Abu Ghraib
Fernando Botero
Botero's paintings depict the torture, abuse and humiliation of Iraqi prisoners by American soldiers.
Link to Botero's Abu Ghraib series
Botero Sees the World's True Heavies at Abu Ghraib
Washington Post Article, November, 2007
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"A painting is not thought out and settled in advance. While it is being done, it changes as one's thoughts change. And when it's finished, it goes on changing, according to the state of mind of whoever is looking at it." - Pablo Picasso
Guernica, 1937My interpretation of this quote by Picasso is that art has the capability to transform and challenge to the point that we become different people. Theory is very much like this.
9 comments:
Like we've discussed in class numerous times, images such as these create a production of truth, thus transforming people's views. Picasso's quote makes me think that the perspectives on art/imagery are always changing, depending on who's interpreting it. It's a continuous process, so our interpretations on images like these can be completely different to future generations' interpretations.
Botero's art, though depicting true kinds of torture, is still imagery created to stir some emotions in people. The top blindfolded man seems like he's crying tears of blood, evidently trying to reach out to the viewer's ideas of the humaneness of torture. His art has a mix of objective and subjective elements in it.
This beast is an empire whose greed has consumed it’s soul. Its eyes are gypsy coins that deceive, wriggling out of pockets and hands, promising opportunity and delivering wicked strife. Its teeth drip with black decay - death - now ages old and ripe for the taking. Sweet death. The devil dog has grown accustomed to the repugnant taste in its mouth. It has a digital nose that gathers intelligence, and serves as a steadfast buttress when it wants to pounce. Its ink-stained tongue slops the air for more, prowling the night for victims.
Look down. This corpulent carcass is a fool. He sings and dances in court, with a red and white garb on. His name is Abu. Abu’s garb is stained black by the blood of his father, whose sandy house rested upon prehistoric seas, now dead. Sweet death. The devil dog’s cyborg nose smelled it, and now there is no peace for Abu.
Abu’s hands and feet are tied in Exxon knots, learned by the devil dog’s puppies in the boy scouts. He screams out, sad songs of revolution.
Justine:
Yes, so in this regard, for Picasso, the meaning of a painting is fluid. Guernica was Picasso’s response to the photographs depicting the atrocities and devastation in the horrific aerial bombardment of a civilian town. The painting became a traveling symbol against fascism, an embodiment of peace and anti-war, and a powerful symbol of identity and struggle for the Basque region. And true to Picasso’s words that a painting “…goes on changing, according to the state of mind of whoever is looking at it", a reproduction of the Guernica at the U.N. was covered and concealed during the Colin Powell speeches to the Security Council in the months preceding the invasion of Iraq…
The subjectivity in Botero’s work enables Abu Ghraib to hang on a museum wall…the art makes it easier for us to think about what happened at Abu Ghraib. But, it also makes it more difficult for us to forget that, under the auspice of freedom, our military invaded a sovereign nation and committed such horrific acts of brutality.
Botero’s paintings also draw us into what “torture” and “abuse” actually means for these Iraqi prisoners. The depth of the humiliation, emasculation, suffering and the assault and degradation upon all that these Iraqi men value as life giving, is profoundly evoked.
So, too, Botero’s paintings and drawings “…change as one’s thoughts change” – that is, we are transformed as we engage with the art. Hopefully. Hopefully enough to feel a sense of responsibility to other human beings and engage in some form of protest.
Elliot:
...powerful and very unsettling prose. Yours? In reading this I realized that I have never given thought to the meaning of the words "Abu Ghraib" in Arabic. Abu -- "father of”. A question on interpretation: The “sandy house rested upon prehistoric seas"...is it Mesopotamia? And is “Abu” all Iraqi men in an occupied Iraq?
Thanks for sharing this.
I think many times visual artwork has a bigger impact on a person than a reading or article. At least for me, after seeing the images of the tortured Iraqi prisoners i felt humanly connected with these people. Different from reading an article where imagination comes into play, these images will be stuck in my head as to what actually happens. I feel like these images give the viewer every single detail which can freely be interpreted. Getting a visual interpretation of this torture inflicted by Americans definitely makes me feel upset and angry about the hushed actions of our government.
As people have said, using artwork to represent something can be more powerful and evoke stronger emotions than written language. This can also be expanded past still art to include the use of movement, such as in dance or theatre, to make a point. Picasso stated that the painting goes on changing according to the state of mind of whoever is looking at it, and I think one reason why art may be more powerful than written word is because it is much more open to one's own interpretations.
I agree with what other people have said: a painting is open to interpretation. But I think that the part where it says "While it is being done, it changes as one's thoughts change", means that the painting could change the thoughts of the painter while he/she is painting it. As it is being painted the artist may realize what it is that he is portraying and has the choice of excluding or adding more images.
Also, I think Picasso was aware of the influence art had on the people and on politics. I remember that during Caren Kaplan's talk she told the story of how when Picasso saw a camouflaged tank he said "we created that"; it was similar to Cubism. Art was being used as a tool for the military.
The painting by Picasso made me think of how distorted the image of "humanity" can be when there are so many instances of violence, torture, and oppression within an empire that believes in morality and justice. it comes to a point where those morals become unrecognizable in such an empire because of all the contradictions it makes. It also made me think of the culture vs nature divide, and by looking at the pictures of Abu Ghraib, which I saw when it was here at Berkeley, it made me think, at what point is it that a human or an empire that considers itself humane, civilized, and moral become the so called dreaded "savage" that is associated with lack of morality, terror, and violence. these images show the brutality that can exist within an empire, and makes me wonder: If an empire fights "terrorists" by the same torture methods or worse methods, how does that make an empire any different from the "terrorist"? I think the overall idea of empire, is that it is brutal and a terrorist itself especially in its military areas.
Karen, I think you've totally hit the nail on the head with the idea of empire inherently contradictory. How can we (the US) claim to be freedom fighters, liberators, and champions of democracy when we unlawfully imprison our own citizens and are increasingly becoming a watched society. Going back to the 9/11 mosque controversy, how can we claim that we are fighting to liberate Muslims from oppressive regimes like the Taliban or Saddam Hussein, while denying American Muslims their right to practice their religion freely as American citizens? The brutality of empire goes far beyond the physical torture and suffering, but it also stretches into the ideological. By that I mean that often times we (America) delude ourselves into thinking that we are "right" simply because we are who we are. We are taught from a young age that America stands for freedom and justice, yet the more I look at America, the less of that I see. I think that a great deal of the American empire's strength is founded in this; hopefully it won't take more tragic incidents like Guernika to make us aware of who we really are.
Karen, I think you've totally hit the nail on the head with the idea of empire inherently contradictory. How can we (the US) claim to be freedom fighters, liberators, and champions of democracy when we unlawfully imprison our own citizens and are increasingly becoming a watched society. Going back to the 9/11 mosque controversy, how can we claim that we are fighting to liberate Muslims from oppressive regimes like the Taliban or Saddam Hussein, while denying American Muslims their right to practice their religion freely as American citizens? The brutality of empire goes far beyond the physical torture and suffering, but it also stretches into the ideological. By that I mean that often times we (America) delude ourselves into thinking that we are "right" simply because we are who we are. We are taught from a young age that America stands for freedom and justice, yet the more I look at America, the less of that I see. I think that a great deal of the American empire's strength is founded in this; hopefully it won't take more tragic incidents like Guernika to make us aware of who we really are.
Post a Comment