jump to navigation

Picasso’s Puffery October 25, 2011

Posted by Dwight Furrow in Art and Music, Dwight Furrow's Posts.
Tags: , ,

Picasso is alleged to have said “Painting is not done to decorate apartments, it is an instrument of war against brutality and darkness.” I suspect that he was referring to his own painting, Guernica, which depicts the horrors of the Spanish Civil War.


I often come across such claims about art—that it has something profound to say about the human condition. But I find them puzzling. What is the point of the commentary of which paintings are capable? How is Guernica an instrument of opposition?

I doubt that anyone learns about the horrors of war from a painting. If you did not already know of the horrors of war you would be unlikely to read the painting as commenting on them. Furthermore, if a gain in knowledge is the point, people who are already acquainted with brutal warfare would receive little benefit from viewing the painting, which seems implausible. And can’t we more effectively learn about historical events from history books or documentaries? Is there some dimension of warfare that is best depicted in paintings? I doubt it.

Perhaps the point is not that we gain knowledge from painting but that  paintings are particularly good at provoking an emotional response from the viewer. Perhaps, then, paintings deepen our sensitivity to the horrors of war via their depictions or inspire us to pursue peace. But I doubt that a cool, abstract depiction elicits a more powerful response than actual war footage, filmic representations, live interviews with victims, or reports on the ground by intrepid journalists, all of which seem to pack an emotional punch that paintings rarely if ever achieve. Paintings, because they are fixed entities, lend themselves to contemplation more readily than film. But museums, especially large one’s in major cities visited by hordes of tourists are not conducive to contemplation. (Guernica is housed in Madrid’s Reina Sofia Museum)

Perhaps the viewing of paintings is a reminder that we should care about warfare’s destruction. We clearly need such reminders. But the occasions when such reminders are essential do not correlate well with visits to a museum.

Paintings are valuable, in part, because they give us new ways of organizing and conceptualizing visual space. But that can be accomplished regardless of the content of the painting—such an aim would seem to have little to do with warfare. Paintings—the great ones at any rate—are unique representations of what they depict. But if this is the value of Guernica, it is the uniqueness of its depiction not some fact about the horrors of war that matters most. It is a stretch go call such an aim an instrument in a war against brutality.

So wise and discerning readers. Tell me. What do paintings uniquely say about the human condition? Is Picasso just puffing up his accomplishments.



1. Nina Rosenstand - October 25, 2011

“But I doubt that a cool, abstract depiction elicits a more powerful response than actual war footage, filmic representations, live interviews with victims, or reports on the ground by intrepid journalists, all of which seem to pack an emotional punch that paintings rarely if ever achieve.”

Good question. A couple of comments: For one thing, painters rarely paint so their works can end up in cleanroom-style museums—I’m not even sure great painters always paint for an audience. They paint because they must. For another, there is an underlying assumption among art critics that good art is supposed to shock you profoundly and make you see the world in a new light (which I disagree with, but that’s another matter), and Picasso’s Guernica did just that. I was fortunate enough to see it when it was on tour in NY in the 1980s, and it is formidable. It touches your soul in a different way than war footage does. But the most important element which you’re looking for is, I think, the ability of art to express the Human Universal, and very few documentaries can achieve that, because what they depict is too particular, and has to be filtered through the artistic talent in order for the cognitive element of the emotion to emerge. This is, in effect, what Nussbaum is talking about in “Love’s Knowledge,” about literature. Hmmm. I think you’ve just come up with the topic for our next Philosophers meeting…

2. Dwight Furrow - October 26, 2011

“It touches your soul in a different way”.

And what way is that? This sounds more emotive and expressive than representational. So perhaps paintings can be inspirational in a way that that other media are not. But I have trouble knowing how to characterize that. And I don’t much care about the “human universal”. What is it about the particularity of paintings that makes them an instrument against brutality?

3. forrest noble - November 10, 2011

I think painters/ artists, like many others, appreciate the merits of their own work which enables those talented to do good work. Others, however, can appreciate the same work from a different perspective, perceiving different beauty, interest, values, themes, messages, etc. concerning the same work. Bottom line is that if one likes the art and can afford it, he might buy it (or a print) without regard or knowledge of the artists original intentions of a particular profound meaning. Maybe a kind of artist’s self delusion of social importance or implications.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: