We were assigned two readings for this Marking Period's Connect Post. The first, titled "WHEN MODERN ART MET MODERN WARFARE," described many different exhibits with the theme of War throughout galleries and museums worldwide, with a focus on the Great War (WWI). The article also, interestingly, addressed the connections between various wars and the regional art movements they inspired. For example, in Great Britain, following WWI there was a rejection of Modernism, because it was connected with the Germans. Contrastingly, in Germany, as a way to deny their guilt or avoid the economic devastation they faced, German artists turned to the beginnings of Expressionist art (2).
The second article, from the New York Times, "Horror Is a Constant, as Artists Depict War," details the pervasive, unchanging, purely human imagery of warfare and suffering. Beginning with the Napoleonic Wars and the evoking imagery of Goya's "Disasters of War," the article described the shift from heroic portrayals of war to contemporary images of the pain that inevitably follows, juxtaposing the striking artwork and memorabilia. The mixture of classic art and photography showed a shift between propaganda-style artwork created for the governments and true representations of the violence and atrocities of modern warfare (e.g. WWII and the Vietnam War.
Both articles brought up the complicated issue of distinguishing art from (photo)journalism. While the first reading stated, somewhat definitely, that "It’s not photojournalism" (6), the Ms. Dorléac in the New York Times Article said that "a documentary photo or a journalistic photo is art when one is completely taken in by it and, at the same time, one is transported by it. The artist helps us to understand the world. It is of little import whether he does sculpture or painting. The same is true of a press photograph."(4) Personally, I strongly believe that photography can be art, or that evocative images can, over time, become so important to a culture that they are transformed into art. The readings also inspired the question of whether or not an artist's reaction to war is the same as that of a soldier. Additionally, the reading begged the question whether or not war was consistently as traumatic, or whether modern warfare techniques worsened the effects.
The two readings both addressed the theme of War and the prevalence of that theme in artwork, although the first had a focus on World War I and multiple exhibits and the second focused on the horrors of war within one specific exhibit. Both readings were interesting; however, I preferred the New York Times article because it broke the third wall and brought up issues of both war but also the lines between art and reporting; as both a wannabe journalist and a wannabe artist, this was particularly fascinating. I also felt that the first article was weak because it did not provide a perspective or much new information besides mentioning a number of different exhibits on the topic.
The second article, from the New York Times, "Horror Is a Constant, as Artists Depict War," details the pervasive, unchanging, purely human imagery of warfare and suffering. Beginning with the Napoleonic Wars and the evoking imagery of Goya's "Disasters of War," the article described the shift from heroic portrayals of war to contemporary images of the pain that inevitably follows, juxtaposing the striking artwork and memorabilia. The mixture of classic art and photography showed a shift between propaganda-style artwork created for the governments and true representations of the violence and atrocities of modern warfare (e.g. WWII and the Vietnam War.
Both articles brought up the complicated issue of distinguishing art from (photo)journalism. While the first reading stated, somewhat definitely, that "It’s not photojournalism" (6), the Ms. Dorléac in the New York Times Article said that "a documentary photo or a journalistic photo is art when one is completely taken in by it and, at the same time, one is transported by it. The artist helps us to understand the world. It is of little import whether he does sculpture or painting. The same is true of a press photograph."(4) Personally, I strongly believe that photography can be art, or that evocative images can, over time, become so important to a culture that they are transformed into art. The readings also inspired the question of whether or not an artist's reaction to war is the same as that of a soldier. Additionally, the reading begged the question whether or not war was consistently as traumatic, or whether modern warfare techniques worsened the effects.
The two readings both addressed the theme of War and the prevalence of that theme in artwork, although the first had a focus on World War I and multiple exhibits and the second focused on the horrors of war within one specific exhibit. Both readings were interesting; however, I preferred the New York Times article because it broke the third wall and brought up issues of both war but also the lines between art and reporting; as both a wannabe journalist and a wannabe artist, this was particularly fascinating. I also felt that the first article was weak because it did not provide a perspective or much new information besides mentioning a number of different exhibits on the topic.