest. This same composition in the following year and in subsequent renderings is given either The Death of Marat or The Murderess as its title. Doctor Jacobson's nerve clinic became Munch's home for eight months, beginning in the autumn of 1908. This only happened after increased use of alcohol resulted in quarrels and brawls, hallucina- tions and persecution mania and finally ending with paralysis of one leg. He continued to paint and sought refuge from his emotional turmoil, all the while organizing exhibitions for Christiania, Denmark, Sweden and Germany. While in the clinic, Munch repeatedly expressed the wish to return to Norway, saying, "I must return 22 since nature certainly is important for my art." Eventually 69 . Munch returned to the Norwegian coast where he lived secluded from other humans, immersing himself in his art and nature. While in the clinic, Munch was made a Knight of the Royal Order of St. Olav "for services to art."23 Shortly after, he enjoyed tremendous success at his first exhibitions in Christiania since 1904. As mentioned in Chapter One, he became a pOpular painter of the general public. After settling in Kragerd, where Munch built a large open-air studio, he started working on decorations for the Christiania University's new Festival Hall. This was his Opportunity to execute monumental decorative paintings of the kind that he had wanted to paint since his trip to Italy and Rome in 1899. From now on Munch took all his motifs from the surrounding countryside or his own prOperty in Kragerfl. Previously he had called his art "children," and now he calls his landscapes his 24 "children with nature." Spring Work in the Skerries (Figure 31) is indicative of the landscapes with peOple which Show the simple, natural relationship between man and nature and hints at the growing strength Munch has in his natural environment. By 1910 Munch has purchased an estate on the Christiania fjord, where his paintings become lighter in expression and freer in palette. Winter landscape paintings continue to occupy a large proportion of Munch's effort. The Yellow ng (Plate 10) and Winter in Kragerfl (Plate 13) are from this period. Several of the University mural motifs were found in Kragerz; The .532 and The History (Detail) (Figure 15) in particular. The idea Of life and eternity lies as the basis for Munch's depiction of natural phenomena, and he continues to strive for a monumentality 70 as he paints many studies of each section of the decorative program. Not having enough room with two properties, at Kragera and Hvitsten, Munch rented Grimerd Manor on the Jeldy peninsula, where he transformed many of the rooms into studios, storerooms and printing rooms. Despite the fact that Munch had been accepted on the Continent for many years, was awarded the Order of St. Olav and received many tributes on his fiftieth birthday, it was not until 1914 that he was finally commissioned to carry out the decor of the University Festival Hall. It took five years from the time he started working on the mural program and many differences of Opinion to overcome before these last traces of resistance to his art fell, and he was awarded the commission. It took him two years to complete the decorations once the actual job of painting them in the Festival Hall was started. The purchase of yet another prOperty marked 1916 and provided Munch with a place where he was to Spend most of his time until his death. Ekely was on the outskirts of Christiania and contained all the elements of nature he had grown to need, orchards, large fields, shrubs and trees. A great many landscapes of the surrounding area were painted during the remaining years of Munch's life. Dying Tree-Trunks (Figure 29) of around 1923 Shows the underlying motif of death prevalent in these canvases. In this work there is a mood of loneliness and despair, while in Winter Landscape (Plate 14), from about 1918, the impression is of saturation and decay. Although Munch felt he had found a place of peace and rest at Ekely, his paintings were not only preOCCUpied with an underlying death theme but very agitated in execution. Winter Landscape shows 71 broad patches of paint haphazardly applied in thick, heavy strokes without the regard for distributing color that was so important and conscious in his earlier works. Agitation is also shown in the sketches with their quick, black strokes; almost as if he is hurrying to finish something he knows he doesn't have time for. In 1918 Munch published a pamphlet in connection with an exhibition Of the Frieze of Life. Munch was trying at this point to capture a commission which would allow him to do his Frieze as a decoration for a building or to have a suitable building built to house the Frieze. Toward this end, he constructed several large Open-air studios at Ekely, but no commission ever came through and this dream was never realized. One decorative mural cycle came out of this and that was for the Freia Chocolate Factory workers' break room in 1922. Throughout the latter part of his life, Munch continued to travel, to Berlin, Paris, Zurich, Wiesbaden and Frankfurt, always returning to his property in Ekely or Kragero. These trips were to visit various exhibitions of other artists or to accompany his own works to exhibitions in other countries. Munch was always interested in what his contemporaries were producing although he was not directly influenced by any one artist's work or one particular style. For example, at his suggestion, an exhibition of modern German art was organized in Oslo in 1933. This provided Munch with the Opportunity of viewing paintings executed with blazing colors of an intensity that was almost vulgar. This fascinated him, and in new versions Of old motifs the colors sparkle and the light is greatly intensified. Red House and Fir Spruces (Plate 15) 72 shows that the brilliant aquarelle-like tones originated in his work from the 1920's even though in The Ladies on the Bridge (Figure 30), he reflects the impression of contemporary art while retaining his own earlier characteristics. With rapidly deteriorating health, Munch again turned to his own illnesses as material for his art. The loss of sight in his right eye, due to a burst blood vessel, in 1930 provided him with considerable subject matter that he treats very scientifically, recording time, place and distance from the window in connection with a series of drawings that always includes the injured member in the center. Munch used his own experiences and the things he saw around him as the basis for his art, an art that he strived to depict in a language that was universal, to be understood by the ordinary viewer and to evoke similar feelings to those he felt when he recalled the incident or scene that prompted the image. Edvard Munch died peacefully at his home in Ekely on the 23rd of January, 1944. In his will he bequeathed all of his remaining work to the city of Oslo, which was changed from Christiania in 1925. This included paintings, watercolors, prints, drawings, manuscripts and sculptures. The Edvard Munch Museum was opened in May of 1963 to house this wealth of material. As can be seen from this historical account, the production of landscape paintings spans Munch's entire life as an artist. Although he comes into contact with many different styles and tech— niques of painting, Munch never really adhered or changed his mode of expression entirely to fit into what was current. While he was initially trained in the Naturalistic style, which was then 73 the accepted international style, he assimilated various other styles to help him depict the desired response to his landscapes, including but not exclusively Symbolism, Impressionism, and Fauvism. By this, Munch stands alone in his time and is difficult to classify. Most sources use the term “Expressionism" as a collective term for modern art, where the marked emphasis on the artist's personal need for expression is a common trait.25 By this definition, Munch's work, as well as that of Cubism, Futurism, and der Blaue Reiter, fall into this category. It is generally taken for granted that the three styles above are separate from each other simply by the result of the artistic expression. Munch tends to fall into a category of his own, as he is not easily or satisfactorily pigeon- holed. This is in part due to his use of many different styles and techniques. Chapter 3 will deal with Munch's place in the history of landscape painting, especially northern landscape painting, and from that discussion a more appropriate and descriptive title will be given to his landscape work. CHAPTER 3 Continuation of Northern Tradition The Northern tradition as defined in this discussion starts with the Northern Renaissance. Many of the forms and elements used in the landscapes Of such artists as Jan van Eyck and Robert Campin are also found in Edvard Munch's landscape paintings. A sense of monumentality begins in the landscapes depicted in many fourteenth- and fifteenth-century manuscript illuminations, which are part of the late Gothic tradition. Two good examples of this are found in Melchoir Broederlam's Presentation in the Temple ad Flight into Egypt panel from 1394-99 (Figure 31) and the Limbourg Brothers' illuminated manuscript Les Tres Riches Heures of the Duke of Berry, in particular the page for February (Figure 32). Both these paintings show massive forms of nature which simply depict a "type" rather than a specific place. In Broederlam's panel, a rugged, mountainous region leading to a barren one signifying Egypt is seen and a cold, snowy landscape in the French countryside is depicted in the illumination. Although, unlike Munch's landscapes, these are essentially figurative works, the setting plays a very important role and occupied as much of the artist's time as the figures. Munch's painting from 1900-01, Winter Night (Plate 2), depicts a setting of the winter fjord that is itself not exactly 74 75 Specific and can also Speak to the viewer in the same way it does to the artist, showing the basic elements Of nature gripped in the throes of winter. Winter Night gives the same feeling of cold without figures as the Limbourg Brothers did with figures in the illuminated manuscript page from Les Trés Riches Heures of the Duke of Berry. As in the illumination, the actual place of the painting is not important to Munch. Even when his landscape paintings use a place name, as in Winter Landscape, Elgersburg (Plate 12), it is not Showing a Specific place that the viewer would recognize from viewing the painting. Glimpses of landscapes and cities are seen deep in the back- ground of many mid-fifteenth century paintings by Robert Campin and Jan van Eyck. Often these are so exact that writers and histo- rians try to identify them as specific places. The famous panel in the Louvre by Van Eyck, Madonna with Chancellor Nicholas Rolin (Figure 33), is one example in which, according to Charles D. Cutler, is so wonderfully painted, with such seeming exactitude of detail, that various writers have attempted to identify the town as Bruges, Liege, Lyons, Utrecht, Prague, or even Brussels and 1 the river as the Meuse, the Rhine, and so on. In actuality, the scene is just a city on two sides of a river with a couple Of boats in the river and a very distinctive type of bridge connecting the two sides of the town. The elements used in the landscape may have come from specific towns or places but have been combined to form a conglomerate city. In much the same way, Munch uses elements familiar to him in many different groups. For instance, the finger of land pointing towards the moon's reflec- tion in Starry Night (Plate 1) is used again in The Scream 76 (Figure 24) and from a different angle 1“.§Eflifl§ (Figure 26). These specific elements used in a different composition or combined with other elements occur frequently in both Munch's landscapes and figurative works. Most notable of these elements are the column- like reflections Of the moon and sun, the ridge of fir trees and the Christiania fjord. In the sixteenth century, the landscape art of Albrecht Altdorfer continues with the Northern Renaissance components des- cribed in relation to the work of the Limbourg Brothers, Jan Van Eyck and the paintings Of Munch as discussed. Danube Landscape near Regensburg (Figure 34) is a landscape painted for itself, without a single figure. This depiction is very poetic and dreamlike but simultaneously shows the grandeur of nature with the tall trees on the left and right edges which frame the scene and the massive expanse of Sky. There is here a sense of the ideal beauty of nature, the movement and concern with light and of growth. A continuation, or rebirth, of this depiction of the soul of nature would be seen again in the nineteenth century works of the German Romantic painters. Monumental landscapes without figures were also important to Munch, who felt that nature was a common ground between himself and the viewer. He was affected by its grandeur and forms in any condition and felt that he could depict such elements to affect others in the same way as when they were viewed directly. The importance Of the essential elements of nature is an idea Munch also found in the landscapes of Italian Renaissance painters. In Adoration of the Magi, the predella panel from the Pisa Altarpiece (Figure 35) by Masaccio, the figures stand before 77 a screen of rounded hills depicted with a minimum Of detail, which gives the viewer the essence of the form "hill." Similarly, Tribute Mggey (Figure 36) from the Brancacci Chapel in Florence contains a background of mountains with sparsely placed trees that gives just the barest visual image of the landscape. With a generalization Of forms, Masaccio says "mountain" and "trees" in much the same way Munch says "plowed fields in snow" with Winter Landscape, Elgersburg (Plate 12) or "fir Spruces" and "snow" in Red House and Fir Spruces (Plate 15). Thus, Munch's landscapes are a continuation and an echoing of Northern painting from the fourteenth to sixteenth century and the monumental wall paintings of the Florentine Renaissance painters from the early fifteenth century. Northern Romantic Tradition As a connection between the landscapes of the sixteenth century Northern painters and the eighteenth century Romantic tradition of Northern painters like Johan Christian Dahl is the work of the seventeenth century Dutch masters Hobbema and Van Ruisdael. Dahl developed his depictions of nature through the study of these masters and through his own direct study of nature. His worship of nature was fashionable in the north, and he painted first and foremost untouched Norwegian landscapes. Some of these were fantasy land- scapes "in a Norwegian character,"2 while others were loosely based on the direct study of nature. Dahl and Munch have three points of contact. An important point is Dahl's friendship with Casper David Friedrich, whom he met in Dresden in 1819 and subsequently 78 lived with for the rest of his life from 1823 until 1857. The second point of contact is their source of subject matter, Norway. Dahl went on five study tours which took him through a great part of Southern Norway. After 1826 most of Dahl's landscapes were based on this region although he depicted Danish, German and Italian influenced nature paintings. Most importantly, in connection with both Friedrich and Munch, is his feeling that nature should not be COpied directly, that the painter had to create nature out of nature. In relation to Friedrich, Dahl wrote: "It is not nature 3 Of this same itself he paints--or can paint--but our feelings." idea, Munch says, It is not enough for a work of art to have ordered planes and lines. If a stone is tossed at a group Of children, they hasten to scatter. A regrouping, an action, has been accomplished. This is composition. This regrouping, presented by means of color, lines and planes, is an artistic and painterly motif.4 Although Dahl's influence as a teacher for Norwegians was limited, his connections to Friedrich were important to many Scandinavians and the Northern Romantic tradition as a whole. Such landscape traditions continued in Scandinavian art well past the year 1848, and in the dramatic canvases of Markus Larsson they continue well into the third quarter of the nineteenth century.5 Affinities between Munch and Romantic paintings abound through— out the landscapes and to some extent in his figurative canvases. The most common element is the grandeur of nature. This is evident in pure landscapes and paintings in which a dialogue between man and nature takes place. This dialogue can take two forms: the insignificance of man compared to nature and man submerged in nature. 79 Of the landscape paintings, the monumentality of nature and man being immersed in nature to the extent that he is nearly non-existent, prevail. The dominance of the native tradition of Romantic land- scapes was deeply engrained. This can be seen by the similarities mentioned above and, even though these attitudes of Romanticism were challenged in the 18705 and 18805 by a Realist revolution, artists like Munch who were trained in a naturalist style might as easily be thought of as extending the moods, goals and forms of Romantic art rather than resurrecting it. Munch's work from the 18805 on reveals growing affinities with the great archetypal Romantic images of Friedrich and Runge.6 However, he continually changed the surface appearance of his canvases by absorbing the newest artistic vocabularies during his frequent Parisian trips which began in 1885. As shown in Chapter 1, he used these new devices to serve his own emotional and visual needs. The Voice (Figure l) by Munch is very similar in the psychology to Friedrich's Woman in Morning Light (Figure 37). Psychology is not the topic of this discussion, but the depiction of a figure in tension with nature is very similar. Friedrich's figure seems to be losing herself in nature, while Munch's girl is immersed in nature in a different way. Both the girl and the column of light emit a suggestion of sexuality that is both welcomed and feared. Munch has heightened the effect of the painting by having the girl and the vertical elements, trees and reflection, reinforce the tense, internal dialogue between figure and nature. This motif is resurrected from Romantic imagery, and similar use of Romantic imagery can be seen throughout his oeuvre, eSpecially in the 1890s7 80 and, in my opinion, The Frieze of Life canvases. Similar use of Romantic motifs are seen in Munch's pure land- scape paintings. Wood (Plate 8) has the same monumentality as Friedrich's painting Ruins of Abbey at Eldena (Figure 38) in which is seen the remains of a fourteenth century abbey forming a solid screen through which no glimpse of the background can be seen. The central portion of what remains of the apse and nave rises massively in the middle of the canvas just as the three pine trunks in Munch's W929, The mood of both Munch's and Friedrich's works appeals to the senses in much the same way the interior of a Gothic cathedral did earlier. With the frequency of Friedrich's imagery and structure in Munch's work, it is necessary to ask if he was familiar with Friedrich's work. The possibility of having seen examples of Friedrich's work is present as Andreas Aubert, the Norwegian art historian, owned several works which were kept in Christiania. If Munch did not see these, he did know Dahl who had been honored in 1888 with a retrospective exhibition to celebrate the one-hundredth anniversary of his birth. As mentioned above, Dahl and Friedrich were close emotionally and artistically, and their art had many similarities.8 Fritz Thaulow, whom Munch visited in 1883, strongly defended the Open-air schools of the French. The direct study used by plein- air painters reinforced the importance of nature in works of art. It is from this influence of Thaulow's studio that Munch works in the out-of-doors while embracing aspects of Romanticism and uniting the two ideas into an externalized emotional state of mind. The way in which Munch used color and line to express and symbolize 81 events is analyzed in Chapter 1. Munch's landscapes and seascapes perpetuated the romantic sense of a landscape as a metaphor of an experience that can border on the religious. The grandeur and monumentality of nature serves as a symbol of the grandeur of God or some higher being. This deep religious feeling is most clearly felt in the paintings Of Friedrich. Munch started out painting landscapes in the Naturalist style that had little Of this religious aspects but remained monu- mental. The early work, Landscape with Birches (Plate 6), is an example of this simple, uncomplicated rendering of nature similar to the Dutch landscapes. In the Northern tradition of study abroad but returning to the homeland and its powerful natural elements, Munch's works became very romantic in their portrayal of the changing faces of nature and the supernatural quality of its unspoiled expanses. The bleak coastal regions where Munch settled provided him with the same kind Of Northern EurOpean landscape that Friedrich had used earlier. Mountain with Rising Fog (Figure 39) of about 1815 by Friedrich and Munch's W229 (Plate 8) from 1903 have the same untouched quality. This sense of purity is a Romantic idea used by many mid-nineteenth-century painters. In this purity, the night sky often looms large, glowing with the silvery light Of the moon or filled with twinkling stars. A landscape like Whigs _Nigfl§ (Plate 3), though still part of the world of empirical obser- vation, attests to the power of that Romantic tradition which turned to unspoiled nature as a metaphor of the supernatural.9 These landscapes by Munch, Friedrich and others are the shrines where nature's ultimate mysteries are contemplated. Such a strong 82 sensibility to nature by Munch was surely underlined by his Scandinavian origins and long residence in native Norway. The extremes of nature are far more awe-inspiring in the northernmost regions of Europe than in Southern Europe. The extinction of light in the long, cold winter, followed by the dramatic resurrection of the sun which reigns deep into the night during the summer, provides the Northern artist with a powerful language of form from which to draw. The intensity of nature's strength is more than doubled with the coming of white night when both the sun and moon light the sky. Summer Night (Plate 4) and Moonlight 0" the 393C“ (Plate 5) show the intensity of nature's power and energy during the northern summer. Vincent van Gogh showed the same intensity and energy of the sun in The Sower (Figure 40) of 1888. Although this work was done in Arles, France, the same feeling of supernatural power is evident. The sun's location, exactly in the center and just over the horizon, gives it a symbolic representation of an omnipotent deity, and its color and form suggest a halo. In the same way, the light of the sun symbolized for Munch the overwhelming energies in nature. Summer Night (Plate 4) shows the sun painted to represent a symbol that dominates human destiny similar to the depiction in The Voice (Figure 1). In The Sun (Plate 20) from the University murals, Munch placed the sun in a setting that con- verted it to a deity and gave it a similar role as that of a rose window in a Gothic cathedral. This powerful restatement of that image of the creation of light had Obsessed many Northern Romantic artists. Friedrich had envisioned this image in a drawing con- structed with exactly the same stark symmetry as Munch's mural.10 83 The sun's image, more than any other, realizes Munch's early manifesto-like journal entry of 1889, where he stated that he wished to paint art that was so sacred it would make men "take off their hats as though they were in church."11 The concept of the sun as a primal life force was shared by many thinkers and musicians of the late nineteenth century. It is also related to the thought, and ambitions of Nietzsche's ideas of primordial light and primordial life propagated in Thus Spake Zarathustra. In addition, Munch's reactivation of the Northern Romantic artist's search for the divinity and monumentality of nature was shared by minor and major contemporaries from Scandinavia and the continent. Van Gogh, Jens Ferdinand Willumsen and Ferdinand Hodler were some of those artists dealing with the monumentality and divinity of nature. Reaction against Naturalism While Munch was indeed the heir to a pictorial tradition that continued the Romantic ideals into the mid- and late nineteenth century, he quickly rejected the tenets of Naturalism in favor Of a personal, emotional style that was self-expressive. As shown in the examples above, he continued to adhere to the Romantic idea Of the monumentality of nature. These ideas are seen also in Munch's first reaction against Naturalism that came during the summer he worked under the guidance of Christian Krohg. An example of this rebellion is seen in the hazy, Expressionistic canvas Flowering Meadow (Plate 7) from 1887. Works like this were considered 84 "unfinished" because they did not have the Slick surface of Natural— ism. This argument about the finished quality of Munch's work continued throughout his life. In regards to the 1886 Autumn Exhi- bition, Aubert Aurier admitted that Munch had talent but said of his painting The Sick Child (Figure 41), "in its present form, this 'StUdY'(!) is merely a discarded half-rubbed-out-sketch."12 All of Munch's "dabbling" in various techniques were in themselves a reaction against Naturalism. Some Of the experiments he tried involved accepted styles, like Impressionism, but when Munch assimi- 1ated them into his own style, the general public rejected the results. This does not mean that these works do not fit into the history of landscape painting. The single, most Offensive aspect of Munch's paintings, in the eye of the art-viewing public, was the unfinished quality. Unlike Romantic and Naturalist works which had a smooth, "finished" surface, Munch's canvases looked like studies or experiments, with their drips and palette knife scratches. For this, he was criticized even though he captured the essence of the image and solicited the exact response. Even in early figurative works like The Sick .Eflilg (Figure 41), there is this searching for the expressive quality Of the paint. It was this that was rejected by the critics and consequently by the public. Symbols in Munch's work have already been touched upon in relation to the divinity of nature and Romanticism. The Symbolist movement, however, added its flavor to many of Munch's work in the form of symbols. These symbols used by Munch are very different from those used by the Symbolist artists. For example, the Symbolism 85 in Jan Toorop's The Three Brides (Figure 42) from 1893 is more specific than that in Sphigx (Figure 26) by Munch. Both works are depictions of the nature of woman, and while ToorOp'S is the mystical equivalent of Munch's sensuous and personal one, they are each expressive and symbolic in content. Munch's portrayal is much more subtle and uses colors and composition to depict the same ideas. As Heller describes it in relation to The Sick Child, By his de-emphasis of detail throughout the painting, Munch replaced the specific with the universal . . . to permit the mood to emanate from form and cologr, from general gestures and posture . . . 3 Feelings and the ways to depict them become the "symbols" that Munch uses throughout his paintings. A sense Of generalization is found in Munch's work which elevates Specific forms to the monu- mental and universal level. This occurs in landscapes as well as in the figurative works. Winter Night (Plate 2), Wood (Plate 8) and The Sun (Plate 20) all speak to the viewer as universal elements described succinctly by their titles. In this way, they are symbolic Of natural forces. An interview with Munch in Vecerni list notes that, although he is not fond of the word symbol To ensure that the event should have the same effect on the onlooker as it had on himself, he had to choose and seek means, in fact, he frequently had to exaggerate. A great deal Of what he saw, if he wished to expriss it, had to be suggested by symbols . . . The symbols, at times taken to be a form of symbolism, are in fact Munch's way of expressing the feeling or effect an object had on him in a way that could be readily understood. Like the Symbolists, Munch believed that art is the key to the locked and innermost 86 15 The main difference between Munch and chambers of the mind. the Symbolists is his belief that one could enter the mind without the aid of conventional symbols or private allegories. The motifs chosen by the artist are determined by personal need rather than the viewer's need and then become universal and able to Speak to the secret recesses of the mind. Like Vincent van Gogh, Paul Gauguin and Cezanne, Munch was a precursor of Expressionism. All four artists were interested in the visual effects Of color and composition. Munch used nature to communicate and was not above changing things to further his expressive power. He wrote, --if you can achieve something by changing nature, then you must do it. At a moment of intense feeling a landscape will have a very precise effect on a person-~by painting this landscape you can arrive at a picture of your own feeling--and the feeling is the vital thing--nature is simply the means. 6 to explain this element of his art and added, "how far the picture 17 This reproduces the look of nature is entirely unimportant.“ is an essential concept to remember in relation to Munch's landscape paintings. Each artist, Van Gogh, Gauguin, Cézanne and Munch, used a different artistic repertoire to arrive at a common destination. In some cases, there was a certain amount of overlap and mutual influence, especially from Munch's point of view. Assimilation of Cézanne's perspective and form language can be seen in Winter in Kragerd (Plate 13) from 1912, as well as the use of a palette with Gauguin influences seen in Moonlight on the Beach (Plate 5) from 1904-05. The Sun (Plate 20) was mentioned earlier in relation 87 to Van Gogh and his canvas titled The Sower (Figure 40) from 1888. These two works show a definite affinity in regards to style. Rodin's "Thinker" in the Garden of Dr. Linde (Figure 5) is another example in which Munch has returned to the broken-stroke of the Impressionists and Van Gogh. In Whitford's Opinion, "Munch's central achievement was his ability to communicate visually without relying on a complicated apparatus Of symbol or allegory."18 In my Opinion, the same can be said for Van Gogh and Cezanne and to a lesser extent for Gauguin. In addition to assimilating elements and techniques from contemporaries from the Continent like Van Gogh and Cezanne, Munch used techniques which later would become integral to pOpular move- ments. Fauvism, in particular, is a style Munch showed evidence of before it became a major factor in EurOpean art. From ThUringerwald (Plate 9) and The Yellow Log (Plate 10) both Show tendencies to use bright, arbitrarily-chosen colors for expressive impact. The first painting was done about 1905, a year before Maurice Vlaminck painted By the Seine, which shows both the influence of Van Gogh in the quick handling of paint and the Fauvists' use of strong, bright colors. By 1907, the Fauve's revolutionary use Of color was basically finished. However, it exerted a strong influence over successive generations of artists, including Munch. This is seen in the yellow and violet tones used to depict vegetation in The Yellow Log from 1911-12 and in figurative works like Cupid and Psyche (Figure 43) from 1907. This canvas shows the use of unnatural color in the bold vertical strokes and the overall "wild" feeling derived from experiencing the work. 88 In my opinion, the most pervasive style which Munch came into contact with and subsequently synthesized for his own purposes was Impressionism. As discussed in Chapter 2 and evidenced by The Seine at St. Cloud (Plate 16), Impressionism in all its elements was tried by Munch. The Seine at St. Cloud from 1890 Shows his adOption of the light harmonious palette, the broken brushstroke, the interest in light and its effects and the dissolution of forms because of light. In fact, many of Munch's canvases can be con- sidered light studies and are so grouped in Chapter 1. The biggest factor of Impressionism to affect Munch's art is the dissolution Of form. This is seen much later in The Sun from around 1912 and in most landscapes in between and beyond. The dissolution of form is one aspect of abstraction in Munch's work. This appealed to him in that it captured the essence Of the scene and that is pre- cisely what he was constantly striving to depict in his landscapes. In the late 18805, Christian Krohg explains the unfinished quality of Munch's paintings in an article for Verdens Gang quoted earlier in Chapter 2, which in part says, "He sees only the essential, and that, naturally, is all he paints. For this reason Munch's ."19 The essential for pictures are as a rule not complete . . which he was striving was achievable through three types of form dissolution. First and foremost was the type common to the Impres- sionists and seen in The Seine at St. Cloud (Plate 16). The Post- Impressionists provided Munch with another means by which to dissolve forms. An example Of this can be seen in Winter in Kragerd (Plate l3). Munch also dissolved form for his own purposes and in his own style. Winter Landscape (Plate 14) Shows one example of this. 89 All of these styles and techniques were assimilated by Munch and provided him with a personal visual language capable of projecting the essential to the viewer. Influence on Others There was never a "Munch school" in the accepted sense. Although a great many peOple felt he was a leader, Munch never aspired to play the role of a leader.20 At one point, Munch had a pupil, Ludvig Karsten. However, in the summer of 1905 in Aasgaardstrand, Munch and Karsten had a violent quarrel, and their friendship abruptly ended, as did their teacher-pupil relationship. This quarrel was a continuation of Munch's mental problems, which culminated in his commitment to Dr. Jacobson's clinic three summers later. Munch was important, however, to a few groups Of young artists. In 1892, the Berlin Artists' Association invited Munch to organize a solo exhibition. This Show, which lasted one week, was the catalyst that encouraged the young Berlin artists to break away from the conservative Association and form an alternative group. The Berlin Secession eventually grew from these younger members Of the Berlin Artists' Association.21 The scandal, which closed the exhibition prematurely, was partially due to the fact that Impressionism had not been accepted in Berlin yet and partially because Munch's work was contrary to the art-going public's ideal of great Germanic 23 art. The subsequent publicity that attended the scandal aided in making Munch a well-known, albeit notorious symbol of a new art. 9O Munch's career in Germany started with the 1892 exhibition, which traveled throughout the country, and he continued to be received there during his entire life. By 1894, Munch was an integral member of the Berlin Bohemian circle. Although this was a personally tumultuous time of his life, it was artistically rewarding, and Munch was soon established as the leading painter in Berlin with important patrons, dealers and commissions to his credit. Through the turn of the century, Munch continued to exhibit with German artists, in particular the Berlin Secession, and with the Indépendants in Paris. His greatest impact was in the German art circles, where his work was seen as eXpressing something original and relevant for the time.23 In 1905 the young Czechoslovakian artists from the Bohemian Art Association in Prague arranged a major exhibition Of Munch's work. This retrospective exhibition was his largest show abroad at this point and included seventy-five paintings and forty-six prints. According to Bente Torjusen, a number Of the young artists 24 were greatly influenced. Smith reinforces this Opinion citing Munch's exhibitions with the Vienna Secession and in Prague "where he made a particularly strong impact on the younger artists."25 In this important exhibition were several landscape paintings, including Train Smoke (Plate 18) from 1900 and Evening Star from 26 1895-97. To these groups of young artists, Munch was an influence by the kind of art he produced. In my Opinion, he was more of an example to strive for in terms of avant-garde paintings and techniques than an example to emulate in terms of his lifestyle 91 and rapport with the artistic community. Munch stood alone in several aspects of his work that became important to younger artists and placed him apart from his contempo- raries. The first Of these aspects is his assimilation of many styles into his own paintings. This worked for Munch to give him a very personal, expressive language with which to catch the essence and monumentality of nature. In painting landscapes, Munch becomes part of a Northern tradition but he stands apart from that tradition because nature was a form of therapy, a haven, for him. He continually returned to his homeland to portray the simple, rustic landscapes near the coast and to heal his inner self. At his property in Kragerb, he was at peace with the world and himself. This is evidenced by the work done in his first big Open-air studio built there shortly after his discharge from Dr. Jacobson's clinic. Typical canvases from this time, such as Winter in Kragero (Plate 13) give the impression that Munch has grown to be part of the environment. In fact, at this crucial time in his recovery, he cuts himself off from all social activities and submerges himself in the simple but monumental nature surrounding his prOperty. This therapeutic quality of nature, coupled with the strong sense of Northern tradi- tion, explain the large body Of pure landscape paintings Munch produced throughout his career. In addition, as mentioned earlier, nature was a common link between himself and the viewer. Capturing the feeling of a landscape gave Munch an Opportunity to communicate directly with other peOple in a pure and simple manner. CHAPTER 4 Conclusion In looking at Munch's landscape paintings analytically, major differences become evident between these works and his figurative works. At first glance, many of the landscapes do not look like Munch paintings. This is due to the extensive experimentation with styles and techniques that take place in the landscapes. There is experimentation in the figurative canvases but not to the same extent. Most of the figurative works can be classified as Expressionistic, with a few exceptions from the beginning of his painting career. The landscapes, however, fall into different stylistic categories and can be considered more correctly a continua- tion and an expansion of the Northern tradition. The purpose of Munch's landscape paintings is twofold. As mentioned in Chapter 3, they were therapeutic. In looking at a list of known landscapes, it is easy to see that he continued to paint nature throughout his life and turned to it for solace and peace of mind. The second explanation for Munch's landscape paintings is his need to communicate to the outside world. As nature was a common bond between himself and man, landscape paintings served this purpose in the simplest, most efficient way. As a form of therapy, nature and Munch's depictions in the 92 93 form of landscape paintings, were important for several reasons. To survive mentally, Munch needed to paint. Nature provided him with a non-judgmental subject that enhanced his sense of well-being. Several times after doing a portrait, the sitter would complain about the way it had turned out, but the Christiania fjord or a forest could not complain. In addition, landscapes were an accepted subject matter for the Northern artists because Of the long tradition of landscape paintings begun in the seventeenth century with the Dutch painters. A final aspect of Munch's landscapes that made them therapeutic is where and what he painted. More Often than not, Munch turned to the familiar places Of Norway to find subjects for his landscapes. At other times, he painted the views from his room in St. Cloud or Nice. These works were also done from a "safe" place, almost like being at home, in that he stayed in his room and looked out the window. In this way, he did not have to interact directly with other peOple. Because of Munch's problems in communicating with peOple, painting was an outlet for his feelings. Landscapes, being an accepted subject, were especially effective in this way. With his personal form language based on the essence of nature, Munch could communicate the monumentality and grandeur of nature to the viewer. Everyone has reactions to the sea, or a field covered in snow, and this is what Munch was reaching out to touch with his views of the universal elements of nature. Part of his need to communicate through nature came from his Scandinavian heritage. To Scandinavians, views of their summer twilight scenes and dark winter days were an integral part of their 94 life not found anywhere else. Nature was a viable force that beckoned the Scandinavian artist home to work in his natural setting. By representing the monumentality of the Scandinavian countryside, Munch elevated the individual elements to a universal level that could be understood by everyone. The feelings nature gave to Munch he, in turn, portrayed on canvas and gave to the viewer. Munch's figurative works played a different role in his art and life. With the Frieze of Life, in which most figurative paintings fit, Munch was trying to depict life in all its aspects. Painting life helped explain life to Munch, and he hoped to help others explain life through viewing his figurative works. However, each individual reacts differently to a painting depicting figures, whereas a landscape painting portraying a snowy field evokes a Similar feeling in most viewers. Munch's figurative works are thus more subjective than his landscapes which are very universal in quality. This universal quality of Munch's landscapes makes them immediately accessible to the viewer. The figurative works require some prior knowledge before providing insight into their subjective and expressive aspects. The twenty landscapes discussed and the evidence provided in the body of this thesis conclude that these works are a product of tradition and the independence of the artist. As discussed thoroughly in Chapter 3, Munch's landscapes were based on his initial and subsequent training and they were definitely a continua- tion of the Northern tradition as it is eXplained by Rosenblum in Modern Painting and the Northern Romantic Tradition. Munch followed the pattern set by Scandinavian artists before him in 95 regards to his training and study. Like many Northern artists, Munch got his initial training at home, then studied in Paris with a master, spent additional years abroad to study and exhibit and eventually returned home to concentrate on subjects peculiar to the North. It was important to Munch to be accepted by his country. This can be seen partially through his adherence to accepted modes of training and study. It is also evident by Munch's persistence in exhibiting in his homeland despite continued bad reviews and an unappreciative audience. Eventually, Munch was accepted in Norway, after being accepted throughout Europe, and was awarded Norway's highest honor, knighthood in the Royal Norwegian Order of St. Olav in 1908. On his fiftieth, seventieth and eightieth birthdays, Munch was also honored by many tributes and shown further acceptance. The Order of St. Olav did much in persuading Munch to return permanently to Norway with no regrets. The attractiveness of the countryside and the important subject matter available con- vinced him, too. It seems, however, that Munch is independent of his culture and time and more completely a product of the Northern tradition, as far as his landscape paintings go. Munch would have stood out no matter when he worked as movements and changes in acceptable styles did not sway him from his purpose of communicating the grandeur of nature. He assimilated styles that were completely adOpted by other contemporaries. This assimilation keeps Munch from being lost in the shuffle and places him apart from the crowd. Unlike his teachers, Krohg and Thaulow, who were stuck in the groove Of 96 Naturalism, he rose above his initial beginnings and surpassed them. By having a personal stake in his purpose he transcended the common place and depicted the universal. Munch's landscapes stood the test of his time and continue to speak to even the late twentieth century viewer about the monumentality of nature. NOTES NOTES Chapter 1 1Reinhold Heller, Munch: His Life andiork, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1984), p. 93. 2Ib1'd., p. 111. 31bid., p. 137. 41bid. 5Arne Eggum, Edvard Munch: Paintings, Sketches and Studies, (New York: Clarkson N. Potter, Inc., 19841, p. 155. 61bid. 71bid. 81bid. 9Ibid. 10Heller, p. 175. HEggum, p. 202. 121bid., p. 27. 13111111. 14Ibid., it is unclear here whether these are Oil sketches with a brush or pencil sketches which are later transferred to canvas. '5He11er, p. 39. 161pm. 17Eggum, p. 190. ISIbid. 97 98 19111111., p. 246. 201bid., p. 240. 211bid., p. 27, notation from diary Nov. 8, 1880. "I have in fact made up my mind to become a painter." 221515., p. 248. 231bid., p. 259. 24Eggum, p. 274. 25Ibid., p. 64, see also Figure 9 for example Of Monet's work similar to Munch's work under discussion. 26Ibid., p. 70. 27Heller, p. 175. 28Eggum, p. 156. 2911113., p. 214. 3OIbid., p. 254, also Heller, p. 212. 3'Ibid., p. 255. 32Heller, p. 209. Chapter 2 1Eggum, p. 15, also Heller, p. 13 and Selz, p. 11, most general background or family historical information included in this chapter will be from Eggum's book. 2Heller, p. 15, originally from Manuscript T 2959, Munch Museum Archives. 3Eggum, p. 57. 41bid., p. 30. 5Ibid., p. 32, this was a quote from the radical newspaper, Dagbladet. 5151a., p. 35. 7Ibid., p. 41, description in Aftenposten of Karl Jensen-Hjell portrait. 99 8Ibid., p. 46, from Ms N 122, Munch Museum. 91bid., p. 50. 10Ibid., p. 52. nRoald Nasgaard, The Mystic North: Symbolist Landscape Painting in Northern EurOpe andFNOrth America 1890-1940, (Toronto: university of’TOronto Press, 1984), p. 9. 12 Eggum, p. 57, Ms T 2770, Munch Museum. 13Heller, p. 65 initially mentioned on page 58, the discussion is picked up again on the bottom of page 64. 14Nasgaard, p. 250, Jens Ferdinand Willumsen p. 1863 - d. 1958, Danish student of Royal Academy of Fine Arts in Copenhagen, made debut in Paris 1888-94, quickly immersed in Symbolist and Synthetist currents, was a painter, sculptor, printer, architect, ceramist, author and artistic director of Bing and Grondal (1897-1900). 15Eggum, p. 88. 16Ipid. 17Ibid., p. 90, photo showing many works from the exhibition. 18Ibid., p. 97, Ms T 128, Munch Museum. 19Ibid., p. 151, Sandvika house of art collector Axel Heiberg. 20Ipid., p. 153, Dagbladet, September 15, 1897. 211bid., p. 193, discussion of subsequent problems continues through page 203. 22Heller, p. 204, letter to Jappe Nilssen, February 3, 1909. 23Eggum, p. 239. 24Ibid., p. 240, Ludvig Ravensberg's diary, June 13, 1909. 25Ipid., p. 256. Chapter 3 1Charles D. Cuttler, Northern Painting from Pucelle to Bruegal, (New York: Holt, Rinehart and’Winston, Inc.,71968), p. 97. 100 2Jan Askeland, "Norwegian Romantic Landscape," Art Review, vol. 28 pt. 9, September 17, 1976, p. 481. 3 Ibid., p. 482. 4Herchel B. Chipp, Theories of Modern Art: A Source Book by Artists and Critics, TBerkeley: ”UniverSTty of CalifOrnia Press, 1968), p. 115. 5Robert Rosenblum, Modern Painting and the Northern Romantic Tradition: Friedrich to Rothko, (LondOn: Thames and HudSon, 1975), p. 103. 6 Ibid., p. 104. 7Ibid., p. 107. 8Ibid., see p. 38 plate 41 by Dahl and p. 40 plate 44 by Friedrich. 9Ibid., p. 118. 10 1826. 11 Ibid., p. 119, see p. 23 plate 21 by Friedrich Sea with Sunrise, Ibid., quoted from Deknatel, Frederick B., 1950, p. 18. leggum, p. 46. 13Robert Goldwater, Symbolism, (New York: Harper & Row, 1979), p. 217. 14Bente Torjusen, "Edvard Munch's Exhibition in Prague, 1905," Kunsten Idag, 1971, p. 54. 15Frank Whitford, "Edvard Munch: Scene, Symbol and Allegory," Studio International, February 1974, p. 60. '5Ibid. 17Ibid. 18Ibid., p. 57. 19Eggum, p. 52, see also chapter 2, note 9. 201bid., p. 255. 2IJohn Boulton Smith, "Edvard Munch: European and Norwegian," Apollo, vol. 99 no. 143, January 1974, p. 48. 22Eggum, p. 92. 101 235mith, p. 49. 24Torjusen, p. 52. 25Smith, Apollo, 1974, p. 49. 26Torjusen, p. 54. APPENDICES APPENDIX A Figures 102 Figure l The Voice 103 Starry Night Figure 2 Figure 3 Fertility _l— . .6! .x. .._... .4.“ 2:58 eL 105 Evening Figure 4 5.0%.... d .58um_ 1111(J1frv‘w. ..1I.uu6|.1f Linde ker" in the Garden of Dr Rodin's "Thin Figure 5 107 Montagne Ste.-Victoire Figure 6 108 Figure 7 Old Aker Church Figure 8 From Maridalen 110 .. 11(114 .\11.10L. . _. ,. 188.381.898.11»? . . 1 11.1. .s. The Railroad Bridge, Argenteuil Figure 9 111 Spring Day on Kari Johan Figure 10 Golgotha Figure 11 The Dance of Life igure 12 F 113 Lfibeckerhafen Figure 13 In. 1.5“. ,. “w. ., _ 1 llai . .Hiawlhz “:04 .. , ..K. I‘ll!» l The Sun Figure 14 115 U W1 4 .-I ii) The History (deta igure 15 F 116 v .0 ‘. ... “mmww.¢.wM a. , .35 . lvhm The Alma Mater (detail) Figure 16 ,- 1: vf‘*7;'1"3fq”5J-I*L~i f 5 Figure 17 From MaridaTsveien _r. / . -~ 5‘,“ fiyuuiahn“ ~ it": - :a‘ ‘ t-n, . » Figure 18 The Infirmary at Gardermoen 118 ..L .. win ruin. N the Stove ing c d] Gir] Kin Figure 19 119 ' St. C1oud 1n Ni ht Figure 20 i...‘ _ a, . . . "7.. -1 ..v— w...“ -. 1 .. - . Figure 21 The Mysticism of a Night r , _ . #2:;‘Km‘s1' ' , «I Figure 22 Moon1ight on the Shore the Sickroom 1“ Death Figure 23 Figure 24 The Scream Madonna Figure 25 124 NIX Sph Figure 26 Sti11 Life (The Murderess) Figure 27 Figure 28 Spring Work in the Skerries 126 Dying Tree-Trunks Figure 29 127 . ..«vmf *yw‘w—W \ ., . w_-r-~-v‘wnW-—‘- . . Figure 30 The Ladies on the Bridge 128 Presentation in the Temp1e and F1ight into Egypt Figure 31 , . w "5‘17“?{1‘9/ z \' A r" ‘56- ‘11:: £7”, I}! Figure 32 Les Trés Riches Heures of the Duke of Berry 130 Figure 33 Madonna with Chance11or Ro1in DDT” r‘a. . m \t 9.11;“? (to W Figure 34 Danube Landscape near Regensburg Fwwm~ ~- ”mt 39).- Figure 35 Adoration of the Magi Tribute Money Figure 36 Woman in Morning Light Figure 37 133 Ruins of Abbey at E1dena Figure 38 1"“?5 ”3"“? "NW" ~ - . ~1~- ., ..1 _A - .. Figure 39 Mountain with Rising Fog . _ . ‘. ‘ .- ‘ '. ..i... - ‘- 1'. Q" ‘ ‘ 7 - ~ "h ‘ P - u ----_..‘. i . I 1 f Q .-. g . .7 Vi}. “W- . M , -!v «“944. Figure 40 The Sower 136 .. T WT. W“ M“ . . 9 1311.01". :9» . .1) ‘51 ‘si .1 1... i1d k Ch The Sic Figure 41 ,Nn‘fil ; , F" u 1' , .g'r \. 1 17" ,4. W,“ -1‘ AJ/ r31” ix] 7 ' I . Figure 42 The Three Brides 138 Cupid and Psyche Figure 43 APPENDIX B P1ates and Figure Acknow1edgment APPENDIX B P1ates and Figure Acknow1edgment Adoration of the Magi, 1426, Ber1in-Dah1em, Staat1iche Museum, (Beck). The A1ma Mater (detai1), 1909-11, 0510 University (Langaard and Revon). Am Ho1stentor, 1907, Ber1in, Nationa1ga1erie, (Eggum). Cupid and Psyche, 1907, 0510, Munch Museum, (Eggum). The Dance of Life, 1899, 0510, Nasjona1ga11eriet, (Eggum). Danube Landscape near Regensburg, c. 1522-25, Munich, A1te PinakOthek, (Cutt1er). Death in the Sickroom, 1893, 0510, Munch Museum, (Eggum). Dying Tree-Trunks, c. 1923, 0510, Munch Museum, (Eggum). Evening, 1889, Bergen, Rasmus Meyers Sam1inger, (He11er), [a150 ' fit1ed Inger 0n the Beach]. Ferti1ity, 1898, private c011ecti0n, (Eggum). F10wering Meadow in Veier1and, 1887, 0510, Nationa1 Ga11ery, (He11er). From Marida1en, 1881, 0510, Munch Museum, (Eggum). From Marida1syeien, 1877, 0510, MUDCh Museum, (Eggum). From the Shore in Nice, 1892, 0510, Munch Museum, (Eggum). From ThUringerwa1d, c. 1905, 0510, Munch Museum, (Eggum). Gir1 Kind1ing the Stove, 1883, private c011ecti0n, (Eggum). Go1gotha, 1900, 0510, Munch Museum, (Eggum). The History (detai1) 1909-11, 0510 University, (Langaard and Rev01d). 139 140 House in Winter Landscape, 1880, private c011ecti0n, (Eggum). The Infirmary at Gardermoen, 1879, 0510, Munch Museum, (Eggum). The Ladies on the Bridge, c. 1935, 0510, Munch Museum, (Eggum). Landscape with Birches, 1880, private c011ecti0n, (Eggum). LUbeckerhafen, 1907, Zurich, Kunsthaus, (Eggum). Madonna, 1893-94, 0510, Munch Museum, (Eggum). Madonna with Chance110r Ro1in, c. 1433, Paris, Louvre, (Cutt1er). Montagne Ste.-Victoire, c. 1885-87, London, C0urtau1d Institute GaTTeries, (Rosenb1um and Janson). Moon1ight on the Beach, 1904-05, 0510, Munch Museum, (Eggum). Moon1ight 0n the Shore, 1892, Bergen, Rasmus Meyers Sam1inger, (Eggum). Mountain with Rising Fog, c. 1815, Munich, Bayerische Staatsgema1de- sammTungen, (Rosefi61um). The Mysticism of a Night, 1892, private c011ecti0n, (Eggum). Night in St. C1oud, 1890, 0510, Nasjona1ga11eriet, (Eggum). 01d Aker Church, 1880, 0510, Munch Museum, (Eggum). Presentation in the Temp1e and F1ight into Egypt, 1394-99, Dijon, ‘Musée dés'Beaux-Arts, (CUttTer). The Rai1r0ad Bridge, Argenteui1, 1874, Phi1ade1phia Museum of Art, (A Day in the countgy). Red House and Fir Spruces, c. 1927, 0510, Munch Museum, (Eggum). Rodin's "Thinker" in the Garden of Dr. Linde, 1907, Paris, Musée Rodi n, (Eggum) . Ruins of Abbey of E1dena, c. 1824, Ber1in, Nationa1ga1erie, (R05en01um). The Scream, 1893, 0510, Munch Museum, (Eggum). The Seine at St. C1oud, 1890, 0510, Munch Museum, (Eggum). The Sick Chi1d, 1885-6, 0510, Nasjona1ga11eriet, (Go1dwater). The Sower, 1888, 0tter10, Rijksmuseum Kr611er-MU11er, (Go1dwater). 141 Sphinx, 1894, Bergen, Rasmus Meyers Sam1inger, (Eggum). Spring Dayon Kar1 Johan, 1890, Bergen, Bi11ega11en, (Eggum). Spring Work in the Skerries, 1910, 0510, Munch Museum, (Eggum). Starry Night, 1893, Wupperta1, Vonder Heydt - Museum der Stadt, (He11er). Starry Night, 1893, private c011ecti0n, (Eggum). Sti11 Life (The Murderess), 1906, 0510, Munch Museum, (Eggum). Summer Night, 1902, Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, (He11er). The Sun, 1909-12, 0510 University, Main Mura1 in the Festiva1 Ha11, e12). The Three Brides, 1893, 0tter10, Rijksmuseum Kr011er-MU11er, (GOTdWater). Train Smoke, 1900, 0510, Munch Museum, (Eggum). Les Trés Riches Heures 0f the Duke of Berry, February page, 1416, ChantiTTy, MUsée’Condé, (CUttTer). Tribute Money, c. 1427-28, F1orence, Santa Maria de1 Carmine, ‘Brancacci Chape1, (Beck). The Voice, 1892, Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, (He11er). White Night, 1901, 0510, Nationa1 Ga11ery, (Se1z). Winter in Kragero, 1912, 0510, Munch Museum, (Eggum). Winter Landscape, c. 1918, Hartford, Connecticut, Wadsworth Atheneum, (Se1z). Winter Landscape, E1gersburg, 1906, 0510, Munch Museum, (Eggum). Winter Night, 1900-01, 0510, Munch Museum, (Eggum). Woman in Morning Light, c. 1809, Essen, F01kwang Museum, (Rosenb1um). Wood, 1903, 0510, Munch Museum, (Eggum). The Ye110w Log, 1911-12, 0510, Munch Museum, (Eggum). BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY A Day in the Country, New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1984. Askeland, Jan. "Norwegian Romantic Landscape," Arts Review, v01. 28, pt. 19, September 17, 1976. Beck, James. Italian Renaissance Painting, New York: Harper & Row, 1981. Benesch, Otto. Edvard Munch, New York: Phaidon Publishers, Inc., 1960. Boe, Roy A. "Jealousy: An Important Painting by Edvard Munch," The Minneapolis Institute of Arts Bulletin, v01. 45, n0. 1, ‘January-February 1956. Chipp, Hersche1 B. Theories of Modern Art: A Source Book by Artists and Critics, Berkeley: *University of talifOrnia Press, 1968. C0pp1est0ne, Trewin. Art in Society: A Guide to the Visual Arts, Englewood Cliffs,TNJ: Prentice-Ha11,71nc., 1983. Cuttler, Charles 0. Northern Painting from Pucelle t0 Bruegal, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1968. Dorra, Henry. "Munch, Gauguin and Norwegian Painter in Paris," Gazette des Beaux Arts, v01. 88, no. 1294, November 1976. Eggum, Arne. Edvard Munch: Paintings, Sketches and Studies, New York: Clarkson N. Potter, 1984, Goldwater, Robert. Symbolism, New York: Harper & Row, 1979. Heller, Reinhold. "Edvard Munch and the Clarification of Life," Allen Memorial Art Museum Bu11etin, v01. 29, no. 13, Spring 1972, Uberlin, Ohio: 0ber11n’C011ege. Edvard Munch: The Scream, New York: Viking Press, 1973. . Munch: His Life and Work, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984. Hodin, J. P. Edvard Munch, New York: Oxford University Press, 1972. 142 143 Edvard Munch: Nordens Genius, Stockholm: Ljus, 1948. Jaworska, Wladyslawa. "Edvard Munch and Stanislaw Przybyzewski," Apollo, vol. 100, no. 152, October 1974. Langaard, Johan and Reidar Revold. EdvardMunch, New York: McGraw- Hill Book Company, 1964. Langaard, Johan. Edvard Munch:_ The University Murals, Graphichrt and Paintings, Oslo: F0rlaget N0rsk’KUnstrepr0dchj0n, 1960. Lucie-Smith, Edward. Symbolist Art, New York: Oxford University Press, 1972. Madsen, Stephen Tschude. Edvard Munch's Wall Paintings, New York: Wittenborn and Company, 1959. The Masterworks of Edvard Munch, New York: The Museum of Modern ‘Art, 1979. Myers, Bernard S. "Edvard Munch," Encyclopedia of World Art, v01. 10, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1965. Nasgaard, Roald. The Mystic North: Symbolist Landscape Painting in Northern Europe and N0rth America 1890-1940, Toronto: UhiVersity of T0r0nt0’Press, 1984. Rosenblum, Robert. Modern Painting and the Northern Romantic Tradition: Friedrich to Rothko, L0nd0n: ”Thames and Hudson, 1975. Rosenblum, Robert and H. W. Janson. 19th Century Art, New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1984. Sarnstedt, Bo, Arne Eggum and Gerd W011. Edvard Munch 1863-1944, Stockholm: Liljevalchs & Kulturhuset, 1977. Selz, Jean. EdvardMunch, New York: Crown Publishers, Inc., 1976. Smith, John Boulton. “Edvard Munch: European and Norwegian," Apollo, v01. 99, no. 143, January 1974. . "Romantic Landscape Painters of Norway 1814-1914," Apollo, vol. 104, no. 174, August 1976. Torjusen, Bente. "Edvard Munch's Exhibition in Prague, 1905," Kunsten Idag, 1971. Werner, Alfred. "Edvard Munch: Agony and Achievement," American Artist, v01. 36, no. 365, December 1972. 144 Whitford, Frank. "Edvard Munch: Scene, Symbol and Allegory," Studio International, vol. 187, no. 963, February 1974. W011, Gerd. Edvard Munch: The Major Graphic, Smithsonian InstitutiOnTTraveTing EXhibition Service catalog, 1976. MICYIHIIIWINHHSIMIW“11111111111111111111115 31293 030612067