Echoes of War in Picasso’s Guernica

First published 2021; revised 2022

Throughout history, the atrocities and devastations of war have profoundly affected artists, leading them to convey these feelings through their work. For countless generations, art has served as a reflection of society and the human condition. Among the most iconic pieces that address the barbarities of conflict is Pablo Picasso’s “Guernica.” Created in 1937, this masterpiece came into existence as a vehement reaction to the bombing of the Basque town of Guernica during the Spanish Civil War. The powerful imagery and the vastness of the piece, with its almost mural-like dimensions of 25.6 feet in width and 11 feet in height, have solidified its position as a symbol against war and oppression.

Contact

Picasso’s unique style is immediately apparent in “Guernica.” Using the Cubist approach that he played a pivotal role in developing, the painting features fragmented, geometric shapes and forms. Its restrained palette, dominated by sombre hues of black, white, and blue, underscores the bleakness and tragedy of the event it portrays. Picasso’s choice of colors allows the emotions of pain, suffering, and despair to resonate deeply with the viewer, drawing them into the chilling scene.

The characters and symbols within the painting, each laden with significance, create a chaotic tapestry of destruction and anguish. At the painting’s forefront, we encounter a horse in agony, a bull, a barely discernible pigeon, and distressed human figures. The animals have been subjects of varying interpretations over the years. While some believe the horse and bull symbolise facets of Spanish culture and traditions, others argue that Picasso’s recurrent usage of these animals in different contexts throughout his career might negate such a cultural interpretation. The subtle pigeon can be perceived as a metaphor for the obliteration of peace, while the depicted women, encapsulated in their raw emotions of terror and sorrow, amplify the universal message of the horrors of war. This culminates in the image of a dismembered man, symbolising death and the utter desolation that conflict invariably brings.

Grasping the depth of “Guernica” requires an understanding of the nuances of Cubism, a revolutionary art movement that veered away from conventional portrayals of reality. Traditional classical and neoclassical artists endeavoured to mirror the world, portraying it in its true form or even an idealised version. In stark contrast, Cubists like Picasso embraced a more abstract representation, giving birth to a novel, avant-garde perspective of reality. This style, championed by Picasso and Georges Braque, deconstructed subjects, showing them from varied angles simultaneously. Picasso’s appreciation for the geometric intricacies of African masks is evident in many of his works, adding another layer to his unique Cubist renderings. “Guernica”, while not as geometrically rigorous as some of Picasso’s other Cubist works, exhibits quintessential features of the movement: distorted perspectives, a condensed color palette, and a notable departure from realism. The indelible mark of “Guernica,” coupled with Picasso’s other masterpieces, was instrumental in transitioning the art domain towards modernism, setting the stage for the rise of abstract art.

The tragic irony of “Guernica” lies in its initial reception. The artwork was intended to make a significant impact at the 1937 Paris World’s Fair. However, to the shock of many, it was met with indifference, with viewers failing to grasp its profound message and preferring other exhibits. This puzzling initial response might have been due to the overshadowing political atmosphere and the end of the Spanish Civil War. Yet, as history progressed and global events unfolded, the painting’s message resonated deeply with audiences worldwide. The advent of World War II dramatically shifted perceptions, bringing the brutality depicted in “Guernica” to the forefront of collective consciousness. Its renewed significance in a war-torn world was recognised, particularly in 1939, when it was exhibited in New York.

In conclusion, Picasso’s “Guernica” is more than just a painting; it is a visual outcry against the horrors of war, a plea for humanity, and a reminder of our capacity for devastation. The artwork’s journey from an initially misunderstood piece to a globally recognised anti-war symbol is a testament to its enduring relevance. It serves as a poignant reminder that art has the unparalleled power to evoke emotion, create discourse, and ultimately change perspectives.

Links

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Authors-Movements-Twentieth-Century-Twentieth-Century-ebook/dp/B0BMWB28FG/

https://www.theatlantic.com/books/archive/2022/07/picasso-guernica-political-art-history-myth/670496/

https://www.pablopicasso.org/guernica.jsp

Guernica by Pablo Picasso

A Comparative Study of Cultural Responses in ‘Look We Have Coming to Dover!’ and ‘The Deliverer’

First published 2021; revised 2023

In the world of poetry, the exploration of cultures, identities, and the complex intersectionality that arises from them is a theme that has often been tackled with depth and nuance. Through their unique poetic lenses, poets frequently uncover the multiple ways individuals respond to cultures unfamiliar to them, examining the sentiments of wonder, alienation, understanding, and sometimes, resistance. In Look We Are Coming to Dover! by Daljit Nagra, and The Deliverer by Tishani Doshi, two poignant pieces that intersect at this thematic crossroad, we witness distinct yet interconnected portrayals of reactions to new and different cultural landscapes. This essay will aim to compare and contrast the manner in which these two works navigate the varied emotional and intellectual responses to other cultures, shedding light on the universal human experience of confronting and interacting with the unfamiliar.

Contact

Both Look We Have Coming to Dover! and The Deliverer explore responses to other cultures but from two different perspectives. In Look We Have Coming to Dover!, Nagra tells of the arrival of immigrants to England and of their lives filled with hard work, fears and dreams. Here, Nagra explores responses to other cultures through the voice of an immigrant whose experience in spite of the initial difficulties which indubitably coincide with migration, can still imagine a future where they can settle legally and in prosperity, evoking the notion of hope from the reader. Contrastingly, in the Deliverer, Doshi speaks on the prevalence of female infanticide in rural India and the lives of the women who help commit it. Doshi explores responses to other cultures through bringing into light the juxtaposing cultures of the world; shocking practices that are done in India contrasting with the more modernised and civilised America. The tone in both poems differs massively. In Look We Have Coming to Dover!, the poem starts with a tone of disappointment as the narrator discloses hardship and poverty. In comparison to the ‘cushy’ tourists, the narrator and his kind have very little power – economic or otherwise in a new culture. But despite this, the narrator can imagine a future where they have won their way to prosperity. However, in the Deliverer, the tone lacks emotion and could be arguably interpreted as uncaring. Or perhaps some may suggest the poet did not want to integrate their own emotions and judgements into the poem allowing the reader to form their own opinion of the culture in rural India, making it extremely effective at making the poem even more memorable for the reader.

Keeping this in mind, the reader may pause and reflect how Doshi’s exploration of cultures are indeed very stereotypical. In essence, the speaker explains how her mother visited a convent in South India where she learns how the nun would collect children who are discarded because they were ‘crippled or dark or girls’. The asyndetic list of inadequacies increased in a manner that would shock an ordinary reader but for some, it may raise the question as to why Doshi focuses on one particular country in South Asia rather than addressing crimes as such which occur around the world. This reinforces the stereotype that countries in South Asia such as India are patriarchal countries with limited feminism where women are treated poorly. This interpretation is backed by the two locations in the poem which are identified by the subheadings; first, a convent in Kerala and later the poem moves to an airport in the USA. The use of these locations is important, particularly due to the fact that they are each other’s antithesis. While airports represent global connections, technology and a mix of cultures, a ‘convent’ would in many cases be seen as the opposite of this, as a traditional location focused on individual religion, further magnifying stereotypes.

In a similar vein, though an immigrant himself, in the very first line Nagra depiction of the immigrants can be seen as stereotypical. They were ‘stowed in the sea to invade’. The inclusion of “invade” introduces the ongoing theme of words with negative connotations, but this one is particularly notable not only because it is mentioned in the very first line but also because of the direct link to hostile people entering another country. However, this is juxtaposed with the idea of being “stowed” and hidden away unnoticed, with it unlikely for people to be able to invade a country with no supplies. This could therefore be interpreted as Nagra’s criticism of immigration being detrimental or even dangerous which is hugely stereotypical and misleading. Some readers may infer that this criticism is due to the narrator becoming more whitewashed i.e. now that the narrator lives in Britain, he has grown superior frowns upon immigrants, irrespective of his own roots. This inference is substantiated with the collective noun ‘swarms’ insinuating insects which Nagra employs later in the poem to dehumanise immigrants. Alternatively, some readers may as well infer that Nagra is not criticising but instead mocking how the indigenous population regards newcomers as a threat In this respect, both poems demonstrate similar stereotypical ideas that surround cultures.

In the Deliverer, Doshi explores how women in less developed areas don’t respond to culture and its patriarchal norms. They simply follow the same pattern with no real change. – The tercets in the poem could strengthen the interpretation which mimics a pattern, evoking the notion of continuity. – For instance, at the end of the poem, it’s said that mothers ‘squeeze out life’ and then ‘trudge home to lie down for their men again’. Both quotes have monosyllabic words which make the poem feel more personal and less planned – the narrator is telling things ‘how they are’. The fact that the verb ‘squeeze’ suggests the mothers push and get rid of the baby as quickly as possible as if it were a chore and then ‘trudge’ home to go ‘lie down for their men again’ magnifies the women’s hardships and makes the reader ponder if women are baby-making machines, trapped in a continuous life of sexual reproduction. This interpretation is backed by the lack of figurative or descriptive language in the poem which contributes to a flatness of tone, expressing the bleakness of the situation. Again there is no moral judgement, as the reader is left to contemplate the inequalities of women as well as their brutal realities too. Though some could challenge that women don’t respond to sexist cultural norms with the verb ‘trudge’ which suggests unwillingness. Perhaps affected women do want to alter their lives but don’t have the means to or are discouraged to do so thereby they return to their ordinary lives. Not only is rural India portrayed in a stereotypical manner but also America. In the second part of the poem, the child is delivered to the family in America. Here it is mentioned that they are ‘American so they know about ceremony’ implying that in the western culture all birth and adoption are a serious matter. Furthermore, it is written in italics that the child’s parents ‘couldn’t stop crying’. This outburst of emotion could be seen as reasonable by some readers however others may believe that it reinforces the stereotype of Americans being overly emotional. Hence, this is how the response to culture is explored by Doshi.

Contrastingly, the narrator in Look We Have Coming to Dover! responds to the newfound culture very differently. For example, the imagery in the quote: ‘moon’s spotlight… miracle of the sun’ as well as the contrast between ‘moon’ and ‘sun’ hints that the narrator acknowledges that for immigrants at the beginning entering a new culture with dissimilar ideologies could be hard and apprehensive but slowly life becomes a bit easier due to hope; hope for citizenship, hope for an improved quality of life etc. Though some readers may perceive the ‘sun’ as alluding to the idea that those coming to the UK may need to hope for a ‘miracle’ in order to be fully accepted as part of society. Nonetheless, the narrator is not discouraged. Indeed, the wordplays such as ‘phlegmed’, the varied rhyme schemes, as well as the variation of line length, could be inferred as to how the narrator is trying to adapt to this newfound culture by striving to speak the language however it is very hard. A reader could be reminded of their own experiences with learning foreign languages, generating sympathy for the speaker. Moreover, the lines are shorter in the beginning but progress into longer lines could convey the narrator’s belief that an immigrant has to work their way up. Thus, the narrator responds to culture with his endeavour to adapt to it.

To summarise, both poets explore the responses to other cultures through a variety of methods and techniques. Despite a few minor exceptions, the two poems do differ massively when it comes to exploring responses to other cultures as one response to it positively and the other negatively.

Links

https://www.litcharts.com/poetry/daljit-nagra/look-we-have-coming-to-dover

https://www.litcharts.com/poetry/tishani-doshi/the-deliverer

Theocratic Governance: An Examination of Systemic Inequality and Its Implications for Minorities

First published 2020; revised 2023

The foundation of governance lays the groundwork for the realisation of human rights and equality. However, the type of governance in place can dramatically impact how these rights and equality are achieved or inhibited. A striking difference is seen when contrasting the concepts of democracy and theocracy. These two forms of government stand at opposing ends, especially when we evaluate their perspectives on human rights and equality.

Theocratical governments, at their core, are driven by religious ideologies, often promoting the idea that certain individuals are divinely entitled to power, privilege, and resource distribution. Such a belief system inherently creates inequality. In theocracies, the governing ethos is deeply embedded in religious teachings and practices, which significantly influence societal norms and values. Consequently, the inability of individuals to freely choose or change their religious affiliation under a theocratic regime can lead to their marginalisation and violation of their basic human rights.

Contact

Democracies, on the other hand, emphasise secular independence, a principle that underscores that laws should be justifiable without the need for religious reasons. Such a distinction not only allows freedom of religious belief but also ensures that no group is marginalised or discriminated against solely based on religious precepts.

Afghanistan’s treatment of women under its theocratic regime is a glaring example of how theocracy can breed inequality. Under the umbrella of religious governance, women in Afghanistan have faced extreme oppression. The nation’s alarming distinction as one of the most challenging places for women is a testament to the theocracy’s failures in ensuring equal rights. The pervasive cultural and religious norms deeply entrenched in society have perpetuated this gender inequality. This imbalance is not just symbolic but has concrete ramifications. From a lack of representation in leadership roles and higher education to systematic violence, financial dependence, and curtailed decision-making rights, women in Afghanistan face daily challenges that reflect the inherent flaws of a theocratic system.

The discrimination faced by the Muhamasheen community in Yemen further emphasises the detrimental impact of theocratical governance on minority rights. This marginalised Black community is often subjected to violence, including gender-based violence, perpetuated by deep-rooted racial and religious prejudice. Their social standing, akin to servants, further illustrates the state-endorsed discrimination they face, making it challenging to access essential services like education, healthcare, housing, and dignified work. The systemic discrimination against Muhamasheen, driven by Yemen’s lineage-based theocratical system, paints a grim picture of life for minorities under religious rule.

The root of the issue with theocratic governments lies in their foundational principle that merges state and religion, thereby making religious decrees synonymous with state laws. This blend of spiritual beliefs and legal frameworks can be problematic, as it tends to suppress diverse views or beliefs that deviate from the established religious doctrines. As such, the theocratic system might inadvertently promote intolerance and prejudice against any group that doesn’t adhere strictly to the sanctioned beliefs, resulting in systemic discrimination.

Furthermore, another troubling facet of theocratic governance is its lack of a transparent system of checks and balances. In many democratic systems, the separation of powers ensures that no single entity gains unchecked authority. However, in theocracies, religious leaders or their representatives wield significant influence over both spiritual and secular aspects of life. This concentration of power can often lead to autocratic tendencies, further marginalising minority groups and stifling voices of dissent. As there is an inherent belief that these leaders are divinely appointed or inspired, challenging their decisions becomes not just a political or social risk but also a religious transgression.

Moreover, while religion can provide a moral compass and a sense of purpose, making it the sole basis for governance often results in the exclusion of scientific, economic, and sociological perspectives. Decisions driven purely by religious tenets might not always align with modern understandings of human rights, economic realities, or global diplomatic dynamics. By sidelining pragmatic and rational deliberations in favor of religious dogma, theocratic governments might inadvertently hinder progress, development, and adaptability. Such an approach can further exacerbate inequalities, particularly if religious interpretations remain rigid and unyielding in the face of evolving societal needs and global challenges.

In conclusion, the consequences of theocratic governance on marginalised communities are palpable and deeply troubling. From the plight of Afghan women to the struggles of the Muhamasheen in Yemen, it is evident that theocracy amplifies inequality. If societies genuinely aim for the realisation of human rights for all, theocratic principles that propagate discrimination, suppression, and denial of basic rights need to be reevaluated and replaced with more inclusive and equitable governance systems.

Links

Click to access 954_Social_inequalities_and_famine_and_severe_food_insecurity_risk%20.pdf

https://sanaacenter.org/publications/analysis/7490

https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/lawreview/vol47/iss4/6/

https://epaa.asu.edu/index.php/epaa/article/view/3036

https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/jcred/vol32/iss2/3/