21st Century: Guernica

A Matter of Metaphor and How Do the Political Effects of Pictures Come About?

A Matter of Metaphor begins by admitting that Picasso did not define many of his metaphors, but references one instance in which he states that the Bull in Guernica was representative of a dark force while the horse was the Spanish people. Peculiarly, the article decides to challenge the artist’s own interpretation, including other sources and their own interpretation. The article even suggests, in direct opposition to Picasso’s claim, that the bull could be seen as having “a protective attitude…toward the mother with dead child.” The article then describes the two drawn drafts of the piece to derive further meaning from the symbol of the bull and horse, the two main characters in these early versions. Working chronologically, the piece then explores the development of each character as well as the composition itself.  The article discusses the woman looking at the lamp with the start of Picasso’s work on canvas. This gaze is seen as a gesture of hope and survival. Never, the revival of the previously drafted dead militant soldier is discussed along with his fascist gesture and Picasso’s personal statement of dismay against the Spanish Military Caste. The rising horse is then discussed in the context of the fourth state of the canvas piece as it shifts from a figure “twisting his neck in convulsion” to “[rising] on his sprawled, staggering four legs” that has taken the center of the composition. 

The bull and soldier are revisited as they continue to evolve in the well-documented painting process. The soldier is now described as bust-like and “[evoking] a work of art which portrays the soldier not as an individual fighting man, but in a broader sense, as a monument of a historical event.” The bust seems active, speaking, and alluding to “[telling] the story of Guernica.” The bull is still seen as separate and “[alienated]”. The article offers the interpretation of a few more metaphors, developed in the last two states of the painting, suggesting that this will further link the bull to the action around it. 

The first is the electric bulb and flattened sun, interpreted as “a world informed but not engaged.” The article views the woman holding the kerosene lamp as Russia, due to the five-pointed star in earlier drafts that evolved into two crescents beside her representing the hammer and sickle; both symbols are indicative of Russia. Her gesture alludes to Russia’s assistance to Spain. The lamp and light bulb are compared and related to what the author states as the subject of the painting: “the revelation of truth, the discloser of deceit.” In this context, the electric light is seen as “cold truth”, while kerosene is seen as “[warm]…friendly…assistance.”

The article complicates itself by stating, “the meaning of the bull is still an enigma, however,” and does very little to fulfill its purpose (apparent from the onset), defining the bull. Instead, the article moves on briefly, discussing other bulls Picasso had painted, as it had been a recurring theme for him. Returning to the subject of Guernica, the article proposes, again, Picasso’s own explanation and suggests the bull might have been misunderstood due to his depicting it in a previous painting. The article suggests that the bull can be seen as retreating from the positive entities: the horse and the kerosene lamp. 

This article has included a lot of interesting information that informs a better reading of the painting, the only exception being the extraneous interpretations of the bull, the main subject of the piece. If, in an article, one is dealing with a topic that might be confusing or ambiguous, as the bull is, it is more helpful to confer the meanings most relevant first and foremost. Instead, the whole rest of the piece is explained, accompanied by suggestions that understanding the piece might make the bull more straightforward, when the most valid and substantiated interpretation is given at the end and very nearly retracts the previous interpretations suggested. The second article, How Do the Political Effects of Pictures Come About?, did minimal interpretation, but was clearer regarding Guernica's weight and meaning.

The article begins by explicitly stating it is not about the history of the process of making Guernica, nor the “endless disputes of the precise meaning of the bull and the horse.” The subject instead is the political effect and the conclusions to be made. The article begins with how the piece was received, detailing the groups that Zcriticized and acclaimed the work. The article discusses how the piece became “a symbol of the victims of fascist terror” and that the essential context was received and understood by a diverse, not necessarily artistically inclined, audience. The work also made waves in its dual nature. It was claimed, “nobody would have anticipated abstract forms had such a realistic impact.” Accomplishing political messages through abstract work was a feat practically pioneered by Picasso with this piece. Despite this, the piece did receive criticism from those close to the communist party. 

Picasso’s massive success with this piece lay within a couple of areas. He introduced politics into the bourgeois circles that had been about “art for art’s sake” instead of taking the lead from current events. Picasso achieved this by “[satisfying the formal aesthetic avant-gardist expectations” while still inserting his political narrative into the piece. The impact of the piece was also influenced by other current events: artists from France and Germany were already working to expose the fascist threat and support the French and Spanish Popular Front politics. There were many anti-fascist demonstrations, including art and poetry, and Guernica found purpose at such events. The anti-fascist movement was also in line with nationalistic ideologies, and Picasso’s reference to Spanish and Mediterranean myths (i.e., the bull) was well received as nationalistic symbols. Because of such political unrest, a cultural climate was created, as a result of which the potential receptiveness of a broad and not exclusively artistic public was prepared. 

Cultural heritage had already been involved in the French and Spanish Popular Front cultural politics. Diverse images were shown together for their symbolism. Picasso’s piece gave way to this new concept for traditional museums. The line between high art and art used for political purposes or propaganda was blurred. Germans had begun creating purely political art that did not pay mind to aesthetics, but this mode of art was not accepted in France. The popular Front in Spain and France instead viewed artistic diversity as a treasure to be protected by politics, making the act of expression a political act itself. As a Communist, Picasso still upheld this view, “[defending] his use of an artistic language that did not bear directly on political realities.” Symbols such as the bull were not directly related to a particular politics, but instead, as in this case, “a generalized darkness and brutality.

Picasso worked to keep the political interpretation of the piece relevant by keeping it out of exhibitions and events unrelated. Despite this, the content was ignored by American critics and seen as a purely avant-garde form. Picasso’s propaganda “became something much more significant, that is a work of art.” Picasso inspired American modernism and the embrace of abstract art as a “symbol of the free West”, in contrast to the realism that had been dominant before. Despite this ignorance and the fact that many of Picasso’s modernist works are not political, this example begs for political interpretation. 

The article conveniently ends by listing the three main points, restated here:

• A work’s political effect relies on the cultural climate in which the piece is received and how it is featured and used.

• Just because a work is strategically used does not make it effective; it must also be relatable beyond its political message or goal.

• The interpretation of a work of art is never fixed, and any ideology, opposing or dissimilar, can absorb and reinterpret the piece for its own purposes. The artist must be responsible and, in part, rely on diligent art historians and critics to keep the message alive.

When it comes to this last point, How Do the Political Effects of Pictures Come About? adequately preserves and imparts knowledge of the painting and its meaning without getting caught up in specific and conflicting interpretations. A Matter of Metaphor, by contrast, relies too heavily on others’ interpretations and input, resulting in a writing that comes to no clear conclusion. That being said, the articles tackled two very different topics; the first reporting on the process and evolution of Guernica, while the second focused on the political climate and the result achieved by the piece. Together, they provide an intricate, detailed, and complete history of the piece and its importance.

Bibliography

Wischnitzer, R.. (1985). Picasso's "Guernica". A Matter of Metaphor. Artibus Et Historiae,6(12), 153–172. http://doi.org.proxy.wexler.hunter.cuny.edu/10.2307/1483241

Held, J., & Potts, A.. (1988). How Do the Political Effects of Pictures Come about? The Case of Picasso's "Guernica". Oxford Art Journal, 11(1), 33–39. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.proxy.wexler.hunter.cuny.edu/stable/1360321