her glory and shame

We all like the arts.

I like romcoms, Chuck Palahniuk novels, and spoken work; you might like graphic arts, Warhol, and video game design— no matter what or how different the pieces you or I choose to admire are, the fact is that we both are fascinated by art. The two of us, and everyone else really, are appreciating the crafted delicacies of our world. That‘s the best thing about it, to me: art is amazing because it’s a product of our culture.

Honestly, I just like being able to put Fight Club into everything I do. (But we don’t talk about that.)

So Chuck’s black humor and down-with-society memo are remnants of popular opinion in the Post-Modern world. Warhol’s abstraction is a protest to the rigidity of society and materialism. Your t-shirt and jeans combo is a product of the fashion sense of our time.

And, according to Fahs, Walt Whitman’s patriotic subject matter and Emily Dickinson’s increasingly cynical outlook are products of the culture of war.

That’s not so hard to believe, when you take the time to analyze and contextualize their works, as we did in class. Culture is directly affected by war, regardless of how invasive (or not) the battles are to everyday life; art, as a piece of culture, is reflective of these conditions and their outcomes. After all, Dickinson never saw a lick of the front, but she still wrote that victory came too late.

Understanding the inspiration behind a piece, therefore, can help in understanding  In his novel Immortality, Milan Kundera wrote:

War and culture, those are the two poles of Europe, her heaven and hell, her glory and shame, and they cannot be separated from one another… The fact that no war has broken out in Europe for fifty years is connected in some mysterious way with the fact that for fifty years no new Picasso has appeared either.

War and art, as Kundera points out here, are tied together. He calls them “the two poles of Europe,” but I would argue against this Eurocentrism because they can really be called “the two poles of” every region’s society. Take a look, for example, at some works created in the aftermath of the Gulf War, the huge Middle Eastern battle of 1991.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

These works are by Iraqi artists Hanaa Malallah and Kareem Risan, both of whom fled their countries in light of the war.

The first was created by Malallah. Entitled “Illuminated Ruins,” it depicts her ruins technique. This technique uses found items and waste material, which are burned onto a canvas. Malallah literally developed it after having seen the destruction of her homeland, and describes the inspiration as “ruination is the essence of all being.” She claims that the technique is not a product of war, but it is “contemporaneous comment upon destruction and the inherent violent nature of the human condition worldwide.” Yet this new view on the world, I would argue, is a product of war, and that is reflected in her artwork.

The next three are parts of Risan’s collection called Uranium Civilization. He described the  collection as a coping mechanism for the war; he found that painting the “human and social destruction” he saw in Baghdad helped him come to terms with the horrific use of depleted uranium, outlawed, by the United States. Here he displays the tragedies, as depicted by the chaotic, angry brushstrokes. War, he seems to be saying, is destruction.

These artists both are influenced by their experiences, whether they admitted to it or not. Their works are clearly evidence that the Gulf War contributed to their subject matter and technique. Like Dickinson and Whitman, both capture their emotions of war in their artwork. And like Dickinson and Whitman, maybe we can learn something about common humanity in the midst of a war-torn world.


2 thoughts on “her glory and shame

  1. mehrond says:

    Hey Nikki, I loved the idea for this blog. It draws interesting lines between war and art and the idea that perhaps art thrives on war. The second half of this post regarding “immortality” and the two Iraqi artists was wonderfully done, but the first half seemed to suffer some issues. There was a combination of odd word choice (a lick of the front), choppy transitions between paragraphs, and grammatical errors that made it difficult to read, but the underlying message was solid. The way in which you deliver your points could be improved in the first half, but from and idea and argument standpoint, it was a well organized post.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Greg Krueper says:

    Hi Nikki. Like you, I find the connection between art and war fascinating, and I found your ending particularly succinct. However, the quote from Milan Kundera confused me; it implies that war can be caused by a “new Picasso,” and I simply don’t understand how that is possible. The beginning of your post was also rather confusing with its frequent introduction of new names, only half of which I easily recognize. Anyway, it was quite refreshing to see some artwork from outside the First World.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s