Corey Allikas Painting the War: Artistic Depictions of World War II in Europe, 1939-1945 HIST
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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: Imperial War Museum 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 Barnett Freedman'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 France, 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 ..