Connection Post: Artist Reaction to War

    In the article titled “Horror Is a Constant, as Artists Depict War,” by Alissa J. Rubin, the topic of focus is the content and message of artwork depicting real world conflict and violence. Rubin examines the nature of these artistic reactions in both medium and visual content. She also analyzes the aspects and war art also found in journalism, as well as what differentiates the two.
    The aspect of this article that stood out to me the most was the key questions about war-reaction art, particularly the ones about the goal of the work and what aspects would make it the most effective to the audience. Near the bottom of the second page she asks “Are gore and blood the most important things to portray, or is it the moment of utter grief that follows?” To answer this question is very much an opinion, and very personal. For wide spread attention, depicting the actual violence is much more of an attention grabbing subject. However capturing pure grief is something so raw that it will elicit a more deep reaction with the viewers it does attract. 
    The second article, “When Modern Art Met Modern Warfare,” by Ann-Marie Michel, brings up a very similar topic that helped me answer the question above. One the second and third pages Michel writes about the use of anonymous faces of soldiers in World War One paintings. The painter “believes that seeing these faces helps the viewer move past the facts and figures.” This exemplifies the personalized aspect of war and coping mechanisms. By adding in the faces of those who suffered, it may not be flashy but the connection of the artwork to the backstory and the audience is much more real.
    George Clausen’s allegorical painting Youth Mourning, 1916, is the perfect example of an artists depiction of grief in response to war. It completely embodies the personalization and aspects of grief discussed in both articles.

​