CRITI

CAL and HISTORICAL

Choose one of the Artworks studied from the 4 and present two different reports of
200-500 words each. The first must be a historical account. The second must be a
critical account in newspaper format including image, title, by line etc. 7. Due: Dec 1 st
HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF GUERNICA
Guernica is a town in the province of Basque (north east side of Spain) which had been
independent, due to the Republicans allowing them full autonomy, such as having their
own language and government system. The Nationalists, led by Franco, were not in
favour of this, and they sought a return to traditional Catholic values and the archaic
golden days of Spain; a civil and ideological war was occurring. Through Mussolini, the
fascist leader of Italy, and Hitler, the Nationalists organised the attack on the city.
Germany had lent material support to Franco and the Nationalist party, and saw this
attack on Guernica as an opportunity to test out new weapons and tactics, despite the
attack holding no strategic significance. The attack was ultimately made on Francos
behalf to break the spirited Basque resistance to the Nationalist forces and to
demoralise the non-existent enemy.
The precision of the attack, so close to Guggenheim and Bilbao, which Franco needed
for to access the port, is indicative of the Germans accountability for the event.
The attack occurred on market day in Guernica on April 26 th, 1937, where many people
were gathered in the town centre. The attack lasted for three hours, and consisted of
25 German bombers, 20 Messerschmitt and Fiat Fighters as well as incendiary bombs
which dumped 1000 pounds of explosives. People who survived the bombs were shot
down by the machine guns of the fighter planes. Approximately 1600 people were killed
and wounded. Picassos Guernica (1937) and supplementary works such as The Weeping
Woman (1937) were products of these horrendous events and universal suffering, as
even though he hadnt lived in Spain for some time, Picassos loyalty to his homeland was
central to his character. He was asked by the government to submit a work to the 1937
Paris World Fair, which showcased new and emerging technologies, which provided him a
reason to create Guernica.
Guernica faced mixed and adverse reactions from all audiences due to its political
nature: "There was, of course, a great deal of argument about whether or not it was
really as effective a political statement as it could have been if it had been more
accessible, if it had been more traditional. And also whether it was really the strongest
artistic statement it could have been if it weren't so tied up with a specific political
agenda." (art historian Patricia Failing).
In 1938 Guernica was exhibited interntionally, and in future years was generally used
as an anti-war symbol in a number of different war contexts (such as the Vietnam

War). Guernica was viewed in Oslo, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Gtenborg, London, New
York, Brazil and Italy.
"When the painting was on tour around the world, there was a great deal of interest on
the part of Communist Party members and Communist intellectuals about whether or
not this painting would be able to communicate with anybody of the proletarian or
worker class. And so you find that there was a lot of testimony collected over the
years from people of the working class who saw Guernica. And they responded to it
very powerfully, found that they were really just awestruck by this particular painting.
It did seem to have an effect on people who you wouldn't think very likely to react in a
positive way to this kind of elitist painting " (Fielding).
The Unites Nations Building in New York also hosted a tapestry copy of the work,
however it was temporarily covered by a curtain during a press conference by Colin
Powell whilst arguing for a war on Iraq.

OPINION PIECE
stood by and did nothing to help
relieve Spain of their sufferings.

PICASSOS
GUERNICA

Hidden meanings in famous work finally

revealed.
Benjamin Wilson

To me, Picassos Guernica (1937)

remains as one of the most prolific
visual statements against the horrors
of war ever made, due to its
enduring depiction of the destruction
of human (and animal) life.
However, the monochrome work
cannot be reasonably analysed by
simple observation, as the work is
riddled with hidden images and
meanings, which, whilst I often found
them arbitrary, ultimately serve to
inform the viewer.
For example, fascinated by the
Roman cult of Mithraism and the
ritual slaughter of the bull by the Sun
God Mithras, Picasso placed the
bull's head, the only calm figure in
the work, between a jagged naked
light bulb, a crowing cock and a
screaming mother - the Virgin
Dolorosa (paraded through every
Spanish street during Holy Week).
What are we to make of Guernica's
confusing compilation of images
weighted so heavily with religious
and nationalistic content? Gottileb
has commented on the location and
stance of the bull, stating: it stands
at the western end and turns it head
away from the nightmarish event,
believing that it represents the
governments of Western Europe, who

I would argue that Gottilebs

interpretation is the most correct, as
the bull can be seen goring the horse
underneath; the bull is the aggressor
whilst the horse is the victim, a
symbolic image which the
Republican Spanish government
must have undoubtedly endorsed
when they asked Picasso to create
the work.

Picasso simultaneously utilises his

distinctive cubist style and
obfuscatory symbolism to portray the
antiwar message, which has survived
the passage of time and been
adapted for new contexts, ensuring
its enduring relevance and
applicability for audiences in the
years to come. In spite of the fact
that audiences and art critics alike
may never fully grasp the meaning
behind all of Guernicas
multifaceted symbols, Picassos aim
was successfully fulfilled as the work
stands as a pathetic symbol of the

recent past and a warning for the

future (Sandberg 247).

What is your interpretation of the bull? Have

your say in the comments section below.