I wrote this in a cultural history class a couple of years ago. It's damn short because it wasn't an essay, just a brief text about a piece of art, but since I'm going to see the painting on Friday I thought I'd post it warts and all.
Pablo Picasso’s Guernica is both one of his most famous works and one of the most famous artistic depictions of war ever created. Its power is especially interesting because it, out of all the artistic output surrounding the Spanish Civil War, is not an explicit depiction of the war, but a piece with much vaguer and more slippery symbolism. It is a “miraculous blend of personal and political feeling”(1) and given this, it is possible to look at Guernica in two ways—in terms of its overall message and impact, and in terms of the specific symbolism and the process of its creation.
Overall meaning
In terms of overall impact, the imagery is also quite straight-forward—the title and history gives us the context—Guernica was a “holy” Basque city (the site of the Oak tree under which the ancient parliament once sat)(1), which was destroyed by saturation bombing in 1937 by the German Condor Region. Reportage the next day sparked swift and worldwide outrage (except for in Fascist countries). The painting is a visceral and emotionally gripping reaction to an outrageous war-crime. Faces of victims are contorted in fear and pain, mouths open and screaming. There is a woman holding a dead child, a soldier dead on the ground, other figures which seem in the process of dying. Taken as a whole, the mood and subject of the piece is fairly easy to discern, which would help account for the popularity and widespread impact it had on even the non-avant-garde and non-artistic community. In style, it is much like his other Cubist paintings, but with “solid classical underpinnings … like a High Renaissance altarpiece”(3) which give it symmetry and stability. Despite its clarity and resonance as an overall piece, however, there have been many interpretations of the specific symbols in the finished work and what they mean.
The imagery
Picasso painted Guernica very quickly after the bombing occurred. The process by which it was created has been documented with a series of photographs, which show the gradual evolution of the work, elements removed and others heavily modified with each stage(5). Two of the more significant changes are removal of the soldier with a fist raised in communist/anti-fascist salute(6), and the disappearance of the Pegasus, a symbol of hope born in conflict(7). Other symbols remain central to the painting, and the meaning of several of these is very diversely interpreted despite the overall unity of Guernica.
There are virtually as many interpretations as there are interpreters, particularly of the bull’s symbolism. What is its facial expression? Is it protective of the woman near it? Defiant in the face of the destruction or indifferent to all the suffering? Is it a symbol of darkness and cruelty as Picasso himself claimed? Is it a passive spectator and “psychologically removed” and thus emblematic of the non-intervening France?(8) Does it represent some sort of eternal traditional Spain as a bull often does(9) or, more specifically, Loyalist/Republican Spain standing helpless? Does it represent the artist himself, who often identified himself with the Minotaur figure in other paintings as a kind of alter-ego?(10) All of these things can be read in the face of the bull and its posture and most have been argued by different critics and art historians.
Picasso’s prior use of the image of the bull (and horse) is not much help in determining meaning either. As stated already, he used a minotaur as an alter-ego, and he had depicted bullfights and bulls fighting horses in past paintings(11). At the time of Guernica he has recently used the bull image, destroying a representation of Franco in the etching The Dream and Lie of Franco(12)—it is possible to derive exactly opposite interpretations based on these different depictions(13). The bull could either be a cruel agent of the destruction or a defiant but suffering victim.
Likewise, Picasso’s statements have been typically contradictory and minimal—he once claimed that the bull represented generalised brutality as previously mentioned, and later said merely that the bull is just a bull, the horse just a horse(14). The obvious conclusion is that there is no specific meaning. The most interesting aspect of these debates, however, is the wide gulf between the confusion over the specific symbolism and the universal recognition of the power and meaning of the overall work. Regardless of these interpretations, at the end of the day it is a powerful work depicting the outrage at the bombing of Guernica.
Picasso’s personal relationship to the work also bears attention. It has been said that much of his work was autobiographical, and Guernica is, despite the political themes, not necessarily an exception. It is readily observable that the images of death and destruction in Guernica are not specific to an aerial firebombing. There are no planes or explosions, it is a more generalised depiction of chaos and trauma(15). Instead, he “possessed a source deep within himself” of similar images—when he was three he experienced a destructive 3-day earthquake in Málaga and was able to describe the scenes vividly even 50 years later. It is likely that, in order to depict such harrowing scenes of destruction and confusion, Picasso was drawing on these memories. This is especially evident in his earlier sketches—they bear a “peculiar, childlike quality”(16) which could be explained by the forcible reminder of these early memories. Thus, as well as a work of political impact, it bears a powerful autobiographical element that perhaps helped lend it such primordial power.
Popular Impact
One final aspect that needs to be addressed is the impact Guernica had after its unveiling. It quickly became an iconic piece of anti-war propaganda/art, and, through its accessibility (at least, the accessibility of the overall composition, rather than the specific symbolism) and power it served to bring abstract art into greater public attention and into greater political acceptance on the left. It was well-received by the left and liberal bourgeoisie in Paris and “played a decisive role in winning over the left to avant-gardism in painting and convincing them that it was possible to make political statements using non-realist forms” whereas previously they had been somewhat wary of such notions. As to impact on the liberal bourgeoisie, it helped to spread the notion that art could go beyond art for arts sake and “seek a reference outside a circumscribed bourgeois notion of art”(18). It became politically significant well beyond artistic circles, thanks to the efforts of numerous artists, politicians, intellectuals and organisations, and was involved in the increasing awareness of the struggle in Spain and of Fascism in general. It became an icon, and was equally at home in galleries or on the streets(19).
1. M Gedo, Picasso: Art as autobiography, (University of Chicago, USA, 1980), p173
2. H Southworth, Guernica! Guernica, (University of California, USA, 1977), p xii
3. Gedo, Picasso, p173
4. R Witschnitzer, ‘Picasso’s Guernica: a matter of metaphor’ Artibus Et Historae, vol 6, no 12, 1985, p153-72 – contains pictures and descriptions of each stage of the process
5. Ibid p156
6. N Glendinning, ‘Art and the Spanish Civil War’, !No Pasarán! Art, literature and the Spanish Civil War, ed S Hart, (Tamesis Books, Spain, 1988), p41
7. Gedo, Picasso, p174
8. Witschnitzer, ‘Picasso’s Guernica’, p158 – this is part of a broader analysis linking aspects of the painting with aspects of the international political situation
9. PBS, ‘Treasures of the World - Questions of meaning’, http://www.pbs.org/treasuresoftheworld/a_nav/guernica_nav/gnav_level_1/5meaning_guerfrm.html (Accessed Thur 12 Oct 2006)
10. Gedo, Picasso, p174
11. N Basaria, ‘Picasso’s Bullfights’, http://blogs.princeton.edu/wri152-3/nbisaria (accessed Fri 13 Oct)
12. Gedo, Picasso, p174
13. C Gottlieb, ‘The meaning of the bull and horse in Guernica’ Art Journal, Vol 24, no 2, Winter 1964-65, p106
14. PBS, ‘Treasures of the World’
15. N Glendinning, ‘Art and the Spanish Civil War’, !No Pasarán! Art, literature and the Spanish Civil War, ed S Hart, (Tamesis Books, Spain, 1988), p41
16. Gedo, Picasso, p178-84
17. J Held, A Potts, ‘How do the political effects of pictures come about? The case of Picasso’s Guernica’, Oxford Art Journal, Vol 11, No 1, 1988, p33
18. Ibid, p33
19. Ibid, p34-46
Pablo Picasso’s Guernica is both one of his most famous works and one of the most famous artistic depictions of war ever created. Its power is especially interesting because it, out of all the artistic output surrounding the Spanish Civil War, is not an explicit depiction of the war, but a piece with much vaguer and more slippery symbolism. It is a “miraculous blend of personal and political feeling”(1) and given this, it is possible to look at Guernica in two ways—in terms of its overall message and impact, and in terms of the specific symbolism and the process of its creation.
Overall meaning
In terms of overall impact, the imagery is also quite straight-forward—the title and history gives us the context—Guernica was a “holy” Basque city (the site of the Oak tree under which the ancient parliament once sat)(1), which was destroyed by saturation bombing in 1937 by the German Condor Region. Reportage the next day sparked swift and worldwide outrage (except for in Fascist countries). The painting is a visceral and emotionally gripping reaction to an outrageous war-crime. Faces of victims are contorted in fear and pain, mouths open and screaming. There is a woman holding a dead child, a soldier dead on the ground, other figures which seem in the process of dying. Taken as a whole, the mood and subject of the piece is fairly easy to discern, which would help account for the popularity and widespread impact it had on even the non-avant-garde and non-artistic community. In style, it is much like his other Cubist paintings, but with “solid classical underpinnings … like a High Renaissance altarpiece”(3) which give it symmetry and stability. Despite its clarity and resonance as an overall piece, however, there have been many interpretations of the specific symbols in the finished work and what they mean.
The imagery
Picasso painted Guernica very quickly after the bombing occurred. The process by which it was created has been documented with a series of photographs, which show the gradual evolution of the work, elements removed and others heavily modified with each stage(5). Two of the more significant changes are removal of the soldier with a fist raised in communist/anti-fascist salute(6), and the disappearance of the Pegasus, a symbol of hope born in conflict(7). Other symbols remain central to the painting, and the meaning of several of these is very diversely interpreted despite the overall unity of Guernica.
There are virtually as many interpretations as there are interpreters, particularly of the bull’s symbolism. What is its facial expression? Is it protective of the woman near it? Defiant in the face of the destruction or indifferent to all the suffering? Is it a symbol of darkness and cruelty as Picasso himself claimed? Is it a passive spectator and “psychologically removed” and thus emblematic of the non-intervening France?(8) Does it represent some sort of eternal traditional Spain as a bull often does(9) or, more specifically, Loyalist/Republican Spain standing helpless? Does it represent the artist himself, who often identified himself with the Minotaur figure in other paintings as a kind of alter-ego?(10) All of these things can be read in the face of the bull and its posture and most have been argued by different critics and art historians.
Picasso’s prior use of the image of the bull (and horse) is not much help in determining meaning either. As stated already, he used a minotaur as an alter-ego, and he had depicted bullfights and bulls fighting horses in past paintings(11). At the time of Guernica he has recently used the bull image, destroying a representation of Franco in the etching The Dream and Lie of Franco(12)—it is possible to derive exactly opposite interpretations based on these different depictions(13). The bull could either be a cruel agent of the destruction or a defiant but suffering victim.
Likewise, Picasso’s statements have been typically contradictory and minimal—he once claimed that the bull represented generalised brutality as previously mentioned, and later said merely that the bull is just a bull, the horse just a horse(14). The obvious conclusion is that there is no specific meaning. The most interesting aspect of these debates, however, is the wide gulf between the confusion over the specific symbolism and the universal recognition of the power and meaning of the overall work. Regardless of these interpretations, at the end of the day it is a powerful work depicting the outrage at the bombing of Guernica.
Picasso’s personal relationship to the work also bears attention. It has been said that much of his work was autobiographical, and Guernica is, despite the political themes, not necessarily an exception. It is readily observable that the images of death and destruction in Guernica are not specific to an aerial firebombing. There are no planes or explosions, it is a more generalised depiction of chaos and trauma(15). Instead, he “possessed a source deep within himself” of similar images—when he was three he experienced a destructive 3-day earthquake in Málaga and was able to describe the scenes vividly even 50 years later. It is likely that, in order to depict such harrowing scenes of destruction and confusion, Picasso was drawing on these memories. This is especially evident in his earlier sketches—they bear a “peculiar, childlike quality”(16) which could be explained by the forcible reminder of these early memories. Thus, as well as a work of political impact, it bears a powerful autobiographical element that perhaps helped lend it such primordial power.
Popular Impact
One final aspect that needs to be addressed is the impact Guernica had after its unveiling. It quickly became an iconic piece of anti-war propaganda/art, and, through its accessibility (at least, the accessibility of the overall composition, rather than the specific symbolism) and power it served to bring abstract art into greater public attention and into greater political acceptance on the left. It was well-received by the left and liberal bourgeoisie in Paris and “played a decisive role in winning over the left to avant-gardism in painting and convincing them that it was possible to make political statements using non-realist forms” whereas previously they had been somewhat wary of such notions. As to impact on the liberal bourgeoisie, it helped to spread the notion that art could go beyond art for arts sake and “seek a reference outside a circumscribed bourgeois notion of art”(18). It became politically significant well beyond artistic circles, thanks to the efforts of numerous artists, politicians, intellectuals and organisations, and was involved in the increasing awareness of the struggle in Spain and of Fascism in general. It became an icon, and was equally at home in galleries or on the streets(19).
1. M Gedo, Picasso: Art as autobiography, (University of Chicago, USA, 1980), p173
2. H Southworth, Guernica! Guernica, (University of California, USA, 1977), p xii
3. Gedo, Picasso, p173
4. R Witschnitzer, ‘Picasso’s Guernica: a matter of metaphor’ Artibus Et Historae, vol 6, no 12, 1985, p153-72 – contains pictures and descriptions of each stage of the process
5. Ibid p156
6. N Glendinning, ‘Art and the Spanish Civil War’, !No Pasarán! Art, literature and the Spanish Civil War, ed S Hart, (Tamesis Books, Spain, 1988), p41
7. Gedo, Picasso, p174
8. Witschnitzer, ‘Picasso’s Guernica’, p158 – this is part of a broader analysis linking aspects of the painting with aspects of the international political situation
9. PBS, ‘Treasures of the World - Questions of meaning’, http://www.pbs.org/treasuresoftheworld/a_nav/guernica_nav/gnav_level_1/5meaning_guerfrm.html (Accessed Thur 12 Oct 2006)
10. Gedo, Picasso, p174
11. N Basaria, ‘Picasso’s Bullfights’, http://blogs.princeton.edu/wri152-3/nbisaria (accessed Fri 13 Oct)
12. Gedo, Picasso, p174
13. C Gottlieb, ‘The meaning of the bull and horse in Guernica’ Art Journal, Vol 24, no 2, Winter 1964-65, p106
14. PBS, ‘Treasures of the World’
15. N Glendinning, ‘Art and the Spanish Civil War’, !No Pasarán! Art, literature and the Spanish Civil War, ed S Hart, (Tamesis Books, Spain, 1988), p41
16. Gedo, Picasso, p178-84
17. J Held, A Potts, ‘How do the political effects of pictures come about? The case of Picasso’s Guernica’, Oxford Art Journal, Vol 11, No 1, 1988, p33
18. Ibid, p33
19. Ibid, p34-46
