A War Artist's Dream
GERALD O'CONNELL
war artist's subject. It is the epitome of human evil, the scourge against
which NATO's ground forces are defenceless. Its menace causes war to be
waged from safe distances. It eats women and children, crushes hedgerows
with cruel disregard for wildlife, renders our demands non-negotiable by
virtue of its cunning and treachery. It is driven by a man to whom genocide,
infanticide, rape, pillage and public nose-picking are second nature, part
and parcel of everyday light entertainment. Its workings, size, disposition
and whereabouts are a conundrum of biblical impenetrability. Its diabolical
hissing, clanking, steam and sulphurous smoke now haunt all our nightmares.
It stands foursquare in the path of civilised values, obstructing all honest
passage to peace in the Balkans.
What is it ?
It is "The Serbian War Machine" !
And what fuels this foul monstrosity ?
It is "Milosevic's Propaganda Machine" !
What true artist is not now preparing to exorcise these mechanical demons ?
And now, thanks to modern media and democratic freedom, you can be a war
artist from the comfort and safety of your own studio. Pick up a brush, and
who knows, you may pick up a medal...
What's happening here ?
It's like this: for a few moments, just a few moments I lost it, That's all.
I was watching a TV monitor here at home and I got confused between the
News, cockpit footage and my son's videogames.
Gerald O'Connell
http://www.gacoc.demon.co.uk/
Ariane
On Sat, 24 Apr 1999, GERALD O'CONNELL wrote:
> What's happening here ?
> It's like this: for a few moments, just a few moments I lost it, That's all.
> I was watching a TV monitor here at home and I got confused between the
> News, cockpit footage and my son's videogames.
>
> Gerald O'Connell
> http://www.gacoc.demon.co.uk/
=== I figured as much......
A.
Marilyn
If the war is being videotaped, filmed, and photographed why
would there be a need to make representational paintings of it?
M.
April Showers
>If the war is being videotaped, filmed, and photographed why
>would there be a need to make representational paintings of it?
I thought he was describing one of those political
cartoons you find on editorial pages. Have always
loved that oxymoron when describing cartoons that
are NOT found on the 'funny' pages.
GERALD O'CONNELL
Marilyn wrote in message <372244...@bc.ca>...
>Ariane wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 24 Apr 1999, GERALD O'CONNELL wrote:
>>
>> > What's happening here ?
>> > It's like this: for a few moments, just a few moments I lost it, That's
all.
>> > I was watching a TV monitor here at home and I got confused between the
>> > News, cockpit footage and my son's videogames.
>> >
>> > Gerald O'Connell
>> > http://www.gacoc.demon.co.uk/
>>
>> === I figured as much......
>>
>> A.
>
>
>would there be a need to make representational paintings of it?
>
Because paintings always look so much nicer in the regimental dining room,
and they age with much greater authority than the other media you mention.
Not that war paintings have to be 'representational' in the photographic
sense... the artist is free to include more or less blood according the
terms of the commission......
Marilyn
Cadmium red is rather expensive, don't you think?
M.
Charles Eicher
>>would there be a need to make representational paintings of it?
>
>cartoons you find on editorial pages. Have always
>loved that oxymoron when describing cartoons that
>are NOT found on the 'funny' pages.
yeah, I think that if you are making some political commentary, its just
propaganda or political B.S., not art. However there are some exceptions, and
true works of art can be made in the military genre..
To my own way of thinking, I have seen what I consider the single most important
artwork of the 20th century. It is a small watercolor, made on the WWII
battlefield by an SS Kriegsmahler. Kriegsmahler were "war painters" who were
drafted by the German army to paint portraits and battlefield scenes. This small
watercolor is painted in a propagandistic style, showing the array of nazi
forces advancing. In the background of this particular painting, you can just
see the skyline of Moscow, with the distinctive golden domes of the Kremlin
poking up over the horizon. This particular artwork was painted from the
perspective of a painter standing at the battle line, at the far limit of the
nazi advance into russia. German never advanced farther than that, and from the
very moment the painting was made, the tide turned against the nazis. As a work
of art it is not particularly distinguished. It was intended to be just one
piece of documentation of the glorious nazi advance on Moscow. But to me, and
other historians who know of its existence, it is a "high-water mark," a unique,
poingnant historical document of singular historical importance. And the artist
certainly did not realize this when he created it.
GERALD O'CONNELL
>
>Cadmium red is rather expensive, don't you think?
>
>M.
you can get a lot of cadmium red for the porice of one stealth fighter....
April Showers
>yeah, I think that if you are making some political commentary, its just
>propaganda or political B.S., not art. However there are some exceptions, and
>true works of art can be made in the military genre..
I created a painting that was my contribution to the socio-pol
genre at the time of the Gulf War. It is of a sitting
woman in her slip hugging to herself a small boy
of about six who she is comforting. The reference to
war is in the dogtags hanging around her neck on a beaded
chain and the regimented troops in the distant background
along with an American flag flying from a flagstaff.
I intended it as a statement on the role of women in
wartime, which as we all know has taken on more serious
dimensions than ever before now that women are an
accepted part of the fighting regiments.
Peter Nelson
GERALD O'CONNELL wrote in message
<924939750.21556.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>There it is, waiting for you in every newscast, every soundbite: the
perfect
>war artist's subject. It is the epitome of human evil, the scourge against
>which NATO's ground forces are defenceless. Its menace causes war to be
>waged from safe distances. It eats women and children, crushes hedgerows
>with cruel disregard for wildlife, renders our demands non-negotiable by
>virtue of its cunning and treachery. It is driven by a man to whom
genocide,
>infanticide, rape, pillage and public nose-picking are second nature, part
>and parcel of everyday light entertainment. Its workings, size, disposition
>and whereabouts are a conundrum of biblical impenetrability. Its diabolical
>hissing, clanking, steam and sulphurous smoke now haunt all our nightmares.
>It stands foursquare in the path of civilised values, obstructing all
honest
>passage to peace in the Balkans.
I gave up watching TV years ago. Because it's not a healthy habit.
As you've discovered. Now I have more time for art.
---peter
Over...@orion.com
>
> I gave up watching TV years ago. Because it's not a healthy habit.
> As you've discovered. Now I have more time for art.
>
> ---peter
That's the smartest thing I've heard from you, Peter. I've done the same
and don't miss it a bit.
--
The Overlord
*Time is never wasted when you're wasted all the time.
--Catherine Zandonella*
Ariane
On 25 Apr 1999, April Showers wrote:
> I created a painting that was my contribution to the socio-pol
> genre at the time of the Gulf War. It is of a sitting
> woman in her slip hugging to herself a small boy
> of about six who she is comforting. The reference to
> war is in the dogtags hanging around her neck on a beaded
> chain and the regimented troops in the distant background
> along with an American flag flying from a flagstaff.
> I intended it as a statement on the role of women in
> wartime, which as we all know has taken on more serious
> dimensions than ever before now that women are an
> accepted part of the fighting regiments.
=== How many wars have been started or fought by women? Conversely, how
many women have ended up as pawns or victims to the senseless frenzy of
war? The role of woman in war.....to hold other men accountable for their
actions?? Perhaps women and children can set up a war crimes tribunal and
try Clinton and Milosevic together??
A.
John Haber
My distrust of sexist society is such that I'm afraid we may never
know in the near future whether women would have started the wars
given the chance. At the rate we're going, Thatcher will have to be
an anomaly as woman in power rather than a sign that "difference
feminism" (the claim that women have a better morality, if you will)
fails. And that's depressing as hell.
Oh, well, at least ideologically I can revel in the scheming women who
fired everyone at my last job. :)
John
A.A. Raimes
<jha...@haberarts.com> writes
Our British feminist guru, Germaine Greer, (who is part of the institute
responsible for the *identity* site), has declared Feminism failed !
True this - she just released a book on the reasons. The gist, which I
wholeheartedly agree with, is that the Feminist Movement based its
manifesto not on the original aims of feminism (equality) but on
reversing the power of the genders.
Alison A Raimes
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
9th - 23rd May 1999 @ Peterbourough Arthouse
26, Fitzwilliam Street. Peterborough
Tel: 01733 319581 (for gallery opening hours)
Ariane
On Tue, 27 Apr 1999, John Haber wrote:
> >How many wars have been started or fought by women?
>
> My distrust of sexist society is such that I'm afraid we may never
> know in the near future whether women would have started the wars
> given the chance.
=== I'm just speaking of historical/anthropological data here. There is a
story in the `Voyage of the Argo' by Apollonius that the women of Lemnos
rose up against the men on the island. Apparently, the men brought back
women as war `booty' and preferred them to respecting their wives. The
family structure deteriorated thereby and after a while, the women rose up
and killed all the males on the island. The daughter of the king though,
having love & respect for her father, put him in a chest and floated it
out to sea. He landed on a nearby island and was thereby saved. But this
is a didactic myth about the traditional family structure in Aegean
Greece. There is no historical corroboration for this story. Fact is,
there's no historical nor anthropological data which clearly documents the
occurrence of war fought by women, that's all.
> In fact, At the rate we're going, Thatcher will have to be
> an anomaly as woman in power rather than a sign that "difference
> feminism" (the claim that women have a better morality, if you will)
> fails. And that's depressing as hell.
=== It is really not a moral issue in my opinion. Women don't fight wars
and yet, are killed by the thousands because of war. Children even more
so. Morality has no place in this equation in my view. It's a matter of
autonomy and liberty, not morality. Women and children should not be
subject to the consequences, en masse, of decisions made by men who use
war as an instrument of imposing their political wills on each other.
This is ideal I know, but for women and children especially, autonomy is
an elusive dream....But until it becomes a reality they continue to be
victims of other people's nightmares.
> Oh, well, at least ideologically I can revel in the scheming women who
> fired everyone at my last job. :)
=== !!! (grin). Did they call it `downsizing', or restructuring? Well,
at least they didn't kill you all!!
a bientot,
A.
>
> John
>
>
emat...@tomatoweb.com
"A.A. Raimes" <ali...@address.in.signature> wrote:
> In article <37263429...@news.onepine.com>, John Haber
> <jha...@haberarts.com> writes
> >
> >My distrust of sexist society is such that I'm afraid we may never
> >know in the near future whether women would have started the wars
> >an anomaly as woman in power rather than a sign that "difference
> >feminism" (the claim that women have a better morality, if you will)
> >fails. And that's depressing as hell.
> >
> >fired everyone at my last job. :)
> >
>
> Our British feminist guru, Germaine Greer, (who is part of the institute
> responsible for the *identity* site), has declared Feminism failed !
> True this - she just released a book on the reasons. The gist, which I
> wholeheartedly agree with, is that the Feminist Movement based its
> manifesto not on the original aims of feminism (equality) but on
> reversing the power of the genders.
>
> Alison A Raimes
My history is challenged, but don't we have M. Thatcher as a model for a
Ladyhawk, as in Falklands???
But to be fair, we also have the model of Janet Reno in Waco.
Is Joan of Arc a misunderstood pacifist--like Madam Nhu?
I think the list could grow.
Erik Mattila
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
April Showers
da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca says...
>=== It is really not a moral issue in my opinion. Women don't fight wars
In the USA military, they are now! And have been for some
time, depending on your definition of what constitutes
fighting in today's military. Trench warfare is a thing
of the past. On the battlefields of today women are as
exposed as the men. And women ARE flying combat missions
as I understand it -- as pilots and crew. And on shipboard.
Ships are as vulnerable to sinkings as ever and anyone
aboard is at risk in wartime. I have friends in the Navy
who are balancing being at sea with having a husband
and children at home! Not my cuppa but it is their choice.
April Showers
>My history is challenged, but don't we have M. Thatcher as a model for a
>Ladyhawk, as in Falklands???
>
>But to be fair, we also have the model of Janet Reno in Waco.
>
>Is Joan of Arc a misunderstood pacifist--like Madam Nhu?
>
>I think the list could grow.
How could you possibly leave off Madeline Allbright?
I even see a sharp beak when I look at photos of her.
Ariane
> My history is challenged, but don't we have M. Thatcher as a model for a
> Ladyhawk, as in Falklands???
>
> But to be fair, we also have the model of Janet Reno in Waco.
>
> Is Joan of Arc a misunderstood pacifist--like Madam Nhu?
>
> I think the list could grow.
>
=== Does there exist a military force in the world with a proportionate
ratio of women to men as currently exists, say for example, from men to
women in the US army? Has there ever been? Anywhere? At any time?
Perhaps I should have phrased it this way: Where do we get the neurotic
notion that a military means to any end could possibly be considered
legitimate, and not a manifestation of large-scale social psychosis??
A.
Ariane
On 29 Apr 1999, April Showers wrote:
> Ariane says...
>
> >=== It is really not a moral issue in my opinion. Women don't fight wars
> In the USA military, they are now!
=== True enough, women are now `free' to join the army! Feminism didn't
do much for raising the social status of mothers but hey, we're free to
travel around the world, visit exotic places, meet new and interesting
people, and kill them with impunity. All in the name of *what* again?
Thank god for equality eh?
> And have been for some
> time, depending on your definition of what constitutes
> fighting in today's military. Trench warfare is a thing
> of the past. On the battlefields of today women are as
> exposed as the men. And women ARE flying combat missions
> as I understand it -- as pilots and crew. And on shipboard.
> Ships are as vulnerable to sinkings as ever and anyone
> aboard is at risk in wartime. I have friends in the Navy
> who are balancing being at sea with having a husband
> and children at home! Not my cuppa but it is their choice.
=== Yes, but both historically and anthropologically, from where do these
social structures originate? However, your point is well made.
Unfortunately, it seems that more and more women are confusing a
lemming-like conformity to existing social structures with "the opening up
of new opportunities," and substitute the delirium of inclusion into a
world not of their making for a more genuine and autonomous form of
self-determination. But these are only my opinions on the matter.
a bientot,
A.
John Haber
Or to stage a revival of Areopagtica.
jh
April Showers
>=== Does there exist a military force in the world with a proportionate
>ratio of women to men as currently exists, say for example, from men to
>women in the US army? Has there ever been? Anywhere? At any time?
Can you say ISRAEL?
I wish to hasten to add here that I am 'violently' anti-war!
I abhorr the recent move by the Klintonites to ignore all
military advice against starting another air war with hopes
that it would have any effect other than to compound the
problem. But let's get back to talking art as it relates
to wartime, shall we...
When I was in my socio-pol mode of representation, I painted
another one that related to the civil uprisings in Iran.
It was of a television set with the visage of Khomeini on the
screen, a dead child with a wooden rifle lying in the foreground,
and other similar symbols of the insanity of arming children
to serve as soldiers. That was at a time when the children
of Iran were being shown running around fully armed, firing
their Russian or Chinese made automatic rifles wildly into
the air.
Ariane
=== Areopagtica??
Ariane
On 30 Apr 1999, April Showers wrote:
(...)
> > When I was in my socio-pol mode of representation, I painted
> another one that related to the civil uprisings in Iran.
> It was of a television set with the visage of Khomeini on the
> screen, a dead child with a wooden rifle lying in the foreground,
> and other similar symbols of the insanity of arming children
> to serve as soldiers. That was at a time when the children
> of Iran were being shown running around fully armed, firing
> their Russian or Chinese made automatic rifles wildly into
> the air.
=== Children as victims of other people's brutal insanity......Clearly
they are not autonomous. Neither the children of which you spoke, nor the
women to which you alluded are free to determine the course their lives.
That's why this is less of a moral issue to me than it is an issue of
liberty.
Picasso's `Massacre in Korea' is perhaps a good representation of my point
of view here. Unfortunately, that is the norm against which certain
nameable exceptions are shown up to be just that.....
a bientot,
A.
Glenn Geist
>
>=== Areopagtica??
>
Probably refers to St Dionysius the Areopagite - during the middle
ages he was famous for certain writings falsely attributed to him (in
fact lots of things were falsely attributed to him)
There are a dozen or more works of areopagitica, written in obscure
Greek by an anonymous obscurantist and probably dating from the 5th
or 6th century. Like many such crepuscular texts they are the
darlings of those looking for something to base self-serving fantasies
upon.
He could also be referring to the Areopagus, a hill near Athens
(falsely identified by folk etymology with the reference in Acts to
"Mars Hill" but which anyway is the metonym for the ancient Greek
council of elders. Pericles wanted to shut it down, Aeschylus wanted
to keep it. Starr is still issuing subpoenas.
In either case I'm not sure exactly what John meant, but then he's a
qualified Areopagite and I'm just a cynic.
Glenn
John Haber
somehow to substitute one title for another. Somehow, Lysistrata,
which is a perfectly normal name for the play, got into my head as "oh
this Aristophanes play with a long weird name having something to do
with women," no doubt my thinking of Thesmophoriazuze or however you
spell it ("the Poet and the Women") -- which then got transcribed in
my head into another long literary word with no obvious sense
(Milton's Areopagitica, meaning, as Glenn says, a speech for that
assembly).
Sorry, sorry. I can't explain it. Maybe in part unconscious problems
supporting women? Maybe in part that as a little kid interested the
antiwar protests of the big kids I associated the movement so much
with free-speech issues, and later I had this period of going through
the Milton essay and Mill's On Liberty pulling out stirring quotes.
Oh, well, bored you to tears already, but I owe you a bad explanation.
For what it's worth, in one of my uploads on a wonderful young woman
artist from Europe (Elizabeth Baersveldt), I have a digression on what
I call two postive but contrasting and sometimes conflicting ideals of
left feminism that I both value a lot -- "difference" (women's
traditional values and roles are better) and "traditional" (we deserve
to play too).
http://www.haberarts.com/pieta.htm
It's a tough one to feel comfortable with. In college, when the first
woman general got the job, a woman in my class whom I liked a lot said
how great it was, waiting for me to agree. And I was so lukewarm
about the military that I told her it was like "you've got your own
cigarette now." I wouldn't make that snotty response now. In fact, I
wouldn't know what to say any more.
Oh, since this is an intolerable self-involved ramble anyhow, one
other aside. Baerveldt's NY gallery, I-20, is in the NY Times "metro"
section today on account of Scott Tunick, a fun photographer who
assembles scenes out of crowds of humans, sometimes naked ones.
John
emat...@tomatoweb.com
insanity (which I actually do believe) if you tell me what 'Areopagtica' is.
curioux
Erik
Glenn Geist
>
>=== Isn't Chester dead yet?
>
A penny for the old Guy.
>Ok, but what's the Areopagus have to do with
>the modern military in the context of women and war?
>
It's over my head, as I said, but I guess John has already explained,
and I can't add more until I've re-examined Milton, and I won't do
that today because frankly, it's too nice a day to read Milton.
>
>> In either case I'm not sure exactly what John meant, but then he's a
>> qualified Areopagite and I'm just a cynic.
>>
>> Glenn
>
>=== Of the canine variety? Well thanks for `shedding some sunlight' onto
>the issue for me....
>
A Cynic of the thong sandal and unkind word type. <s>
Glenn
Glenn Geist
>(Milton's Areopagitica, meaning, as Glenn says, a speech for that
>assembly).
>
Oh *that* one. Delete an explitive for me too - I should have thought
of Milton.