Glorious to Gruesome: Callot, Goya, and Picasso, and the Art of War.

For centuries, art has glorified war. Ancient Greek statues of warrior heroes, portraits of great generals going off to battle, recreations of enemy surrender, paintings and drawings calling men to fight to protect their country, all represent war as glorious. Artists visually capturing war have used their talents to evoke a sense of patriotism as well as pride in soldiery, and to document historical events during conflict. Some of the more well-known instances of art relating to war and aiming to evoke patriotism are World War Two propaganda posters encouraging soldiers to arms and women to the factories. For the United States, Uncle Sam and Rosie the Riveter both looked directly at the viewer, calling them personally to the war effort, with Uncle Sam pointing to the men and Rosie telling the women they could take care of the home front. Such images stem from a long tradition of art motivating duty by glorifying heroic efforts. In 1851, the artist Emanuel Leutze portrayed George Washington--one of the most revered figures in United States history--as a mighty general standing tall and proud in a long boat crossing the icy Delaware River. Painted during the Revolutions of 1848, it was meant to encourage the liberators of Europe by representing the first great victory of the American Revolution. (1) Likewise, Hyacinthe Rigaud's warrior-like portrait of King Louis XIV of France shows the absolute power and militaristic strengthen Louis held, and Eugene Delacroix's Liberty Leading the People encourages her compatriots to move forward and fight for the liberation of the French. Art displaying hubris, or even aggression, has been used as a way of instilling war figures with honor, dignity, and pride. As Esther Averill declares, "[military] Art had usually stressed the glory of battle and the joy of conquest." (2)

Whether creating propaganda posters or recreating iconic scenes in history, artists have always had a purpose including documenting the effects of war. Artists create to memorialize events, express emotions, and tell stories. Prior to the invention of photography, paintings, drawings, and etchings were the only way to capture an image. For this reason, artists have as much power to represent reality visually, as authors have with the power of word choice. One can look at different paintings of George Washington and infer the artists' political feelings as Washington is variously portrayed as handsome and stately, or old and feeble. Like literature, art invites viewers to draw from their own experiences and perceptions when interpreting a work. Since art typically is a composition layering image and color, the viewer can find hidden meanings through analysis and close observation. Likewise, because art is so subjective, some critics believe that artists have a moral obligation to present images responsibly. These critics condemn artists for using their work frivolously as a way to mislead the public. As a New York journalist stated at the start of the American Civil War, "'ARTISTS! ... remember that your elegant brushes are recording the history of a nation.'" (3) Although this concept of "recording" may be a noble goal, it is rarely applied in practice. Artists throughout history have used their work to persuade, influence, and even deceive the public, especially when depicting war. Patriotism, politics, and propaganda invade war art, and artists take advantage of their medium to push forward their own personal agendas.

Although the victories and heroism of war have been popular subjects of art, war obviously has a dark side. Joanna Bourke states in her introduction to War and Art: A Visual History of Modern Conflict, "War is the most destructive activity known to humanity. Its purpose is to use violence to compel opponents to submit and surrender." (4) In other words, war is only glorifying to the winner. Artists traditionally record the winning side, but what about the losing side; the side that has fallen? What about the dark, the cruel, and the ugly? William Astore, a retired Lieutenant Colonel of the United States Armed Forces, writes, "War is not glorious. It may feature noble deeds and remarkable sacrifices, but it also features brutality and many other bloody realities. War breaks men (and women) down. It does so because war is unnatural." (5 ) Artists down the centuries have understood this reality, yet few have chosen to depict the brutality in overt ways. However, three artists--Jacques Callot, Francisco Goya, and Pablo Picasso--chose to explore the darker side of war. These men experienced war first-hand, witnessing the cruelty and atrocity of battle--war was in their backyards. Although none of these artists were soldiers, each of them by design or accident, viewed the bloodshed and experienced the repercussions of warfare. Profoundly affected by conflict, Callot, Goya, and Picasso became the chroniclers of combat for their audiences; they also have provided people with a way to see, even centuries later, the cruelties of conflict. These three artists recorded the violence of their times by depicting the horrors of war, demonizing their enemies, and making a great impact with their art by dramatizing war.

This paper will examine the effects of war and how they are interpreted by Callot, Goya, and Picasso. How each of these artists used their work to portray the brutalities of combat to influence public opinion will be evident through the examination of the works presented here. The circumstances of their times, the effects war had on the artists themselves, and the various fashions in art will be discussed in relation to illuminating the trauma of battle as opposed to glorifying heroes. Firstly, this paper examines how the artists depict war and its horrors through color, style, context, and symbolism. Secondly, the dark side of war is discussed as these artist demonize their enemies, either making them neutral to both parties, faceless, or removed completely from the image. Likewise, the use of vulnerable victims, such as the clergy, women, and children are exploited in order to manipulate the viewers' emotions. Finally, dramatization was used by each artist to present the images as a grand statement and add to the repugnance of the situation. Through depiction, demonization, and dramatization, Callot, Goya, and Picasso all reveal a clear hatred for war and the effects it had on not only the military, but society as well.

Today, soldiers and generals are typically no longer immortalized by etchings and paintings. With the advent of photography and film, the soldier is made real through the image rather than the imagination. Television and computer screens bring war in real-time to anyone interested in watching. However, during the Thirty Years' War (1618-1648), The Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815), and The Spanish Civil War (1936-1939), unless one was an eyewitness on the scene the horrors of the event were experienced only through report. Often receiving news by word of mouth or through newspaper articles, people did not have the luxury of instant news or vivid images of war. Critics today say that Picasso's Guernica is an "important artistic and social document," and Callot is described as an early documenter of the violent Thirty Years' War because of his Les Miseres et les Mal-Heures de Guerre. (6) Artists like Callot, Goya, and Picasso brought the devastation to life through paintings so people could understand the reality and remember the costs of war.

The way that a scene is depicted is crucial to the intent of the artist. Setting a mood establishes whether an image will be viewed as uplifting or disturbing. The methods of depiction are important to the antiwar messages these artists present by allowing them to use their craft to impact the public mind. Depiction is defined as "representation in image form, as in a painting or illustration." (7) The way something is illustrated, including the media used, produces a specific effect and determines how a message is received. Style, color, and light are essential components needed to bring to life the times and emotions of the artist. A painting done in an Abstract style gives a different impression than one painted in the Baroque, and with changing styles come changing ideas and ideals. "[A]rtists have blended colours, textures and patterns to depict wartime ideologies, practices, values and symbols" to express their views on war. (8) By studying the grotesque horrors of combat and focusing on the gruesome instead of the glorious, artists depict and enhance the violence of war and allow those who have not been exposed to conflict to be enlightened. The artist's work "investigates not only artistic responses to war, but the meaning of violence itself." (9)

Picasso is a prime example of how the evolving style of art can impact the way war is perceived. Picasso lived when Europe was being pulled apart. During the three year Spanish Civil War, the fight for the Republic against Spanish nationalists was in full swing, with Francisco Franco at the helm of the Nationalist movement. A leader in Cubism style nearing the beginning of the Second World War, Picasso lived in Paris when he painted one of his best-known pieces, Guernica. This painting was inspired by the small town of the same name in northern Spain that was known for its Basque culture and industry. On April 26, 1937, a year into the Spanish Civil War, German air raids relentlessly bombed Guernica, destroying most of the town. As one eyewitness states, "Guernica, city with 5,000 residents, has been literally razed to the ground." (10) The number of casualties are unknown, estimates recorded around 1600 victims. In a time of artistic freedom, the style of Cubism allowed artists to experiment with shapes in a way that had not been explored before. Defined features and authentic colors disappeared in paintings of this style, which liberated the artist to express him- or...