Deathly Hallows Adventure: Art in Times of War

[singlemomsummer.livejournal.com]

Activity: Deathly Hallows Adventure: Art in times of War
Details: A 24-hour Debate on the use of Art as a means of expression in times of War.
Points: Participation 10pts, Additional comment: 5pts. 30pts limit.
Deadline: Monday, November 28th, 9PM UTC



Some of the things you might want to think about are:
1. How is art used as a tool by those who disagree with the current leaders?
2. How can art be used to help people work through their feelings
3. What are the general subjects we see in Wartime art?
4. What are the positives and negatives to using art as a form of expression under a restrictive regime?

Of course these are just starting points, feel free to come up with your own ideas/questions!


Lastly, this is a friendly debate. Any comments that are less than civil will be screened.




Sir Cadogan commands you: Join the Art Club Today!

Comments

[singlemomsummer.livejournal.com]

What about images of the victims? Things like the photojournalism from the massacre at My Lai, which although gruesome and gritty are still very much a form of art. I think that in more modern times the advances in photography and videography have allowed the public to see more of the reality of war vs. the propaganda that those in charge would prefer to be seen. Unfortunately the leaders will never stop trying to drive the propaganda machine.

Summer//Hufflepuff

[ashspark.livejournal.com]

My all time favorite painting relating to War times, has to be in a predictable way Guernica, by Picasso. The more I see it, the more it enthralls me. I love if one can say considering the horrific topic of the painting the way Picasso chose to denounce what was going on in Spain. This massacre, was unbearable. When we studied it when I was 15, in spanish class, the teacher had given us a comprehensive list to understanding the painting, but I discarded it and offered my own interpretation, like the mother asking God "Why?". You look at it, and there's so much to speak about. And it conveys this message, this powerful message. It was painted just one year after the massacre, and it feels like it's still raw from the consequences, like Picasso offered a draft but could have painted so much more. Yet, he managed to give such an amazing piece.

He baffles me.

Ash//Slytherin

[anbyrobanby.livejournal.com]

I was going to comment with the same one. It really caputred the moment for what it was: bloody internal chaos, violence and nonsense in tangible form which, for an abstract artist, is very much suited to the style. Also, you say how raw it feels, it's not really got any colour on it at all. In many ways it feels naked, raw, vulnerable.

That's honestly what war is, and I think Picasse conveyed something very straightforward with it: it's easy to glorify the war efforts with pomp and patriotism, but civilians get hurt in these things, and in those times they stop caring about causes when it's their loved ones who have been taken from them for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Rob/Gryffindor

[ashspark.livejournal.com]

I completely agree. In a way, he also reminds me of Francisco de Goya, and his paintings about the 3rd and the 5th of Mayo. Those are paintings of people getting executed, but it was really ballsy, and raw too. While Picasso conveyed a more general message, Goya showed violence,or the prelude to violence (we all knew the guy was going to get killed). I think those paintings were well received, since the invasion forces then were the French (goddamn you Napoleon), and it showed oppression of the Spanish people, but those are pretty chilling too...

Ash/Slytherin

[ashspark.livejournal.com]

I'm so glad you discovered this painting! I'm actually quite proud! It has been part of my cultural baggage for some time, and I always go back at it thinking "what was Pablo thinking?" I admire the way he managed to compress so many things in this huge paintings.I'm sure books must have been written about it, because it's so rich. And then sometimes I wonder "what did Hitler thought of it when he saw it?" since he was the one who ordonned the strike on Guernica to test his missiles, and I wonder, since he was an artist too (in his own mind of course), if he could aknowledge the value of the painting or it was just dirt to him.

I'm pretty sure he never saw it, but yeah, I wish he had. So that he could throw a hissy fit, or just stare, as we all do...


I love the fact that there is no colour, just shades of grey. Picasso didn't need red to stand for the blood, everything feels quite limpid as far as destruction and horror is the point...

Ash/Slytherin

[slumber.livejournal.com]

1. How is art used as a tool by those who disagree with the current leaders?

I think art in general has a way of making a very succinct and damning point without subjecting everyone to a treatise, therefore it gets its point across easily. This type of art is usually very simple, very bold, eye-catching and shocking all at once, because it needs to stay with its audience long before they last saw it.

It's used, I think, more often than not as graffiti in public places, where it can be posted late at night and seen by many without getting shut down right away.

Evy//Ravenclaw

[slumber.livejournal.com]

That's funny, because when I first saw the term art in war, I immediately thought of propaganda art, and somehow it went to... graffiti. I just associate the chaotic nature of graffiti with war, I guess.

I can see war photographers using their pictures to show the true horrors of war as well, though. And it has the chance to be that much more impactful because it's real.

Evy//Ravenclaw

[singlemomsummer.livejournal.com]

This is one of my favorite examples of subversive art. I met Robbie Conal in college and his work is some of my favorite. He characterizes the current leaders as perverse, grotesque warmongers and exposes the true reasons for the wars they support. His work is then posted all over Los Angeles and other cities in the middle of the night and have become icons. In fact, although most people don't know his name, most can recognize one of his pieces if they saw it.

Summer//Hufflepuff

[slumber.livejournal.com]

By their nature as well they are naturally attention-grabbing, too. I think this kind of art can be pretty powerful as well especially in the absence or lack of other more formal media where people may be censored or have no access to the war. Sure, like Kathryn above said, the government can just as easily cover them up, but there is no end to the number of places they can pop up at, and once seen, you can't really stop an idea from spreading.

Evy//Ravenclaw

[mmailliw.livejournal.com]

4. What are the positives and negatives to using art as a form of expression under a restrictive regime?

I would have to imagine that a large advantage of using art as a form of expression is that it could easily slip under the wire with the dictators in charge not recognizing the protest piece as anything other than a pretty (or ugly) picture. On the other hand, the intended audience might have just as hard a time seeing through the images as well, so it definitely goes both ways here! On the other hand, maybe this is just my perspective in viewing abstract art as particularly difficult to understand...

William//Slytherin

[anbyrobanby.livejournal.com]

I'm going to bring up propoganda posters here. These may not be "art" in the sense of what we typically mean art to mean, but they are so very important in the chanelling of public attitudes in austere times.

You look at how they portray one's own troops. They're always strong, iconic, mighty, proud, dehumanised in a way that makes you feel secure and trusting of them. Then you look at the enemy nation. They're always sinister, evil, and dehumanised in the worst ways possible. Take the German Verdunkeln poster, the Allied forces shown as Death himself, skeletal and relishing in throwing bombs on a city.

Also, consider the way political leaders are portrayed. They're rarely seen in the same way as the above. The enemy leaders tended to be shown as ineffectual and something to be mocked. Mussolini is goofy. Hitler's a bit camp. Never mind the fact that these individuals were driving the faceless fascist menace across Europe! They're silly and funny!

There's a refuge in audacity and the people who make these posters know that if their own people can't make fun of these enemy figureheads, their spirit on the home front will break. It's just as important to play psychological warfare in these situations, too.

rob//gryffindor

[slumber.livejournal.com]

Heh, I actually thought of propaganda posters first when I saw this topic. I just think there's something fascinating with watching what a few posters can do to influence the sentiments of the nation. Granted, I'm not sure how effective they ultimately were, but considering the fact that they've become somewhat iconic must surely account for something, right?

Evy//Ravenclaw

[c-hrista.livejournal.com]

As a positive thing, using art to convey a political message can sometimes be done in a way that is vague enough not to pull attention from the actual political entities involved. With arts' ability the be abstract and interpreted in many ways, it's fairly easy to place meaning to a piece (or try to take meaning away from it).

One of the dangers with any kind of artistic propaganda, though, can be for people to want to get involved without knowing all the facts behind decisions made, or for people to jump to conclusions without knowing the entire story.

Christa // Gryff

[singlemomsummer.livejournal.com]

That's very true, how many times have people acted on one piece of information, be it from a photograph, a painting, or even a story, when really it's only a small bit. This could definitely be a negative to the use of art as a political message.

Summer//Hufflepuff

[slumber.livejournal.com]

One of the dangers with any kind of artistic propaganda, though, can be for people to want to get involved without knowing all the facts behind decisions made, or for people to jump to conclusions without knowing the entire story.

I agree so very wholeheartedly with this. I like the snappy one-line comments or one-picture images that are usually depicted, and especially in the context of war, but you're right. More often than not what happens is an oversimplification of ideas and thoughts that mislead people into certain ways of thinking without presenting the whole picture to them. In that sense, they can be dangerous. Perhaps art that reminds people to think for themselves would be useful? :P

Evy//Ravenclaw

[defined.livejournal.com]

What are the positives and negatives to using art as a form of expression under a restrictive regime?
In a restrictive regime, I think art is one of the best ways one can express themselves. If someone can't speak out without fear of being killed/harmed/jailed, they can instead create something that subtly gets their message across to other people. Admittedly, it would take someone creative to make something that was subtle enough not to get them in trouble with the authorities. But still, art is probably the best outlet to express themselves in that situation. The image could be passed around and people could get the message before anyone caught on. Of course the negative side is if the authorities figure out what is going on and are offended/threatened by it, they could punish the artist anyway. And in such a restrictive regime, it may be hard to pass the image along to others. Either way, in this situation, art can be a very powerful tool for the resistance.

Chelsea//Ravenclaw

[singlemomsummer.livejournal.com]

I really like the idea of being able to pass a message through a piece of art. Something like in the film "12 monkeys" where they used a specific symbol spray painted in specific places in order to let people know where to meet, or to help spread a message. I personally feel this is one of the best uses of art in times like these.

Summer//Hufflepuff

[singlemomsummer.livejournal.com]

To answer the question on how art can help people work through their feelings I believe that a lot of times just the act of putting your feelings down on paper/canvas/whatever helps you become more detached. The emotions become less raw in your own psyche when you see them externalized. The opposite can become true for the viewer however. Where the artist has a sense of catharsis the viewer can see and feel the emotion for themselves. The work doesn't need to be representative in order to be expressive either. Some could argue that even the most abstract art can convey strong emotion.

Summer//Hufflepuff