English 105.001
The Purpose of Painting a Parody
When we think of “The Scream,” images of a Halloween mask or a funny ovular shape head which appears to be melting pops into our heads. In fact the original creator of this painting is more unknown than its parodies. A classic is something that is able to remain a relatable or popular symbol throughout decades or centuries. The picture, “The Scream,” was painted over 100 years ago by Edvard Munch, a Norwegian who’s painting is a self-reflection of himself and his life. The man never knew he would remain a historic image for so many years to other artists, teenagers, and even comedians. So how can such a mourning image become so popular that it is repeatedly laughed at? A parody may be more than just a rewrite of the subject. It may incorporate more than just comedy and laughs. The intentions of the original creator are what count for the meaning of a parody since those artists are reusing the image or thought. To derive the true meaning and underlying emotion of a piece of work, the parodist must examine it, critic it, and then decide how to relate it to a broader perspective which can be shown to the public in another form with a new meaning. This is using the image for another intention, one that relates towards the parodists opinions.
Matt Groening, the creator of the popular t.v. show “The Simpsons,” drew the image of “Homer Scream,” and almost complete replica of “The Scream,” but with the main subject being of Homer Simpson, and with a completely different intent. Groening’s approach to this matter may not be as simplistic as some may think. Creating comedy out of such a horrific subject matter takes analysis of the original work, the subject matter of the new work, and the reaction from the viewers. A parody is a form of borrowing and artists love to comply with each other and keep building on top of meanings and messages. This is all about creating art which is supplied to the public for provoking thought. But how does the former artists, or the one being reused and “made fun of,” typically feel about the new form of art which is being created? How do they look at it? Is it flattery? Is it humorous or is it harmful to their intentions? By comparing the qualities and intentions of the two artists, Munch and Groening, and their creations of “The Scream” and “Homer Scream,” we will find that a parody, although borrowed, becomes a new form of art by remaking old meanings which relate to the modern age.
A parody is an extension of an already existing piece of art. It takes something which has been viewed by the public, usually well-known to some degree, and reworks certain aspects to create a new meaning. Parodies are most commonly known for their comical quality and are taken lightly or not serious. But parodies have the ability to be reviewed and critiqued as well. In examining the reflexive work of a parody, Michele Hannoosh proposes that when a parody is made it is, “suggesting its own potential as a model or target, a work to be rewritten, transformed, even parodied in its turn” (114). This is how art is everlasting and continuous; it is able to build upon old stories and forms to generating new questions or ideas, and “reminding the reader of the relativism of any work of art, and also of the richness of creative possibilities in an allegedly limited single source” (Nunning, 117). In this sense a parody is not a form of ridicule upon an old subject matter because it is not quite criticizing or mocking it. A parody is heavily influenced by an old form which the artist feels they would like to comment on. Ansgar Nunning describes this as, “a double-coded dialogue between the present and the past” (130). The parodist looks for figures and symbols which it can imitate and translate into modern illustrations. “One must take ideas of the past and pick them apart, test them, agree, disagree, shape and reshape them to create something new” (Guling) and this “new” can take any form as long as it is influenced. A parodist’s purpose is to evoke the public not to abuse the former artist. However, there are instances where borrowing from an artist is noted as flattery. In most cases a parody never appears as flattery but they do have some similarities. Richard Stengel defines flattery as, “strategic praise,” which has a purpose that may be, “exaggerated or it may be accurate and truthful, but it is praise that seeks some result” (1). A parodist has assumed that the artist from which he or she is borrowing from has mastered or created a relatable image which is effective. The borrowed work has already reached a level of achievement.
Whenever artwork is created all background history and events in the artists life has an impact on their work and ideas and meanings behind it. Intentions within the art and the outcome are important and should be examined in both the original and parodied work. Edvard Munch was a painter born in Norway and worked throughout the German Expressionist years of painting. At the age of five, Munch’s mother died of tuberculosis in 1868, and as he grew attached to his older sister, Sophie, he was only let down once she too passed away of T.B.. It was these crucial years of his childhood which corrupted the rest of his life, regressing to a stage of embitterment. Yet he was able to convey all he needed within his paintings. He once said that his illnesses are what kept him alive, “My sufferings are part of my self and my art. They are undistinguishable from me, and their destruction would destroy my art” (Lubow). For Munch all he had was his paintings and they were his only form of conveying so much emotion. “The Scream” was painted in 1983 portraying a ovular shape thing (taking on no sex) mourning and crying in despair while the sun sets in the background as a couple walks behind. The face is melting almost dripping down as Munch never cared for preciseness but for the emotion one could get from the paint. Reinhold Heller describes the painting as if, “The hero of love must not exist anymore: his sexuality has crawled out of him and now it screams through all of nature for a new means of manifestation is in order to do no more than live through the same torture, the same battle all over again” (131). This battle which has fought was, “… between mind and sex out of which the latter came triumphant…The mind has been destroyed, and sex, the primevally eternal, screams out for new victims” (131). All this emotion was expressed within one piece of artwork and even though it is a personal journey and incident which the painter is reflecting upon, it is obviously reusable since the public has a deep connection to either the widely known shapes or emotions which can be conveyed through these shapes. Munch himself has commented on this painting after he saw a vision while walking with his two friends one evening. He writes the, “ air turned to blood…the faces of my comrades became a garnish yellow-white,” as he heard, “…a huge endless scream course through nature” (Lubow). It is obviously a personal experience which is a reflection on this man’s life and the pain he went through and all he lost in the world.
Out of this painful tragedy, people are able to find humor or reflectance to this subject matter, which is why it has been borrowed so frequently. Each parody or remake of this image has its own individual reasons for its reusing, as does Matt Groening, the artist behind the comedy cartoon show, “The Simpsons.” The show has been running for 18 years and is successful upon its ability to take human problems and serious situations and turn them into laughing matters. Along with its sarcastic and critical approach to human nature, parodies play a main role in the show as well. Jonathan Gray makes a note between the amount of intellect and consumption a joke may have to reach a commemorative level. Some of the jokes on “The Simpsons,” “require a certain degree of cultural capital,” whereas when the viewer is familiar to more popular images and well-known issues a joke has, “cultural competence” (Gray 235). This allows the parody to be more effective and, “goes down easy and so may be consumed more freely” (Gray 235). “The Scream” has been re-published a plethora of times so its sight makes it recognizable. But the painting also requires a degree of cultural capital or knowledge of what the image means and the feelings it convey for its parody to be laughable. “Homer Scream” is a picture of the main characters face, which coincidentally is already a long ovular shape, with the silhouettes of his family standing in the bridge, while the wild sunset color lines and swirls are repeated in the background. Homer represents stupidity for the most part of the show and he is constantly loosing anything he gains in life. He has no real emotions and desires in life that constitutes as conventional. Although bad situations seem to be happening all around him he is never phased or worried about them.
So why is this parody so comical and laughable when we see it? First off, there is a major contrast between the two. Munch’s painting is of his life’s emotions, his pains and recognitions, while Homer stands for nothingness, no pain, no real feelings. When we look at the painting “The Scream” an absence of sound appears in our heads as if the subject is screaming for his life yet nothing happens. Munch’s exact description of his painting was the “air turned to blood…(the) faces of my comrades became a yellow-white” and in his own ears he heard, “a huge endless scream course through nature” (Lubow). The screaming in this painting is from the indefinable pain that resides in life’s predicaments. Rolf Stenersen, an art collector of Edvard Munch’s works, describes the painting as agony, suggesting that, “…the artist tries to show how a landscape’s colors and lines may represent a threat to an unbalanced, hypersensitive individual who suddenly one evening feels totally paralyzed by the landscape as lines and colors close in on him with suffocating reality. His mouth twists into a cry of agony, and yet he is unable to utter a sound” (48). Munch is telling is about his life, and informing us of this wariness which humans carry around due to all the agony which we go through. It all has a profound affect on us and there are some moments where they take over all our senses and captivate us.
However, when we see the image of Homer screaming, a loud obnoxious noise rings through our ears, and our first intention is to laugh at the bizarre sound. Groening’s intent for this picture is to allow the public to laugh at such idiotic behavior and allow enjoyment to arise from other people’s pain. Henri Bergson designed three observations of the comic spirit, one of them being that an, “absence of feeling…usually accompanies laughter” (1). Homer lacks many normal feeling which humans have thus allowing him to never fully understand the world, and in return we laugh at him. Our laughter, for that brief moment, allows us to loose all human feelings, since we are laughing at someone else’s pain, we do not think about how that pain would reflect on us. This is what makes it funny, Bergson explains, “People do not laugh at landscapes…but at humans or at animals in which people see human elements. Nor can people laugh without putting aside their emotions. People may laugh at one they pity, but their pity must first be silenced. Emotion stifles laughter, intellect kindles it” (1).
So what do these two pictures have in common besides the obvious placement of people and similar shapes and background? Munch is informing his viewers; the painting is an autobiography, and one’s lessons and feelings can be related to another humans’ experiences. Groening realizes this pain and is aware that the image represents an ultimate loss of life. Through his knowledge of the symbolic meaning of Munch’s painting, Groening can inform the public with another feeling or emotion. Homer Simpson is one of those “characters who remove themselves from society,” which allows him to be comical (Bergson 1). This comedy, which Groening displays, “does not necessarily direct itself at moral faults; rather it usually aims to correct social aloofness” (Bergson 1). This is what connects the two paintings, and it is what makes one serious and one comical. When artists inform the public they are putting information which we think about and use to correct ourselves. We relate what we can to our lives to make them better, or more understandable. The viewers of “The Simpsons” laugh at Homer and realize his lack of pain and sense, he does not function well in society and life’s hardships. We laugh at this inability yet are reminded that these are emotions which allow us to live and function in life. In a sense we learn what not to do or what is socially wrong. Munch is capturing the same essence in his paintings. He is showing us the emotions which have an effect on our social ability. He is explaining a feeling or emotional problem.
Munch, if alive today, may be personally offended by the many parodies of his work, but an artist must accept that when they publish a piece of work it is there for the taking. It is there to inform and to reuse by other artists. Although Munch’s and Groening’s desires were both to inform viewers about society, they each had a different intent. Groening is foremost a comedian and comedy “aims to please…and may require more accurate perception than that available to everyone; therefore, comedy belongs to art” (Bergson). “Tragedy,” which looks at the unique and individual, as Bergson states, “gives an impression of life, and develops out of emotions,” whereas comedy “depicts general characters, universals of humanity” (Bergson 2). Groening’s intent was to be comical while Munch portrayed a serious side. People are entitled to create upon each other’s work because “everyone has their own rhythm and choices which they put into their work, whether is it is a piece of work which they will claim as new or work which they will call an imitation or cover,” or parody in this instance (Martinez 4). Either way, artists “caringly add and input ideas and information to educate and amuse the public,” (Martinez 6) which is exactly what Groening did. Throughout all the parodies which were produced from Munch’s ideas, he still was able to successfully publish his own intent.
Works Cited
Grey, Jonathan. “Television Teaching: Parody, The Simpsons, and Media Literacy Education.” Critical Studies in Media Communication. Aug 2005, Vol. 22, Iss. 3, pp. 223-238.
Guling, Renee. “Final Draft of Plagiarism Paper.” Weblog post. "I came to live out loud" - emile zola. 9 April 2007. reneegulino1118.blogspot.com. 25 April 2007.
Hannoosh, Michele. “The Reflexive Function of Parody.” Comparative Literature. Spring 1989, Vol. 41, Iss. 2, pp. 113-126.
Heller, Reinhold. “Munch His Life and Work.” Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1984.
Lubow, Arthur. “Edvard Munch: Beyond The Scream.” Smithsonian. March 2006, Vol. 36, Iss. 12, pp 58-67.
Martinez, Luisa. “Plagiarism.” Weblog post. English Blog. 9 April 2007. onlinethoughtexhibition.blogspot.com. 25 April 2007.
Nunning, Ansgar. “The Creative Role of Parody in Transforming Literature and Culture: An Outline of a Functionalist Approach to Postmodern Parody.” European Journal Of English Studies. Aug. 1999, Vol. 3, Iss. 2, pp. 123-137.
Stenersen, Rolf. “Edvard Munch: Close-up of a Genius.” Oslo: Gyldendal, 1969.
Stengel, Richard. “You’re Too Kind: A Brief History of Flattery.” You’re Too Kind. Kenneth B. Smith. 10 April 2007
