Corey Allikas

Painting the War: Artistic Depictions of World War II in Europe, 1939-1945

HIST 395 - Fall Semester (Galgano)

World War II shaped the twentieth century, as its events and aftermath affected the entire globe. The attitudes and actions of the nations' populations determined how the war played out, and the thing that most shaped these peoples' actions was war art. War art in World War II had two important goals: mobilization of citizens and creation of accurate depictions of the battlefield.

War art's intended audience was foremost the citizens, as their support for the war was crucial to success. Dependence on civilian support - both through labor and service - was much greater in

World War II than in any other previous war. Many participating nations in WWII developed war art programs, with the goal of showing the warfront to garner civilian support back home. Artists ranged from active-duty soldiers, like in the United States, to civilians following troops on tours, like Great Britain. These hired artists were given specific subjects to depict, depending on where they were stationed; the first hand account ensured the most accurate depictions possible.

However, the disparity between the actual war fronts and the artists' depictions was present in all major art programs. This paper looks at the war art from the major powers in World War II: Great

Britain, the United States, and Germany. It examines the styles adopted by artists in these nations, the subjects artists depicted, and the war art's purpose in society. Germany, to anchor their claim of "supreme race", used traditional art forms similar to the Roman Empire. Great Britain accepted a modernist style, creating a parallel of a "free" art style to their society's democratic institutions.

In society like the United States, where war was still not wanted or understood by many, a social regionalist style was adopted, to show all angles of war. Nazi Germany only accepted art depicting heroic German actions, Great Britain artists depicted major destruction, and the United

States included a lot of work on everyday life from the battlefield. Each had the goal of stirring nationalism within their nations, but their methods differed in styles and subject matter. These differences in style and depiction create a veil between what the audience sees, and what actually

1 happened. However, the way that the artists chose to create these works of art reflect real feelings and reactions to World War II, which is perhaps the most significant part of the art itself. 1

In Great Britain, a formal war art program was adopted, the War Artists' Advisory

Committee, headed by Kenneth Clark. Kenneth Clark was a prominent member of the art community in Great Britain prior to the foundation of the WAAC, as director of the National

Gallery since 1934 and Keeper of the King's Pictures. Clark had been inspired by the art projects in the Americas after WWI, like the Federal Art Projects of the Works Progress Administration, which went beyond the normal government-funded art projects, like camouflage and propaganda.2 Before WWII, propaganda dominated the government-funded art scene, as it was a popular method to rally support, and could fit into all sectors of government. For example, the

Ministry of Food placed murals in restaurants, and the Political Intelligence Division commissioned artists to draw anti-Nazi cartoons.3 Many commissioned projects could be found throughout divisions of British government, but Clark wanted to go beyond this, and create a nation-wide art program for WWII. Before this could happen, Clark dealt with two problems: funding of the program, and picking the ministry to house it. Britain did not have the funds like the United States did, and because of the Great Depression, money was even harder to find for the

WAAC. By placing the program under a ministry, funds could be allocated to the program, and

Clark did his best to secure a ministry that would allow him with enough freedom to do what he wanted to accomplish. By far, the most desirable choice was the Ministry of Information. The

MoI was created at the end of WWI in 1918, with the sole job of creating and distributing

1 Much of the information on the War Artists' Advisory Committee (WAAC) of Great Britain can be found in Brian Foss's War Paint: Art, War, State, and Identity in Britain 1939-1945 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007); also see Monica Bohm-Duchen Art and the Second World War (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013), Alan Ross Colours of War (London: Jonathan Cape, 1987), and Peter Stansky and William Abraham London Burning: Life, Death, and Art in the Second World War (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994). For look at Germany's Visual Arts Program, and propaganda art specific to Germany see Harry Abrams Art of the Third Reich (New York: Incorporated, 1992). Also included are sketchbooks and autobiographical accounts of specific war artists, such as George Biddle, Artist at War, (New York: The Viking Press, 1944) and George Biddle War Drawings (New York: The Hyperion Press, 1944), and Charles Hall's biography of Paul Nash: Aerial Creatures (London: Press, 1996). As well, recreations of art pieces can be found in Kevin McCormick Images of War (New York: Orion Books, 2001). Another important picture source was H. Avery Chenoweth Art of War: U.S. Combat Art from the Revolution through the Twentieth Century, (New York: Michael Friedman Publishing Group, 2002). As well, interviews have been taken from chronicles such as The Listener and the BBC, for works on Kenneth Clark, director of the WAAC, and war artist Henry Moore. 2 Stansky and Abrahams, London Burning, 19. 3 Foss, War Paint, 29

2 propaganda. The incentive of being placed under the MoI was legitimacy of the WAAC's existence. While the government may be hesitant to spend public funds on a war art program, propaganda had already proven its worth in Britain. If Clark were to try and fund a war art program, he would find the most support by allying it with the MoI. The MoI eventually adopted the WAAC in 1939.

In the early days of the WAAC, a group of fifty eligible artists was drafted and these artists were assigned possible subjects to depict for commissions, including actions scenes, airplanes, factories, and landscapes. There were three possible positions a war artist could have - full-time contracts, direct commissions, and submissions for consideration. Over the course of the war, over 400 artists participated, and the WAAC selected 6000 pieces. The WAAC covered all three armed services (the distributed service, admiralty, and air ministry), and had head-artists for each. The WAAC would hire an artist, place them in a certain location, and commission a specific subject to be depicted. While many were placed in war zones, others were placed in countryside to paint landscapes, like Evelyn Dunbar, factories, and to colonies abroad; this limited the freedom of the artist a bit.4 Censorship and rejection of pieces also occurred in the

WAAC. Certain works like 's, Interior of a Submarine, revealed too much about British submarine technology, and was rejected for display. Some branches of the military even resisted actions of the WAAC; the Royal Air Force fired Paul Nash for his unrealistic depictions of the airplanes. Because it operated under the MoI, the WAAC also ran into problems with freedom of subject matter; they were required to have a certain amount of propagandistic art to satisfy its place in the Ministry, which put a limit on the types of things they could depict.

The WAAC's creation went beyond the fostering a national identity; Clark had many other intentions. During the Great Depression, certain sectors of the workforce were hit harder than most, artists being one of them. Clark intended to put artists' back in work, doing the best

4 Evelyn Dunbar was the only woman offered a full-time contract with the WAAC. While her contribution is important, and it is important to know that women did participate in the creation of war art, her subject (landscapes) is not relevant to the topic, and there is not enough room in the paper to include her work.

3 service they could for their country: depicting the war for civilians back home. As well, before

WWII, Britain took a lot of inspiration from the modern art movement in , but never really formed a modern art form of their own. Clark hoped to foster a new "British style" of art, and saw the opportunity with the WAAC - the massive public funding, commissions, and wide-spread audience would propel a new British art style. Beyond inspiring the public, Britain also aimed to inspire support abroad: namely, in the United States. By depicting certain subject matters certain ways, Britain could use its war art to rally a sense of urgency in the United States public as the

Germans advanced. By showing how the war was wreaking havoc on Britain's homeland, and being one of the USA's allies, these art works would also make U.S. citizens sympathetic to their cause.

War art in Great Britain aimed to encapsulate feelings of the war, in ways that photographs could never do. The program's existence had to be justified. Clark made the assertation that war art gave the public things that photographs could not - going beyond just capturing accurate images of the war.

As a fireman, he [the artist] will be of very little use to his country, but as a good artist he may bring it international renown ... there are certain things in life so serious that only a poet can tell the truth about them.5

Even more so, Britain tried to keep the war art as human as possible. Very few authority figures sat for portraits in the WAAC collections, and focused on ordinary citizens and soldiers, truly making WWII the peoples' war. 6 The WAAC even tried to get active duty soldiers to depict what they saw on the battlefield, to get war art from actual experience, but it ran into problems.

When the WAAC tried to employ active duty soldiers to war art campaigns, army regulations

5 McCloskey, Artists of World War II, 72; quote from K. Clark's article for The Listener in 1939 6 The Royal Air Force (RAF) even fired Paul Nash, because he refused to paint portraits for officers. This shows how dedicated Britain was to making art accessible to the ordinary people.

4 shut them down. Soldier's packs were carefully weighed (which, in the case of solider artists, had extra weight from art supplies) and the army was afraid that if soldiers focused too much on art, not war, campaigns would be hampered. Because of this, most of the WAAC artists are not soldiers, but just civilians following them on campaigns. Only about 13% of total WAAC collection came from active duty artists.7 And even when given opportunities to paint, many soldiers preferred to paint mundane activities; notable soldier artists included Keith Vaughn, and

William Scott. Britain is the only one of the three nations to have an official state-funded war art program, and a general level of freedom to their artists, probably having the best-documented examples of war art.

War art in Germany played a very important role in influencing its citizens as the war progressed. Hitler himself had been an artist, and he understood the importance that art could have in society. Prior to his ascension to power, the avant-garde movement in France heavily influenced German art, like it did in Britain. Unlike Britain, Germany formed a distinct German modern-art style, with the formation of two prominent expressionist groups, The Bridge and The

Blue Rider. At the height of modern art in Germany, Dadaism, , and Futurism were all prominent parts of German art culture; this changed during the 1930s. Because these modern art styles require extensive explanation and could be interpreted in so many ways, art became much less accessible to the public. Hitler wanted to create a unified German state, a Volk, and because modern art propagated so many different ideas, it created disunity amongst the people. 8 The rejection of modern art intensified, as Germans grew angrier over the outcomes of Versailles, blaming it for the worsening conditions in the 1930s. Modern art symbolized radical, liberal ideas. In times of stress, people generally turn to more conservative views, and so modern art lost popularity during this time. Germans wanted a conservative, steady plan to rebuild Germany.

7 Foss, War Paint, 129 8 As defined by Encyclopaedia Britannica, Volk is defined as "According to Hitler, the natural unit of mankind was the Volk (“the people”), of which the German people was the greatest." This became common point of the Nazi Party, as it helped propel the significance of an "Aryan race"; a pure, unified race, in a pure, unified state.

5 These circumstances made it a prime time for Hitler to reintroduce classical, traditional art forms back into Germany.

Art in no way can be a fashion [It is that ... of the essential character of a people.] ... Cubism,

Dadaism, Futurism, have nothing to do with our German people. ... Works of art, which cannot be, understood in themselves ... will no longer find their way to the German people.9

The appeal of traditional art forms was their realistic quality. Traditional art forms, like ones found in antiquity, are much easier to interpret, and therefore can send a clear message to a larger group of people. Modern art required a lot of interpretation, and was not easily regulated or mass-produced. To start the control over art, Hitler appointed Joseph Goebbels to the Peoples'

Enlightenment Propaganda Administration, which prompted the creation of the

Reichskulturkammer. If artists wanted to continue their careers, they had to register through this agency. Many other filters existed to get rid of modern art in Germany - the Deutsche

Kunstgesellscart (German Art Society) started to only admit German artists in 1920, and increased restrictions to admit only traditional art in 1932. The Great German Art Exhibitions started in 1937, and provided a "platform" to let state-approved German artists exhibit their work.

It functioned much like a salon, and over 6,000 pieces were included in the 1937 exhibition.

The refusal to admit of modern artists into German art academies was based on the belief, that modernism should not even be considered a proper art form at all. When modern art was banned from the Prussian Royal Academy in 1933, the defense of the board was that, "they

[modern artists] could not pass any talent because they had none. We ... reject modernists ... because they are spiritually destructive." Official German artists believed modern artists gave

'real' German artists bad reputations amongst the public and international circles, and emulated

9 , "Speech Inaugurating the 'Great Exhibition of German Art'" (speech, , 1937)

6 poor standards for future artists to follow. The idea of fostering a 'better' German art form really relied on censoring all types of art that did not fit Hitler's political agenda.

Art served a very political agenda for Hitler, as he used it to cement Germany's claim of descending from the "Aryan race" and to intensify Anti-Semitism in Germany. By choosing to only depict German art - including citizens, landscapes, and political figures - in the

Romanesque-antique art form, Hitler equated Germans with the Aryan race. 10 Hitler and

Goebbels also propagated the idea that modern art was a "result of the greedy Jewish-Bolshevik clique." If modern art was equated to a "poisonous flower of a Jewish parasitical plant, grown on

German soil" according to Dr. Reinhold Krause, this would only make eradication of the Jews even easier for the Nazi Party. 11 Hitler truly aimed to use art to forge a sense of nationalism within the German people.

Art is a noble mission. Those who have been chosen to reveal the soul of a people ... live under a powerful force. They will suffer hardship rather than become unfaithful to the star, which guides them from within.12

Art was meant to insight good feelings within the citizens, according to Hitler. Even if the war was not going well for Germany, it did not bode well to reflect this in the art. In order to truly unite the people, the messier characteristics of war, like blood, death, or violence, were not depicted in in the public collections of war art shown to citizens. Optimism about the war would help people overcome it, which is quite a different approach than Britain takes in depicting the suffering of people during the Blitz. Germany's dominance over the Allies was to be emphasized through mediums of art. The Division of Visual Arts was the program created specifically for war

10 Hitler believed the Greeks and Romans descended from the Aryans as well; so by adopting a Romantic art form that reflects ancient Greek and Roman cultures, he is paralleling Germany with the pure Aryan race as well. 11 Representative and Chairman of the German Christians in 12 Adolf Hitler, "Nuremberg Speech", (speech, Berlin, 1935)

7 art in 1942, and was headed by Luitpold Adam, a former soldier artist himself. Like the British counterpart, the types of art submitted and displayed had to be approved by the committee; more unlike its western counterpart, the Division of Visual Arts also had a very strict government control over the art forms themselves.

The part the visual arts play in this process of cultural renaissance is the miracle of all miracles ...

War ... is a great challenge. German visual arts have met the challenge.13

There are two things noticeable in all war art of Germany: the absence of horrors of war and the depiction of soldiers in perfect, heroic form. The German art program did not want to depict all of the horrors of war - including blood and death - as the key idea of the program was to glorify the war. The greater purpose of WWII, the defense and promotion of the German nation, proved more important than accurate depictions of the war. Even down to the titles of paintings,

Germany had a tight reign on art's production. Titles installed a more subtle point of nationalism, with names like, "Liberated Land", "Führer's Highway", and "Ready To Work." Even simple details like these could serve a more nationalistic purpose in the long run.14

Despite the impression that their war art program had made on Britain in WWI, the

United States was initially not very interested in creating a war art program for WWII. In the wake of WWII, the United States was still recovering from the Great Depression, and did not even enter the war until 1941, after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Even after declaring war, most of the war art would have no affiliation with an official war art program. After Pearl Harbor, over thirty national art organizations formed the Artists for Victory Campaign and the Office of War

Information. They campaigned for photographs of the war, but these collections were eventually deemed not fit for the public. There was not a lot of organization into these programs, but it was

13 Peter, Adam, "Art of the Third Reich", 157 14 Specific examples of pieces came from Peter, Adam, "Art in the Third Reich", 110

8 clear that something needed to happen to rally support for war. Even after Pearl Harbor, three out of ten Americans still did not want war.15 George Biddle proposed the Art Advisory Committee in the spring of 1942, and Congress allotted a $125,000 budget to the program. It included forty-two artists, twenty-three soldiers and nineteen civilians, deployed in units of two to five, touring different parts of the world. 16After a slow start, the program would be short-lived, when

Congress cut the $125,000 budget of the committee in 1943; but by this point, war art production had begun, and the cut of the AAC did not stop the flow of art.

After Congress cut funding for the AAC in 1943, war art was left to private investors and the talents of soldiers already in the war. Many magazines like Life and Leatherneck started to commission photographs, paintings, and sketches from the war. These, among other private investors, became the main reasons why war art survived in the USA. Still suffering from the

Depression, these kinds of commissions were aimed to boost morale back home, in the United

States. Other private companies had interests in the war, like Abbot Laboratories (a pharmaceutical company), who wanted to see conditions of medical treatment in the battlefield.

The United States had become very isolationist after WWI, and most of the public probably didn't trust European depictions of the war. People wanted to know details of happenings in the war, even if the information was negative. The United States turned to a more social realist/regionalist style of art, to realistically depict the war. Both of these art forms focused on the "ordinary citizen." Applying this concept to the context of the war, artists focused on everyday lives of the soldiers. Most of the USA art is of everyday actions of soldiers and landscape-style paintings.

As well, sectors in the encouraged known-talents within their ranks to create art. Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard, and ground force were all able to provide combat art from within their ranks to depict the war. The Marines specifically adopted the term, "Pistol and

Palette Marines" for these combat artists. It is noted especially that many of these "true" combat

15 Statistic comes from McCloskey, Barbara, "Artists of World War II" 175; this statistic varies slightly depending on source, but it is usually between 30-35% 16 Biddle himself would go to North Africa, and many of his sketches show a very interesting side of WWII.

9 artists were very faithful to accurate depictions of the war scenes. 17 Separate from both Britain and Germany, many American combat artists chose to depict reality of the war and did so in a realistic style.

Essentially the task of the artists was to record with the artist's eye the great and simple doings of men at war ... its settings, its tragedy, its humor. Of a more routine nature, but of high practical value, were to be those illustrations made specifically to accompany articles [in magazines, pertaining to WWII.]18

Also unique about United States war art is the sheer amount of actual combat art.19 In the

WAAC for Britain, artists were hired to follow around troops, and while three artists did lose their lives there, the element of fear that comes from serving in active duty is a unique point of view that other war artists may have trouble recreating.20 The United States also synthesizes the two programs in Britain and Germany; even they never had an official war art program like these two nations. Like Britain, the United States did depict the grim realities of war. United States' artists also leaned to a more style, which is more realistic, akin to German art. 21

All three nations had differences and similarities in their styles, subject matter, and motivations for war art. The background surrounding the utilization of war art in WWII is important to understanding why artists worked in the styles they did, and depicted events in the manners that they did. More often than not, different countries would depict the same subject, but in completely different ways, changing the meaning completely. The important question is how

17 The origin of this term is ambiguous, but the first official use was at the museum exhibit, "The Pistol and Palette Marine Combat Art", at the Museum in Cincinnati on November 9th, 1943 18 Quote by Former Marine Corps Chief Historian Benis M. Frank; Chenoweth, H. Avery, "Art of War", 128 19 Combat art differs from regular "war art", because it is specifically done from experience on a battlefield, or in an active war zone. Combat artists are generally restricted to actual soldiers. 20 Eric Ravilious was lost on an aircraft to Iceland, and never found; Albert Richards was killed by a mine in France, 1945; Thomas Hendell was allegedly murdered by Indonesian nationalists in Borneo, 1945 21 Social Realism is a style that pays attention to the struggles of the poor/working class, and is critical of modern problems. Regionalism is a moderate section of modernism, and rejects technology and city life, depicting rural scenes. Although there are nuances that make them different, in this paper, they're treated as being very closely related, to the point of being synonymous.

10 these nations used war art in their societies. In order to answer this question, one must first look at the style and subject matter that these three nations depicted. The style and subject matter create the meaning behind the art work, and propels the ideas that each nation wanted to portray to their citizens.

Style differed greatly in Britain, USA, and Germany. In some cases, this was due to restrictions placed on the artists, like in Germany, so it makes it a little more difficult to try and interpret an artist's feelings about the war, since it may not be the style they wanted to use. The strict traditional style that German artists had to adhere to heroised the soldier and state. It celebrated the perfect human form as a model for Germany to emulate, and they used the war to propel the idea of Germany's superiority over other nations. In more democratic nations like

Britain, the WAAC put fewer restrictions on style of their artists, but modern art became the most popular style to use. Although initially Clark opposed modern art, he made many initial exceptions, with artists like Paul Nash and Henry Moore; by the end of the war, most British artists would create in an abstract, modern style. The United States seemed to be a hybrid of these two European nations. Artists adopted a style called social realism, which actually draws more attention to everyday life and sufferings of ordinary people. Like Britain, the USA chose to depict the suffering of people (which is like Henry Moore's works on the Blitz); regionalism is also a branch of modern art for its more liberal views. Like Germany though, the USA war artists had a very realistic style, like that found in Germany.

While this adherence to specific styles may have hindered the individual emotions of the artists, it does say a lot about the messages being portrayed. The artists, and the sponsors for their artwork, wanted to portray certain images to the public with these art pieces. While of course the subject matter may seem to be most important, the style it is drawn in is what really propels the meaning; the same subject in different styles can tell two completely different things, so styles evoke certain emotions from people. Modern artists created some of Britain’s most famous war art pieces, whereas modern art never really picked up in the United States, and was outright

11 banned in Germany. In many cases for abstract art, subject depictions are not as easy to understand. Without the title in works like Tube Shelter Perspective by Henry Moore, it is very difficult to tell what the subject is.22 The bodies on the floor are clear enough, but their faces are blurred, the background seems to break off into the distance, as if the figures and the place are not even corporeal. To a citizen in the United States, this drawing might be frustrating. To someone in Germany, it might be considered an insult to "real art." But in Britain, Moore's drawings were among the most popular of the WAAC. Moore's drawings, while not very clear, invoke very powerful emotions. The abstract quality of the art allows Moore to reflect all of the uncertainty and the despair that people felt on the inside, and making it visible for everyone to see.

Abstract qualities of design are essential to the value of a work, but to me of equal importance is the psychological human element ... welded together ... must have a fuller, deeper, meaning.23

Abstraction not only helped invoke stronger emotions, but it also reflected the image

Britain wanted to portray to the world. Clark had opposed to modern art in the early days of the war, and changed his mind as it progressed. Beyond just emotional quality, why was modern art so popular in Britain? The answer is: because it was not popular in Germany. The British people,

22 Moore, Henry, Tube Shelter Perspective, 1941 23 Abrahams and Stansky, "London's Burning", 1994

12 from the beginning of the war, had known war with Germany was inevitable. When the bombings started, any lingering doubts left completely. Germany worsened its reputation in the eyes of the

British as the war raged on; and as its reputation worsened, Britons wanted less and less in common with them. Because Germany was so traditional in their romantic art form, adopting a modernist identity seemed to juxtapose Britain and Germany. Britain wanted to emulate all of the

"good" qualities that Germany was not - a republic not a dictatorship, democracy not fascism, modernism not romanticism. Modernism not only helped artists portray their art in a more emotional way, it also served as a symbol of British democracy.

Modernism was not popular in either Germany or the United States. Whereas Britain used its art styling to portray the suffering of people in war, Germany used its art styling to hide the suffering. In works like Elk Eber's Neuses Europa series24, Germany celebrates the powerful form of the German people, showing how each person does their part in the production of the war.

A realistic style propels this message more clearly, because it inspires ordinary citizens to be like the people in the art works. This painting is not realistic, but it looks realistic, because of the style. A German person can see himself in this painting, and feel a greater sense of nationalism. Someone living during the Blitz can understand the pain that Moore puts in his

24 Elk Eber, "Neuses Europa", 1940

13 sketch drawings, but it's a little harder for a civilian to insert themself right into a Moore painting.

In Britain, the style choices showed this communal suffering; in Germany, there was a greater need for nationalism, and this was better achieved with a traditional style. After the disaster of

WWI, humiliation at Versailles, and the Depression during the 1920s, Germany was in great need of nationalism. When Hitler came to power in the early 1930s, many German people were drawn to his energy and were comforted by his ability to bring Germany out of the Depression. Germans in WWII needed this feeling nationalism, and to do so, the art style had to match.

The United States, like Germany, also had a realistic style, but did not just focus on heroes, but the "ordinary people" helping out the war effort. It is important to note that while the

United States did remain mostly traditional, they did take some liberties on the reality of subjects.

These liberties were not "modernist" in nature, just exaggerated, mostly from extravagant detail.

Modern art was not very popular in the United States, especially after the influx of exiled

European modernists to USA.25 For this reason, a more traditional style was generally used, because it is much easier to understand. The thing that separates USA from Germany is the inclusion of more exaggerated elements that really emphasized the horrors of the war. Americans would not have had a very clear idea of what the war looked like, aside from photographs, and would want clearer depictions of these events. In Germany and Britain, the war was clearly visible to all civilians, so there was no real need to dramatize their war art.

Also important to understand is that many artists in these nations did not just fit into one box. There were realistic artists in Britain, and they too sometimes skated over the more gruesome parts of war. 26 In fact, many British artists did not like to depict gore and death in their works at all, and were even criticized by the WAAC for it. Artists like Edward Ardizonne used very bright colors to depict war scenes. Edward Ardizonne is perhaps best known for this use of

25 There was a point where Hitler started to exile modernists who refused to be silenced by art regulation. As WWII progressed, many modernists started to fear for their lives, and their opposition to Hitler, and fled Germany for places like the USA. 26 While British artists really preferred not to depict gore (and if they did tragedies, did so in a very abstract way), there were some places where it was unavoidable. In places like the Bergon-Belson war camp, Leslie Cole and Mary Kessel have very disturbing drawings of the women captured there. So it is not completely absent from WAAC art collection, it is just not as prominent (and as well, it probably would not have been as publicized, as it was too upsetting to the public).

14 color, as well as his use of satire. In The Road to Tripoli: A Cup of Tea for the Burial Party,

British soldiers are shown taking their three PM tea in the middle of mass grave digging for other soldiers. 27

The Final of the Brigade Association Football Cup by Lt. L.S. Lee also shows a more light-hearted atmosphere, in a game between soldiers. Many WAAC artists depicted things like this, with lighter tones. These kinds of pieces show coping with difficult situations, by giving a light-hearted feel to the art. It shows a testament to British character, as being unable to break spirit and tradition - the war cannot interrupt traditions like teatime or football. One can tell that this is the intention, because there hard truths of war still show up, like the corpses in the grave.

In Germany, they're 'positive outlook' would never show a mass grave like this, because their intention was to mask tragedies from public view. Yet Germany too, like Britain, used their art style to show the strength of the German character, even when faced with adversity. Even though these nations were very different from each other, it's important to understand that they still shared many goals with their art, and even used some of the same methods.

Closely related to style, the subjects of art have a profound impact on the audiences artists tried to reach. Some artists were stationed to specific places to paint subjects there - artists

27 Edward Ardizonne, "On the Road to Tripoli: A Cup of Tea for the Burial Party", 1943

15 like WAAC's Paul Nash for the RAF, and privately commissioned artists like Kerr Erby to depict medical conditions in the war. Even though some artists became famous for depicting the same subjects - Henry Moore and Graham Sutherland's drawings in The Blitz, for example - their unique depictions tell different things about the event. Above all else, for Britain, Germany, and the United States, the artists' goal was to reach the public in some way. As discussed before,

Britain tended to focus on more grim parts of the war, to create a sense of solidarity against

Germany, Germany focused on heroic elements of war to instill nationalism, and United States looked at many more everyday elements of the war, to create a better picture for the American citizens back home. How artists chose to depict these subjects give many different point of views into the intended message.

Looking at how different artists depict the same subject can shed a lot of light on their unique experiences and interpretations of an event. Artists may have similar styles, but every artist has a unique point of view, and it shows through how they depict a scene. An example of this is Henry Moore and Graham Sutherland's depictions of The Blitz in Britain. During the Blitz, over 40,000 civilians died, and 2.5 million were left homeless. London was bombed over seventy times, and people took to living in the underground tubes. The Blitz showcased human suffering, and this suffering had different meanings for different artists. Henry Moore found his inspiration by taking to the underground tunnels where people took shelter. Moore combined his abstract style with this inspiration, to show sufferings of the London people.

To me at that time it seemed like nothing had ever happened in the world before [the Blitz].

When I first saw a dead person I thought how remarkably beautiful ... All those hundreds of people huddled together in the Underground ... having things done to them and being absolutely helpless. 28

28 Alan Ross, "Colors of War", 35

16 Moore's depictions of the Blitz shelters are very abstract. The people on the ground recline, almost limply, and their faces distort in a dehumanizing way.29 The drawings are creepy; the people huddle together, almost like rats in a sewer, and looking at a drawing like this, one feels pity for the people having to live in such conditions. The tunnels seem to extend all the way back, with no end in sight, giving a much greater sense of hopelessness; there is no end in sight to these bombings, just as many people probably felt during the war.

30

Britons looking at these drawings would be able to see their own suffering, and feel empathetic to the people stuck in the tunnels. These elements of gloom and fear during the Blitz are not just found in Moore's work, but in Graham Sutherland's as well. Sutherland is known for his dramatization of backdrops and people, especially his Devastation series. Like Moore, Sutherland also manages to bring a level of extreme emotion that people feel within, onto the surface of the paper.

29 This "reclining figure" is a motif popular in many of Moore's work. Moore, who was trained as a sculptor before the war, used the reclining figure in many of his works; and this transcends to his war-time sketches seen here. 30 Moore, "Woman Seated in the Underground", 1941

17 The conception of the idea of stress, both physical and mental, and how forms can be modified by emotion ... was crystallized and strengthened ... by Picasso's Guernica. Faces became distorted by tears and mouths open in fear.

However, in addition, Sutherland combines organic motifs to the inanimate objects, like the buildings and ruin from the Blitz. By doing this, he brings life to all of the destruction from the bombings. In some depictions, one can find motifs of flowers or waves in his Devastation in the City series.

31

Sutherland also has a much darker look in his depictions of the Blitz, but he also manages to find beauty in all of this devastation; the organic natural elements feel like rebirth in Britain.

The people living in the United Kingdom during this time would have already known what these scenes looked like - they lived through them. WWII was virtually felt by all of Europe's citizens.

For this reason, the most realistic depiction of a scene isn't necessary; what is necessary is evoking powerful emotions into recreated images, to inspire people and give them more hope.

War art that focused on civilian populations were also popular in Germany as well. Along with celebrating the German soldier as a hero, it also celebrated the backbone of Germany: the labor force. Artists like Franz Eichhorst took on simple subjects of everyday life, like Mädchen

31 Sutherland, "Devastation in the City", 1941

18 mit Krug, propelling the idea of working together in creating a stronger German state.32 Many of the war art pieces celebrated Nazi Party's views. It emphasized the need of stronger industries to empower Germany, and celebrated the war as a way of Germany breaking away from the destruction that WWI and Versailles caused. German war artists had to celebrate the state. As you can see from this kind of painting, the people look hard-set, but not uncomfortable or unhappy. 33

They're well dressed, and sturdy looking, perpetrating this idea of Germany's dominance in

WWII. Compared to British civilian pieces, there is no room for self-pity in Germany's art. Hitler did not want to take the risk of weakening his rule, or the wills of the people, by portraying them as weak in artistic depictions.

34

Noticeable in a lot of German art, like the one above, is the isolation of the background, making the emphasis more on the actual people in the painting. In works like Hans-Schmitz

Wiedenbrück, the famous triptych celebrating the "pillars" of the German state, Workers,

Soldiers, Farmer does this as well.

32 German art is almost exclusively celebratory of the male figure. Mädchen mit Krug, is one of the exceptions. Women were very rarely put in the spotlight, when celebrating German successes in war. 33 The cultural difference is important to remember here. Germans, by nature, are usually more solemn and hard-set. Whereas this woman might seem unhappy in a nation like the United States, this probably isn't the case in Germany. 34 Eichhorst, " Mädchen mit Krug", 1939

19 35

The worker and farmer make up the sides, as the backbones of the country. The soldiers are noticeably the most important, being in the middle, largest panel. But this triptych blows up the actual figures in these scenes. You cannot very well see the actual battle scene, mines, or farmland, like compared to a landscape painting in the United States, for example. The way that the artists chose to depict these subjects shows the national message once again. The people fought the war, and the people were to be celebrated. It not only ties back in to this celebration of the human form - and the superior "Aryan race" of the Germans - but also a boost in nationalism for the people involved in the war.36

Like Germany, the United States also liked to celebrate the soldier in their art forms, though not always in such a heroic way as Germany did. The United States had the unique point of view of having their art come directly from the soldiers and officers themselves. When asked to depict battles and larger scenes, combat artists did not always comply; they really preferred to draw each other, and the everyday actions that they went through. Artists like George Biddle, former head of the AAC, were very popular for this. In drawings like Sleeping Soldier, he was one of many who liked to depict what was going on everyday. United States artists' tended to stay very true to their subjects, depicting them honestly, even in bad times. Donald Dickinson was one

35 Wiedenbrück, "Workers, Soldiers, Farmers", 1941 36 It is once again important to note that there are exceptions to this kind of pattern. There were battle scenes depicted in German war art, but most of the time these battle scenes are from a more historic era. For example, the Battle of Marienburg, by Werner Peiner in 1940, shows a historical battle, in a medieval style. This helps puts Germany's past achievements into present-day light, and to celebrate the glorious past.

20 of those, as he believed it was his duty to bring forth the most accurate image possible, seen in

The Straggler below.

37

He caught them [the Marines] during moods as they came back - grim, worn out, dirty ... He drew them as they hugged the ground during a bombardment, peering an enemy sniper ... as they were carried, wounded from the front.38

But why would American artists choose to depict more mundane subjects, whereas

British artists had large murals of battles and bombings? The answer most likely has to do with what artists were exposed to most often. War, often times, was very boring. The advanced technology made battles very impersonal and quick, and most often the campaigns were filled with walking, and not a lot of 'traditional battles.' The WAAC artists of Britain could depict more dramatic events, because they were specifically sent to places where stuff was happening. Even more so, because they were not soldiers, they had to pick more from their imagination, as they saw it from a different point of view than actual soldiers.

37 Biddle, Sleeping Soldier, 1941 and Dickinson, "The Straggler", 1942 38 Ken McCormick and Hamilton Darby Perry on Dickinson, "Images of War", 134

21 One artist who took some of the most drastic liberties in the WAAC was Paul Nash. The planes themselves inspired Nash, who had originally been commissioned to draw portraits of officers. He chose to depict the planes most prominently in his work, calling them the "main protagonists of the war."39 Nash found something organic about the planes, as if they were living things. They took on anthropomorphic forms in his artwork, most noticeably in Follow the

Führer Above the Clouds.

40

The depiction of the plane, as if it were Hitler himself, makes the scene take on a whole new meaning. It gives an almost otherworldly horror to it, with the presence of the Führer as a war machine. This kind of imagery cannot be captured in a photograph alone; Nash has transformed the plane to depict what he felt when looking at the planes. A photograph of a plane is just a plane; it's hard to translate the kind of fear one feels when being faced with an armed machine of solid metal, weighing thousands of pounds. It is one thing to draw a plane just as a plane; citizens of the United Kingdom probably know what that looks like. It's another thing to depict one as an anthropomorphic shark-machine flying through the air. Nash is able to evoke a

39 Paul Nash, in letter to Kenneth Clark in 1942 40 Nash, "Follow the Fuhrer Above the Clouds", 1942

22 lot of emotion within his work, and get across the kind of terror these 'aerial creatures' portrayed in real life.41

In my work, I aim at something more than a picture to be exhibited. I should like the pictures to be used directly or indirectly as propaganda. I would live to give a feeling of dreadful fantasy.42

There are also similarities to Sutherland’s organic elements in Nash's work as well. Nash incorporates nature into his work, most obviously in Totes meer, the wreckage of a German airplane. 43

44

Upon first glance, the wreckage looks almost like breaking waves of a black sea. This is powerful imagery, to show the utter devastation Britain wreaked on Germany in this specific battle. They have made the German plane unrecognizable. The plane is no longer a plane, but just elements of it. It looks like it's returning to nature, just becoming part of the landscape. Britain was not the only place where dramatization of subjects took place. Even though the United States

41 Nash coined this term himself. 42 Hall, Aerial Creatures, 92 43 "Totes meer" literally translates to "Dead sea" in German. This alludes to the imagery of waves in the painting. As well, he intentionally did not capitalize the "meer", as he wanted to make the distinction between this "dead sea" and the actual Dead Sea. 44 Nash, "Totes meer", 1940-1941

23 and Germany both had more realism styles, the United States also took liberties, exaggerating them to make a point. Some artists created really gruesome depictions of events. One of the goriest American combat art pieces made accessible to the public was Tom Lea's The Price, which shows a soldier's arm mangled and drenched in blood.

45

The United States and Britain probably had similar intentions of really getting across to the horrors of the war. These kinds of images invoke a lot of fear, just in different ways. While

Britain chooses to take on a more mystical element with works like Nash's, people like Lea has an underlying realism style, which makes the wound even more horrifying. It looks like a real man suffering from a horrible injury, so it is much harder to remain neutral.

It seems strange that while American artists take on a more traditional style of work, they still manage to portray a similar level of fear and emotion that British artists do. German artists also have a more realistic style, but it's safe to say that a lot of their works are very propagandistic in nature, and not extremely stirring, except nationalistically. One reason why these combat artists

45 Lea, "The Price", 1944

24 were able to get so much emotion in their sketches was because they were soldiers themselves, and witnessing these scenes firsthand, unlike many British artists.

Tracy Sugarman has some of the best D-Day sketches and watercolors, having been there at the time. Artists from the Air Force, the Marines, and even the Coast Guard contributed their art to the public. Anton Otto Fischer and George Gray contribute beautiful murals and paintings from maritime war subjects, in oil paint. One of the most famous ones is Burning Tanker of the

North Atlantic, by Fischer.

46

Peter Hurd focused on egg tempura, which is extremely tedious process, but creates vibrant landscapes of the Air Force scenes. When one compares something like War and Peace by Hurd, to a British counterpart like Battle of Britain by Nash, one can really see the differences in depictions. Hurd's is extremely detailed, and rings true to the actual battle itself. In Nash's, you can once again see the organic motifs he includes in his work; the smoke of the planes create a flower in mid-air. Nash's is more interpretive of a battle, by adding extra elements to add emotion. Hurd already experienced the battle, so the absence of "interpretive elements" is because he did not need to rely on imagination to recreate the battle's energy.

46 Fischer, "Burning Tanker on the North Atlantic", 1943

25 47

Works on the air force by Hurd (American) and Nash (British), create two extremely different depictions of similar subject matter. Nash was never able to really experience an air raid; he wasn't even allowed to go up into an airplane.48 So Nash had to express emotions and feelings in different ways, by looking at things more interpretively. Hurd, on the other hand, would have experienced things like this, and it would have shown just by painting from memory. British artists may also have adopted a more abstract art style to compensate for the lack of first-hand experience. In fact, looking at the few British soldier artists who contributed to the WAAC, like

William Scott and Keith Vaughn, we see a correlation to the United States' depictions as well. In works like Soldiers in a Bell Tent by Vaughn, and Interior with Soldiers by Scott, they show everyday depictions of war. Scott and Vaughn rarely drew dramatic things; like the American combat artists, they too preferred to draw about everyday life. This is an interesting coincidence.

Perhaps if there had been more combat artists in the WAAC, a realistic art style may have gained more popularity in Britain after all.

47 Hurd, "War and Peace", 1942 and Nash, "Battle of Britain", 1941 48 Nash suffered from asthma all of his life, and this created many other health problems for him. He died in 1946, after catching pneumonia, which was worsened greatly because of his asthma.

26 49

It's important to understand that both methods have their merits, however. American combat artists were sometimes painstakingly set on creating truthful images, and therefore did not do a lot of interpreting in their pieces to send a message. As well, it's hard to really see a full picture of an event when one is also fighting in a battle. Soldiers have different viewpoints about war than civilians do, having lived in the battlefield. Because these images are being catered specifically to citizens, a civilian may not always easily understand a soldier’s feelings. In British depictions, the war artists can be seen as kind of halfway point. They too experience the war on a more first-hand basis, but they are still civilians, and can filter certain things in their works to help citizens understand. So while British artists may sacrifice some accuracy for their works, there are some pros in their method as well.

Besides just having more freedom in their art, Americans managed to convey a lot more in their art pieces than Germany, even though both adopted similar styles of art form. Both of them liked to celebrate the soldier, but while Germany only depicted the heroic aspects, the

United States depicted everything. From just going beyond the fact that German artists probably would not have been allowed to sketch and paint everyday actions (like the American combat artists did), it is also important to note that they probably did not need to. The American combat

49 Vaughn, "Soldiers in a Bell Tent", 1942 and Scott, "Interior with Soldiers", 1942

27 artists drew everything because Americans back home had no idea what the visuals of war were like, aside from photographs. Germans probably would have been aware of what the war looked like, because they lived in Europe. Germans did not so much need to see these mundane actions of war; it would not have interested the public as much as it interested Americans back home.

The reasons behind war art differed for each of these three countries, and these reasons are important to understanding their positions in World War II. It is safe to say that war art was created specifically for the citizens back home. This art was used to insight nationalism in these countries, but it goes far beyond that. One can really see these nuances by looking at the styles and subject matter of art. Britain, Germany, and the United States all needed different things from their war art, because all three had different things to deal with in World War II.

British war art was more about evoking feelings than depicting accurate portrayals of subject matter. WWII was felt by a large majority of British citizens, and for that reason they already had a pretty accurate idea of what the war looked like. However, each citizen's experience was different from another's, and it was the feelings that these artists' evoked from seeing each event that was significant. Being able to understand and sympathize with people suffering just like you, but in different ways, was what really helped unite Britain during this time. What was most important to British victory was not an accurate portrayal of the war, or a sense of confidence -- but unity. Britain suffered serious loss from WWII, and their main goal was to endure. Enduring things like the Blitz was key to winning the war; by doing so, they were able to delay Germany's plans to conquering other places, and could wait until the United States entered the war to help. There is no doubt that the war art used in Great Britain during this time was critical in helping this cause. Civilian art from Moore and Sutherland helped create a sense of shared suffering. Nash's synthesis of natural elements into the war scene helped citizens connect relevant things to their lives to the war, and satirical depictions like Ardizonne and Lee helped show Britain's ability to endure even in times of trouble. Depicting the destruction and suffering might seem counterproductive in a land like the United States, where the war wasn't felt by its

28 civilians, but it's appropriate in Britain. It brought comfort to Britain's citizens to understand that everyone was suffering; it was what bound them all together.

Depicting all of this suffering might not have been as appropriate in a place like the

United States, where civilians really did not feel the effects of the war.50 In a place like Germany, this kind of art would have reflected their situations as well, but instead of unification, it might have made them question the capabilities of Hitler's rule. Fascism was a new concept in

Germany; if German war artists had shown how much people suffered in Germany, it might have led people to think that perhaps fascism did not work after all. By looking at how artists depicted their art, in Britain's case, the abstract feeling-inducing style, we can see that this is most appropriate for Britain and its needs.

Germany's war art program was highly censored and created for nationalistic purposes during the Second World War. While censoring occurred in Britain and USA, it was nowhere near the level of Germany. It would almost seem odd to depict classical subjects, like the

Judgment of , in Britain or USA, but this was very popular in Germany. While the governments of Britain and the United States felt that war art was important to helping citizens understand the war, Germany used war art to distract people from the war. There is no doubt that war art in Germany was extremely propagandistic. These ideal forms, and bloodless battle scenes are not realistic depictions of war at all. In fact, these art pieces are to distract Germans from other horrors going on in their country's government during this time.

Hitler made his views on mixed races very clear from the beginning of his career. Even in his earliest works, like Mein Kampf, Anti-Semitism and a desire to purify Germany is evident in his plan.51 The German people understood what Hitler's ideals were about, and did understand some of darker side to the Nazi Party. But Hitler and the Nazi Party also promised to bring

50 There were, of course, effects on the population. Rationing and conscription, for example. The effects on the American population though were quite less than the effects on the European population. 51 In the Mein Kampf, on page 45, Hitler says, "Was there any form of filth or profligacy, particularly in cultural life, without at least one Jew involved in it?" Just one of many examples.

29 Germany back its former glory. In order to look past some of the more horrible things that the

Nazis alluded to, it was necessary to keep up a steady reminder of Germany's successes. When seeing art forms like these, of strong, German soldiers and hard-working citizens trying to better the country, it makes dealing with the ugly sides of the party more bearable.52 Germany's citizens required this distraction of problems within their government to really move forward. History tends to erase German citizens' involvement or knowledge of things like the Holocaust, putting all of the blame on the Nazi Party, but this really is not the case. The German people had suffered for decades, however after WWI, and required a strong leader to help bring them back to former glory. The war art depicted here allowed for more nationalism amongst the Germans, and to help them justify the reason for WWII.

The United States needed different things from their war artists than Britain or Germany did. The United States' people wanted to be informed of what was going on, and from thousands of miles away, the best way to do this was a realistic style. Americans would have had no concept of this war, and while they knew it was necessary, they would need to be reassured that it was worth it. While people in places like Britain already knew the war was necessary, because they lived it, Americans needed a lot of convincing. While Germans needed their citizens to have pride in the German cause, Americans needed to have faith in theirs. Combat artists in the United States took liberties of depicting these kinds of events, to really get their points across to the American people. Above all else, it was crucial that Americans had support for the war, and the best way to do this was to over-exaggerate things. People like Lea with their more gruesome works, and

Dickinson who was "brutally honest", but capsized more on the dirtier parts of war, really encapsulated the overall struggle that American soldiers went through. More humorous artists, like Mauldin showed America's resilience.

52 If this seems farfetched, it really is not. After WWII, Germany would undergo a kind of "collective amnesia", and the atrocities that happened in the war were not passed down to the younger generation. Even some Nazi party members were pardoned, to not insight a revival in the Nazi Party. All of this was to enable Germany to move on, and regrow, as German's economic revival was crucial to helping rebuild Europe. (Germany had had one of the largest, and strongest economies before WWII; when it was divided and dismantled afterwards, Europe did suffer).

30 This wide range of depictions really gave citizens back home the ability to visualize the war. American citizens are the most disconnected from WWII; the war front is thousands of miles away, across an ocean, so they don't understand what European citizens go through. The very dramatic depictions of these events also make sense for the citizens, as it was to instill a sense of urgency for the war. Americans had been reluctant to go to war, even after Pearl Harbor.

Isolationist policies from after WWI were still intact during this time. American combat art helped fix this problem; it was meant to inform and inspire action to the war.

Each nation had different reasons for choosing the war art that they did. The subjects that each nation focused on played key roles into mobilizing and instilling certain feelings within citizens, as did the styles themselves. The way that war artists portrayed certain subjects had profound impacts on the kind of reactions they were trying to get from civilians. Britain adopted more abstract styles to match the 'freedom' of their country, and become more of an antithesis to

Germany. As well though, these works are generally much more interpretive and the abstract style allows for stronger feelings. In the United States, a more realistic quality was taken to give civilians back home a clearer picture. Germany took traditional influences to create an image of a superior German race descended from great empires. The traditional art style was also to remind its citizens that some necessary evils of the Nazi Party were required to restore the great German empire. All artists adopted these styles to portray images they wanted, and all of them did so to portray images that citizens needed during difficult times of World War II.

31 Annotated Bibliography

• Abrahams, William and Stansky, Peter. London's Burning: Life, Death, and Art in the

Second World War. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1994.

This book gave a good survey on British war artists. Each chapter was dedicated to a different

"sector" in the arts. The helpful section was on Sutherland, Moore, and Nash; it had many good primary source quotes from the artists, which made it a valuable source.

• Adam, Peter. Art of the Third Reich. New York, NY: Harry N. Abrams, INC, 1992.

This book looked at the different aspects of German war art. There was a lot of good background information on the art atmosphere in Germany before the war, and it had a lot of really good details about art pieces. It also mentioned a lot of specific works; this book was my main source of locating specific German art works, since so many other sources lump them all into propaganda. This one dissected German war art into more sections than just propaganda.

• Biddle, George. Artist at War. New York, NY: The Viking Press, 1944.

This is a diary of George Biddle's that he kept during his tour in WWII. Biddle was stationed in

Tunisia for most of the war, so while a lot of the references he made didn't really apply to my paper (because it focused on Europe battles), it also included sketches of his, and how he was feeling while writing/drawing. These feelings while drawing really helped me understand how combat artists felt during the war, and attitudes they had on their own art.

• Biddle, George. George Biddle's War Drawings. New York, NY: The Hyperion Press,

1944.

This is another compilation by George Biddle, but it is solely drawings, except for the prologue.

The drawings are extremely interesting, but the prologue even more so. He expresses his regret

32 and anger at the war when a young friend of his, and a fellow combat art, died. This gave a really interesting insight into the kind of person Biddle was.

• George Biddle, interviewed by Harlan Phillips, Smithsonian ,

1973, accessed October 2014, http://www.aaa.si.edu/collections/interviews/oral-history-

interview-george-biddle-12696

This is a very long interview, and mostly deals with Biddle's background. I would have liked to concentrate on Biddle more, because he was the chairman of the AAC, but when I realized how little influence the AAC really had on war art, and the fact that Biddle was not even stationed in

Europe, a lot of these sources lost a lot of value. They're still interesting to see; and because

Biddle was so prominent in the USA art world, his feelings probably reflected a lot of attitudes of other artists in the USA.

• Bohm-Duchen, Monica. Art and the Second World War. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press, 2013.

Bohm's book was an in depth survey on European nation war art, including , France, and

Russia in addition to England and Germany. There were a lot of references to works as well with pictures. She even broke off German art into more state-regulated art (which is what I looked at) as well as Holocaust art. I would have really liked to include the other side of German art, and the

Holocaust art was so vastly different from German art, but there just was not enough room to do so.

• Chenoweth, Col. H. Avery. Art of War: Eyewitness U.S. Combat Art from the Revolution

through the Twentieth Century. New York, NY: Michael Friedman Publishing Group

Inc., 2002.

33 Chenoweth's book focused solely on USA art. His book was especially good, because it had so many art works, and they were also very big and recreated very well, so they were easy to look at, and the details could be seen easily. As well, Chenoweth has experience in the military, in the US

Marine Corps reserve for Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf wars. When writing the book, he probably had his own experiences in mind. He's also written other books on similar subjects, so he's probably a very good, reliable source.

• Chenoweth, Col. H. Avery. "Combat Artists of Guadakanal." Naval History 21 no 4.

(August 2007): 38-43. Accessed October 2014. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=ahl&AN=25845040&site=ehost-live&scope=site

These were mostly pictures; a lot of them were found in the book above, but I found this source first. There was some new information not found in the book. Because it was shorter than the book, he really talked about the important things, so it was good to compare and see what he felt was most important about USA combat art. Once again though, because "Guadacanal" is not in

Europe, the artwork was not as accurate to the paper as it could have been.

• Clark, Kenneth. "The Future of Painting." The Listener 19, no. 351 (October 1935).

Accessed October 2014. http://www.tate.org.uk/research/publications/tate-

papers/kenneth-clark-and-death-painting

This article by Clark contains his feelings and envisions of a new English art style. It was written before the war even started. If someone were arguing the claim, like I briefly did in my paper, that Clark created the WAAC to help foster an English art style, this would be a really important source to use. Clark really emphasizes the importance of art, not even in just a war. You can tell he had these ideas in mind when proposing the WAAC.

34 • Evans, Richard J. The Third Reich at War 1939-1945. New York, NY: Penguin Group,

2010.

This book contained important primary sources that I used in my paper. A lot of the stuff in this book was also in Art of the Third Reich, but it had other primary sources that I liked, and used in my paper.

• Foss, Brian. War Paint: Art, War, State, and Identity in Britain 1939-1945. New Haven,

CT: Yale University Press, 2007.

This was one of the major sources I used to research the WAAC. This book is a heavily in-depth analysis of the WAAC. It includes background information, the formation, responses, uses in public, and did profiles on prominent artists. His book was interesting especially on one of his opinions: on Henry Moore. Foss was actually hesitant on the actual emotions found in Moore's work, which was an interesting contrasting opinion. His was really the only opposing voice to

Moore's work that I found, and I disagreed with him, so I didn't include it in my paper, but it was interesting to see a contrasting opinion.

• Hanson, Christopher. "Drawing Flak: George Biddle and the Army's World War II Art

Unit." Archives of American Art Journal 47 no. 3/4 (2008): 50-65. Accessed October

2014.http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,cookie,url,cpid,u

id&custid=s8863137&db=aax&AN=505347376&site=eds-live&scope=site&authtype=ip

,uid

This article actually talked about the short-lived AAC in WWII. This was a good thing to have, because most sources only briefly talked about the AAC, since it really did not do much. For information on the formation and organization of the AAC, this was a good source to use.

35 • Hall, Charles. Aerial Creatures: Paul Nash. London: Imperial War Museum, 1996.

Hall did an in-depth analysis on one artist of Britain, Paul Nash. It might have been better to look at detailed works of other artists, but there just was not enough time, or they weren't accessible.

The only real "profile" on a British artist like this in the library was Nash’s that was short enough to read in time. It was really good though, because it included so many quotes from Nash's actual letters and phone calls to people like Clark. As one of the more abstract, and therefore complicated, artists I think this was really helpful to understanding his work.

• Henry Moore, interviewed by Edward Lucie-Smith, BBC Channel 3, 1981, accessed

October 12th 2014, http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/henrymoore/8816.shtml.

The BBC has a very long interview from Henry Moore. The interview spans his entire career, and

Moore had a very prominent career before and after WWII, but the parts on WWII are very interesting. As a very abstract artist, it was good to have a primary source of Moore explaining his own work, instead of having it interpreted by a lot of different people.

• Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf. Translated by James Murphy. Germany, 1925.

http://www.greatwar.nl/books/meinkampf/meinkampf.pdf

The Mein Kampf was used to just cement the idea that Hitler had Anti-Semitic views from the very beginning of his political career. It was used for a direct quote in the paper.

• Hitler, Adolf. "Nuremberg Speech." Speech, Berlin, Germany, 1935.

http://comicism.tripod.com/350921.html

The Nuremberg Speech had a lot of good quotes from Hitler, to show how he felt about German art, and its importance in the public.

36 • Hitler, Adolf. "Speech Inaugurating the 'Great Exhibit of German Art'." Speech, Munich,

Germany, Summer, 1937. http://www.personal.kent.edu/~areischu/Hitler.pdf

Like above, this shows Hitler's support for art. As well, it shows his discontent for modern art, as the Great Exhibit of German Art paralleled the Exhibit of Degenerate Artists.

• Judt, Tony. Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945. New York, NY: Penguin Group,

2005.

Postwar is a good source looking at in-depth look of post-WWII Europe. Most notably, this book helps explain the atmospheres of countries, in this paper Germany, when dealing with the WWII aftermath. The strange occurrence of Germany's "amnesia" to the horrors their leaders did during

WWII is a confusing subject, and Postwar just helped support and explain this idea better.

• McCloskey, Barbara. Artists of World War II. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2005.

This book was a good introduction into looking at different war art of countries. The book gave brief summaries of different nations, including background information of art before the war, and also had prominent artist surveys. While it is not written the best, and the other sources I had proved better, this was a really good first book to read. As well, each chapter included easy to access secondary sources (and because each chapter was divided by nation), so the book proved very useful for easily finding other sources on specific nations.

• Perry, Hamilton Darby. Images of War: The Artist's Vision of World War II. New York,

NY: Orieon Books, 1990.

This book had chapters on Germany, Britain, and the USA (among others). Once again, it had good, relatively short summaries. The pictures made this book very valuable. The recreations of the art in this book were very high quality (like Chenoweth book), looking at the art was easier.

37

• Ross, Alan. Colours of War. London: Jonathan Cape, 1983.

Ross's book was like London's Burning, because it focused on British war artists. But instead of just a few prominent artists, he also included many other, more obscure ones. Ross's book is where I found information, and the existence, of actual British combat artists like William Scott and Keith Vaughn. Ross's book included surveys on dozens of artists, which made it very valuable; many of the other books did not have a lot of information on some more obscure artists.

• Zeman, Zbynek. Selling the War: Art and Propaganda in World War II. London: Orbis

Publishing Limited, 1978.

This book talked mostly about German propaganda. Even though I did not focus on propaganda in my paper, so the book's actual content was not really included, it did help for comparison reasons. By seeing actual German propaganda, I could really see the differences between blatant propaganda and "German war art." It enabled me to make distinctions between the two.

38