Can Art End Wars, or Start Them?
by Adam Leipzig
“Some art depicts war. Some art ends it,” declares a sign outside the Art Institute of Chicago, beckoning visitors to experience two moving exhibits that close on Sunday. The first is a gigantic display of strikingly large-scale propaganda posters that appeared in the windows of Moscow’s TASS News Agency during the Second World War. The posters, created by a collective of artists and writers, chronicled the war and aimed to encourage Soviet citizens.
The second exhibit, Belligerent Encounters, displays European and American prints, posters, and drawings spanning almost 500 years of war and revolution. These horrendous images are the stuff of nightmares and leave nothing to the imagination; they show atrocities and suffering of war as graphically as any video we see today.
Which makes me sad – because with all this knowledge of what war does, with artists working at the full force of their powers to scare and intimidate us from perpetrating future terrors, these images seem to have done nothing to stop brutal conflict in the world.
The most we can say about the TASS windows is that they depicted the stages of the war, and did something to keep up the spirits of the Russian people. But they certainly did not end WWII.
Art often depicts the horror of war. Art often is used to rally a population – for good or for ill. But can art really start a war or end one? That’s today’s question. Take the survey, and share your comments below.
Images: Photo taken outside the museum; Poster from the TASS windows; Francisco José de Goya y Lucientes, “A Heroic Feat! With Dead Men!,” plate 39 from The Disasters of War, c. 1812/15, published 1863.
Filed Under: ART + ARCHITECTURE, OUR WORLD, Recent Posts
Comments (2)
Jack Grapes
October 20th, 2011 at 3:16 PM
Provocative questions always beg discussion of the question even before an answer can be given. I dislike any attempt to define what "art" is, since the definition always involves an attempt by the one doing the defining to control the artist–the definition says what the artist is allowed to do in order for what they do to be considered "art by those in power. But in this case, one bumps up against the problem in taking it to another level–not what art is, but can art stop or start a war. Is all art propaganda, and is all propaganda art? Assuming for the moment that we'll call that point moot–for better or worse, art and propaganda are the same thing–the question remains, can art or propaganda stop or start a war? I would think the easier question would be can it effect the way people think and feel. If the answer to that is yes, which seems obvious, the real question becomes, can "people" stop or start a war, or is it really in the hands of those who really have the power, who control the military, the economic forces, and perhaps, by extension, the dissemination of art and propaganda, bringing us full circle. Who really controls art and propaganda? I've certainly seen enough art that should have stopped wars but didn't, and enough artistic propaganda that helped create support for a war that those in power wanted. We seem to be going in a circle with this. So, the final conclusion I draw from my own attempt to make sense of the question is that maybe art's function is not to stop or start a way. Art does something else, and it can last for a longer period of time than a momentary spur to social action. So here's my answer: Art that stops or starts a way is not art, it's propaganda. Art is not propaganda. And now I've backed myself into a corner into which I didn't want to be backed. I didn't want to define art. And I just have. I've just elected myself Commissar of Art with my first proclamation: Art is not propaganda. See? So let me fire myself and say that my proclamation only applies to the original question. Otherwise, here's how I would define art: Art is what the artist does. Case closed. Now I can get back to my painting, which I hope will stop the next war.
Karen C. Angermayer
October 20th, 2011 at 3:19 PM
Thank you, Adam!
I think that as long as humankind doesn´t recognize that we are all here to make certain experiences, art will stay in the position of "showing but not changing". (which is, of course, the first and necessary step…)
To really change anything in anyone you have to make people feel and deeply recognize WHY we had to have such experiences in the past – and bring people to the point of saying: "Thank you. I understand the lesson. Let´s move on to new experiences."
And this might be the hardest part of all: to move a huge mass of people who are not willing to think about the lessons – or even think at all!
But as far as I experience it in my networks (and hopefully one day in the whole country/world) people are slowly, but constantly changing their minds towards the WE instead of the I – which is the basis for ending war (and the basis of ending any conflict with anyone).
It´s my deep believe that life´s purpose is not to harm us, but to support us on our way to live our full potentials – and that this is true for everyone, though some people choose experiences we quickly jugde or label as "terrible" or "unbearable".
Coming to an end I think the hardest part of the job of all arts is to make people feel and believe in this "higher plan" lying underneath all happenings – and then to lift us up to a level where we can let these experiences go and dive deep into the next ones – with fun and joy and an awareness of beauty in all things!
Wish you a beautiful day!
Karen, Writer, Germany
Leave a reply