Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:17, 26 July 2014

Edvard Munch - The Scream (pastel)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2014 at 17:13:14 (UTC)

Reason

Iconic. A 3,003 × 4,000 pixels 12MP file.

Articles in which this image appears

The Scream, List of paintings by Edvard Munch, List of most expensive paintings

FP category for this image

Misplaced Pages:Featured_pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Edvard Munch

• Support as nominator – Iconic great granddaddy of all drama royals. I just know it will receive generous support here. This is the version that sold for $119,922,500 a couple of years back. Two failed nominations for the Oslo version. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• Hey, I know that look! Thats the "Da $#@% you mean the USA is 17 trillion dollars in debt!?" look. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Pretty soon we could be looking at serious money there ... Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• erm ... and is that what it takes to buy a vote here? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment — Again? Sca (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• It's a different version from the Oslo versions nominated before 1 first, 2 second. Second time round you opposed on the ground it had been published so often it's become almost a cliché, but not many clichés sell for $119,922,500. On both occasions the stumbling block was the lack of resolution, and indeed that won't be fixed until the holding museums issue high resolution images. But this was sold at auction and the on-line catalogue made available a 3,003 × 4,000 pixels 12MP file. That's plenty of resolution enough. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Money conquers all. Sca (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

In this case the price tag came in at about $25,000 a square centimetre - isn't that just amazing? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 02:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The British Guiana 1c magenta on the other hand works out at about $1 million a square centimetre. Eat your heart out, Ed. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• Ya know, that stamp might have a chance at passing FPC too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• I would support, but I've got my eye on a little blonde bombshell I fancy next. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Wish this was better used in the article. Discussed in text, but relegated to a gallery. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

As an alt., how about a rectangular background detail showing just the two men on the bridge (or pier) and the sailboat in the water? Sca (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Would be happy to support. I always thought this was a bridge too, but in fact the location appears to be a road above Copenhagen harbour according to this interesting blog I linked in to to the article this morning. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: First this does not appear to have a free license or a clear title, at least for Wikimedia Commons. Secondly, compared to the two earlier submissions; this image is quite grainy, especially along the roadway or bridge (whichever). I find that an unpleasant and worrisome feature for a pastel. It now appears speckled. The image is not restful in any regard, so smooth colours at least make it tolerable to look at. I actually prefer choice one, which has been earlier reviewed and not promoted. Fylbecatulous talk 00:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• You mean PD and The Scream is certainly PD in the US. It's true it can't go onto Commons until the beginning of next year when Munch comes into PD in Europe, but I'm not aware that's one of the criteria. First nom raised Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, one of the lamer copyright dramas in recent years, but it's unassailable that The Scream was 'published' within the terms of the Berne convention (i.e. made available for copying) before 1923.For example it was made available as a limited edition of prints in 1895. As for the resolution, it's at the mark and pastels at the mark 'are' 'speckled', that's the nature of their mark. Have a look at this Degas pastel Commons:File:Edgar Degas - Young Woman in Blue - Google Art Project.jpg. Why should you be worried about that? I should think it extremely unlikely that a Sotheby's catalogue for a work expected to sell in the high tens of millions of dollars carried a substandard image. Pretty sure at any rate we are not going to get better any time soon. Nomination 1 was for an oil painting and it failed on resolution concerns. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 03:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• I can vouch that this is acceptable for hosting locally on the English Misplaced Pages as well. Don't get what is meant by "speckles"/ — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Like speckled eggs: Bing has many images. Here is one not so well defined: https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Common_Tern_Nest_with_Three_Eggs_(2)_(3593033259).jpg. Good for eggs; not so good for images unless graininess is required. Fylbecatulous talk 13:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the demanding (and discerning) world of the visual arts, Fylbe. I still can't follow your objection to the image here. There's no noise in that image. That 'speckling' is merely the mark pastel chalks make on paper especially prepared to 'take' the chalk. Really I think you should strike your oppose here unless you can make a more substantial case. Thank you. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@Fylbecatulous: I think it's disappointing that you haven't responded to a request to clarify your issues. I take it that means you don't have any further issues, and since the objections you raised have been adequately explained by myself and by an administrator at the forum, I think in the circumstances it would be courteous to strike your oppose. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Really, I do not intend to strike my oppose. I believe it would be courteous to now leave me alone. I am an editor worthy to cast a vote here and it has been thusly done. It's disappointing that this process is becoming an unpleasant experience. I speak for myself, of course. Others may speak on their own behalf. Fylbecatulous talk 14:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@Coat of Many Colours: As a relative newcomer to Featured picture nominations, I have read the exchanges above with interest. It is clear that you are all quite knowledgeable, but if the discussion takes on the appearance of a group of insiders making the decisions, newcomers will be deterred from voicing their opinions. Coat of Many Colours, I would be interested to know why you feel it is important that User:Fylbecatulous strike his opposing vote. It seems to me that if the image is worthy, it will receive additional supporting votes which will outweigh one opposing vote, and I think time ought to be allowed for others to see the image and express their opinions (especially considering that this is the middle of the summer in the northern hemisphere and many people are on vacation). Asking an editor to strike his vote is kind of like saying, "Because you got one or two things factually wrong, your vote is now invalid", and also kind of like, "You should have checked your facts before expressing an opinion here". That sends the message to potential participants that their vote will not be counted if they don't get their information right, which could be a deterrent to participation. If editors sense a kind, tolerant, and generous attitude, this could be a pleasant experience for all and an opportunity for editors to learn something new. CorinneSD (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@Fylbecatulous: I'm sorry to hear that your experience here has been unpleasant. If you could be more specific I should be happy to help in any way I can. You will forgive me, but you are a new contributor here are you not? It's difficult to judge from your contribution record because you are such a prolific contributor to Misplaced Pages, but that does seem to be so - that you made your first contribution here supporting Hafspajen's recent School of Raphael nomination, which I opposed on the grounds that it suffers a pronounced yellow colour cast on account of its processing (see thumbnails)? As an experienced Wikipedian you should know the etiquette about newbies joining forums. Really I must ask you to reconsider. When I make a mistake in this forum, I courteously acknowledge that I have so and make the appropriate remedial actions to set it right. With respect I courteously suggest that you ought to as well. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• Featured picture nominations
• Featured picture nominations/July 2014