Strife

The Academic Blog of the Department of War Studies, King's College London

You are here: Home / Archives for WWI

WWI

Canvassing Conflict: Italian Futurism & Artistic Attitudes Toward War Avant Guerre

by

By Sofia Lesmes

20 November 2018

Futurist painters Luigi Russolo, Carlo Carrà, Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, Umberto Boccioni and Gino Severini saw war as a chance for societal progress. This view is reflected in their artwork prior to the First World War.

In 1909, Filippo Marinetti published a scathing manifesto on the front page of France’s Le Figaro. The manifesto stated the vision of the newly created Futurist movement, which declared that the artists would ‘glorify war.’[1] This attitude towards conflict was only one of the Futurists’ numerous beliefs, many of which were politically radical and aggressively nationalistic. The Futurists admired how the rapid development of technology was changing the daily lives of people across Europe. Therefore, the members, which included Marinetti, Umberto Boccioni, Giacomo Balla, Carlo Carrà, and Gino Severini, would use artistic mediums to frame conflict through new technology and its grandeur. Although war was already an established institution in European societies, the ‘modern experience’ meant encompassing the trends of industrialisation and mechanisation into the cultural understanding of state violence. The movement welcomed developments in military capabilities that had come about in the nineteenth century such as lighter fighter planes, advanced chemical weapons, and the Maxim gun. The artsits hailed these developments as a catalyst for national excellence on the battlefield and, therefore, on the international stage. The Futurist aesthetic, then, served as an outlet for this perception of war . Therefore, it is useful to analyse this artistic movement to understand certain cultural attitudes towards war during the avant guerre period.

Europe and the ‘long nineteenth century’

Europe had not seen a pan-continental conflict since 1815. During this time, there was a changing perception that large-scale wars were a thing of the past and that shorter, more efficient wars were the new norm.[2] This, combined with the developments of the Second Industrial Revolution, fostered an almost welcoming attitude towards the institution of war after ‘the long nineteenth century.’[3] When war was declared in 1914, its reception was to a large extent positive. As Rafael Scheck writes, ‘although many people in Germany had felt apprehensive about war during the July crisis, once war had come, almost everybody accepted it and nobody looked back.’ In Britain, ‘the people’s enthusiasm culminated outside Buckingham Palace when it became known that war had been declared … The news was received with tremendous cheering.’

Futurism & The Idea of War

Futurism wanted to explore the ability to synthesize objects in a state of motion and of rest. Artists sought to express this synthesis through paintings, among other mediums, and combined art with advanced technology.[4] In Boccioni’s Materia (1912), although a woman figure (alluding to the Madonna) is the central focus of the painting, everything about her is imbibed with elements of steel and machinery. This represents the goal of the Futurists, which was to bring Italian society into the future, or more importantly, out of the past. Subsequently, one of Futurism’s central tenets was the importance of technology and movement in society. Futurists believed that the ‘modern experience’ would emulate the machine; it would be swift, orderly, and methodical. By rejecting history and tradition (an attitude called anti-passatista), Futurists praised the rapid development of infrastructure, cities, and weapons. They looked to the movement and energy of new technology to drive people into an amplified vision of the future. As the Manifesto of the Futurist Painters in 1911 declared, ‘living art draws its life from the surrounding environment.’ Therefore, if the surrounding environment was a European diplomatic stalemate, then technology combined with a ‘brisk and merry’ war was good for European society.[5]

Futurism & the Aesthetic of War

Futurist works sought to embody the modern experience as advancement, and war as a tool used to propel human progress. The artists believed that war was cultural progress, and they embraced the new weapons and technology that facilitated it. In The City Rises (1911), Boccioni represents a city-setting as full of motion and frantic. It largely resembles a battle painting, with chaotic motions and distraught scenarios. The figures in the painting, while supposedly building parts of a city, are swept across the canvas in a collective motion of struggle. Boccioni’s depiction of a war-like state emphasizes how the ‘modern’ society would advance through conflict and turmoil. Showing movement meant showing progress, and this progress would eventually lead to an ideal state of society underpinned by the machine.

Gino Severini’s 1915 painting Armoured Train in Action is a prime example of how war influenced Futurists’ art.

The Futurist aesthetic reached a climax before World War I.[6] Their works, which were heavily influenced by Cubism and Post-Impressionism, demonstrated a passion for the technology of warfare. Weapons and soldiers were depicted as parts of an efficiently running machine, while conflict was painted as fluid movement and energy. For example, works such as Funeral of the Anarchist Galli (1911) and Armoured Train in Action (1915) show the Futurists’ admiration for the sleek aesthetic of war, violence, and youth. The artists attempt to depict the commotion of conflict in a harmonious composition, and objects are the central lines of focus instead of people. According to the Italian-born academic Arundel del Re, ‘Marinetti, forgetting the real nature of war, had raised it to a romantic ideal.’[7] This depiction of conflict not only glorified the possibilities created by new technology, it also reaffirmed the idea that violence and conflict were good for society. The Futurists’ aesthetic reflected the idea that the new type of war was as quick and agile as its weaponry. However, this ideal lost popularity after the first World War, and the Futurist movement was not an exception.

Futurism & the end of the ‘Great War’

At the beginning of the twentieth century, cultural perceptions of war had yet to adapt to the new realities of warfare. As John Mueller writes, ‘before 1914, the institution of war still carried with it much of the glamour and the sense of inevitability it had acquired over the millennia’.[8] But what would happen after 1914, when the weapons systems were actually used on the battlefield? The first World War severely changed Western cultural perceptions of war. The introduction of new weapons including fighter planes, the Maxim gun, and chemical weapons onto the battlefield resulted in mass casualties during the war. This certainly had a cultural impact on art and, therefore, societal behaviour towards state-sponsored violence. By 1925, the majority of the leading artists had rejected the movement.While figures such as Boccioni died on the front, others shifted to different art styles. Carrà, for example, dedicated the rest of his career to painting neo-Renaissance figures in Paris. This indicates a complete turn towards what he had so vehemently opposed the decade before. The cultural shift shows how Futurists’ perceptions changed when they were faced with the reality of war. Leading figures of the movement had witnessed the potency of new machinery and advanced weapons and began to move away from their previous beliefs. Even if modern society was driven by the machine, it was also subject to it.

Although the Futurists were ambivalent and radical in their political beliefs, their artistic objectives were much more cohesive. Futurism wanted to depict the collective urban experience as they saw it: characterised by speed and agility. Conflict played into this through its ‘cathartic effect’ on society, where violence and machines were considered signs of development. The Futurists’ admiration of conflict was an example of cultural attitudes towards war in the early twentieth century, when new technology idealised the future of warfare. It exemplifies one societal reception to modern weaponry that welcomed war in its new form: a quicker and sleeker one. To study art in this context is to examine an admiration for the established institution of war and its changing characteristics.

Sofia Lesmes is a final year BA student reading History & International Relations. She is also a BA representative for Strife. She has worked as an intern at her local U.S. House District office, in addition to having extensive experience in the private sector. She is a Colombian and U.S. dual citizen. Her academic interests include analysing the U.S. and UK’s ‘special relationship’ from a historical perspective, coercive diplomacy, and ethnic conflict in the former Yugoslavia. You can follow her on twitter @slesmes98.

[1] Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, ‘Le Futurisme’, Le Figaro, February 20, 1909

[2] John Mueller, “Changing Attitudes towards War: The Impact of the First World War.” British Journal of Political Science 21, no. 1 (1991): 15.

[3] Eric Hobsbawm, 1962

[4] Hal Foster et al, Art Since 1900: Modernism, Antimodernism, Postmodernism. (London: Thames & Hudson, 2004), 90.

[5] Richard Ned Lebow, Between Peace and War (Baltimore Md: Johns Hopkins university

Press, 1981) p. 251 quoted in Mueller, “Changing Attitudes towards War”, 15

[6] Foster et al., Art Since 1900, 95

[7] Arundel del Re, Poetry and Drama II, 1913, 403 quoted in Marjorie Perloff, The Futurist Movement: Avant Garde, Avant Guerre, and the Language of Rupture. (London, University of Chicago Press, 1986), 36.

[8] Mueller,“Changing Attitudes towards War”, 11

Image 1 source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurism#/media/File:Russolo,_Carr%C3%A0,_Marinetti,_Boccioni_and_Severini_in_front_of_Le_Figaro,_Paris,_9_February_1912.jpg

Image 2 source: https://www.wikiart.org/en/gino-severini/armored-train-in-action-1915

Call for submissions for Strife special series: WWI in your life

by

The First World War engaged governments, soldiers, civilians, medical and support personnel from various countries and backgrounds around the world. It affected the way we view conflict and initiated far-reaching political and social changes that we still see today. This year, as the world remembers WWI on its 100th anniversary, Strife wants to hear your stories and reflections on the impact that WWI had on the lives of you and your family.
Did you have relatives which participated in, or supported efforts related to, WWI? With our global audience, Strife is putting out a call to all readers to submit their stories about their history in relation to WWI. We want your stories, photos, letters, and memories about how the war impacted upon you, your family and how you view conflict.
Submissions for consideration should be around 500 words and submitted in accordance with the guidelines located on our site. Please also include a brief writer profile of no more than three lines. Those chosen will be featured on the site as a special series over the month of August.
Please address all submissions and inquiries to: [email protected] Submissions will be accepted until the end of August.
We look forward to your stories.
The editors, Strife

Remembering conflict: the two Great Wars

by

By Louis Mignot:

War as a phenomenon hangs in the public consciousness, something that has become all the more apparent as we approached the centenary commemoration of the First World War. All wars are characterised by violence and loss of life, but the First World War has come to represent the experience of soldiers worldwide. This is evinced in the poppy; the flower that grew in Flanders has now come to symbolise remembrance for soldiers who have fought in all wars. It is significant, however, that the public do not seem to commemorate conflicts from before the First World War to the same extent. For example, the Napoleonic Wars - the original ‘Great War’ - have, apart from ongoing academic interest, faded from public consciousness. The question should be asked; will the First World War’s impact on the public consciousness fade in the face of later conflicts?

‘The Great War’

There can be no doubt that the First World War was horrific, bloody and, indeed, global in its profound impact on society. With approximately nine million deaths spread across all sides throughout the four-year conflict, there is an obvious, direct and indirect, impact on the population to this day. Many families will have distant relatives who fought, or indeed died, in the First World War. Yet, the number of deaths cannot be the only causal factor behind the conflict’s continued vivid remembrance. The Napoleonic wars were, whilst longer, exceedingly costly in terms of lives. For instance, Napoleon’s invasion of Russia in 1812, marking the end of the Napoleonic Wars proper (the bi-centenary passing in 2012), was exceedingly bloody; of the 422,000 soldiers that marched into Russia, only 10,000 returned.[i] This is a staggering loss, taking place over a very short time period: six months of combat against a spectral Russian enemy and the deadly Russian winter. The bi-centenary of the 1812 campaign was marked by receptions at the Russian Embassy to mark the ‘Patriotic War’ and by a series of scholarly articles, amongst other things. Now, whilst this is a commemoration, there is far less profundity. This is by no means unjustified: the First World War is, in chronological terms, much closer to the modern day and was, arguably, the start of a new phase of warfare; the industrial war.

The chronology of the conflict must be a factor contributing to the level of its commemoration. Yet, there is more to it than simple timing. If this were the case, then the Second World War would surely supersede it in terms of commemoration. The fact that the First World War is seen as a turning point in history, coming near the start of the 20th Century, involving millions of combatants and using new, increasingly brutal and efficient weapons marks it out in the consciousness of many people to this day. This is perfectly demonstrated by the Poppy Campaign; the campaign aims to raise money for serving soldiers, but its iconography is rooted in the First World War; this conflict has been held up as the epitome of war’s impact on society, making it the perfect symbol for an appeal for serving soldiers.

Will this trend continue?

Whilst there have been numerous conflicts since the First World War, only the Second World War seems to have gained similar levels of commemoration. There seems to be an implied ‘ranking’ of conflicts in the public consciousness; the title ‘world war’ sets up the First and Second World Wars on a par – they come to be seen as the epitome of what negative impacts war can have, and therefore something to avoid. Despite this, the Second World War has not superseded the First in terms of its impact in the public consciousness; people view the Second World War as almost a bi-product of the First. That is, students at GCSE level in the UK learn of the Treaty of Versailles, how Germany was humbled and, indeed, humiliated by its terms, leading to economic decline and the rise of Adolf Hitler. As a result, the First World War retains its mantle as the ‘first’ of the industrial, ‘new’ wars; it remains one of the turning points in history. Whilst the Second World War has its own horrors and is rightly remembered for the fight to stop them, this trend will likely continue.

Some may argue that as the last combatants of the First World War have passed on, the war will lose its continuing significance and commemoration. Yet, the First World War is rooted in our architecture; the cenotaph, the memorials at Thiepval (amongst others), school children take sobering tours of the battlefields, and learn of the horrors of the war. Moreover, films and television shows continue to be made about the conflict; classics such as ‘Paths of Glory’ and ‘Blackadder’ followed by more recent productions like ‘Joyeux Noelle’ and ‘Our World War’ keep this conflict in our minds, albeit in a simplified and somewhat detached form. As the centenary approaches, new articles will be written, new television programmes will be produced, all adding to the existing work on the subject, inciting new debate – most recently over the pre-existing view that the generals were to blame for the losses of the war. As a result, the First World War will, for a significant time to come, be remembered with the same levels of profundity as current commemorations. Whilst wars of the previous centuries may have lost some of their lingering impact, none of them rival the First World War for its continued effect on everyday life. As is clear from the centenary commemoration of the First World War, the conflict retains its profound impact on the national consciousness, and, even after those who experienced it first-hand pass on, the experience of the war will remain in the public consciousness.

 

________________

Louis Mignot is a second year undergraduate student at King’s College London reading War Studies and History. You can follow Louis Mignot on Twitter @LouisMignot.

 

NOTES
[i] Frank McLynn, Napoleon, a Biography, (London: Pimlico, 1998), p. 375.