Here's a link to it if you haven't seen it: http://my.telegraph.co.uk/VirtualContent/87365/20070717212329.jpg

at least I believe that it's what it looks like...there is a woman (no idea why people see it as a woman) szanding on a bridge, screaming with clear desperation. It probably seems like a woman, because no man would ever scream like that. Not the way she is holding her head etc

-------
Live. Love. Grow.

A wonderful painting though.

-------
I'm a bearlock now.

---

It IS feminine hsysteria.  

at least I believe that it's what it looks like...there is a woman (no idea why people see it as a woman) szanding on a bridge, screaming with clear desperation. It probably seems like a woman, because no man would ever scream like that. Not the way she is holding her head etc

---

I have a feeling that it's meant to be androgenous though.. since there's no defining feature of it being either a woman or a man. But even then, I still feel as though it's some sort of femininity sabotaged rather than something that transcends gender.

---

Quote: from SusieQuestionu at 6:11 am on Mar. 28, 2008

---

It IS feminine hsysteria.

 at least I believe that it's what it looks like...there is a woman (no idea why people see it as a woman) szanding on a bridge, screaming with clear desperation. It probably seems like a woman, because no man would ever scream like that. Not the way she is holding her head etc

---

I have a feeling that it's meant to be androgenous though.. since there's no defining feature of it being either a woman or a man. But even then, I still feel as though it's some sort of femininity sabotaged rather than something that transcends gender.

---

Maybe Munch didn't want to define it for anyone, maybe he wanted to leave it open. However, it does look feminine to me, not because of the way he or she looks, but due to the gesture. The painting is a great psychological masterpiece that we just discussed in philosophy. And we discovered that almost everyone in class saw a woman.

-------
Live. Love. Grow.

Sexist pigs.

-------
DAVID LIKES PREVIOUSLY BANNED MEMBERS TO COME BACK
ON NEW IPS
SO HE CAN SELL HIS ADSPACE FOR MORE MONEY

---

Quote: from tell me again at 2:15 pm on Mar. 28, 2008

---

Quote: from SusieQuestionu at 6:11 am on Mar. 28, 2008

---

It IS feminine hsysteria.    

  at least I believe that it's what it looks like...there is a woman (no idea why people see it as a woman) szanding on a bridge, screaming with clear desperation. It probably seems like a woman, because no man would ever scream like that. Not the way she is holding her head etc

---

 

 I have a feeling that it's meant to be androgenous though.. since there's no defining feature of it being either a woman or a man. But even then, I still feel as though it's some sort of femininity sabotaged rather than something that transcends gender.

---

Maybe Munch didn't want to define it for anyone, maybe he wanted to leave it open. However, it does look feminine to me, not because of the way he or she looks, but due to the gesture. The painting is a great psychological masterpiece that we just discussed in philosophy. And we discovered that almost everyone in class saw a woman.

---

We studied it in high school, and not everyone in the class saw it as a woman.

Even the background looks like feminine despair to me.

Post edited at 6:54 am on Mar. 28, 2008 by Black Sheep

-------
Your everlasting summer, you can see it fadin' fast.
So you grab a piece of somethin' that you think is gonna last.
Well, you wouldn't even know a diamond if you held it in your hand.
The things you think are precious I can't understand.

---

I don't think it represents either. It's just human fear and worry.

A wonderful painting though.

---

I agree.