V for Victory: Massacre in Korea, Picasso (1951)

13 May 2011

Massacre in Korea, Picasso (1951)

The Massacre in Korea, painted by Picasso in the year 1951, depicts a scene from the Korean War. After his famous piece, Guernica, Picasso focused his drawings on an anti-war message, criticizing governments for their actions. This painting is famous for its resemblance to Goya’s The Third of May 1808. The Massacre in Korea was a response to the 1950 Sinchon Massacre, when South Korean troops and American soldiers marched out to Sinchon, North Korea, and killed huge numbers of people presumed to be communist supporters, but also civilians (Park, Par 3). Though the details of this incident are still debated by the North and the South, the Sinchon Massacre is still one of the major events in Korean history.
This painting divides into two parts: left and right. The left side contains four women and children, and its overall tone is red. The ground they are standing on has a reddish color, symbolizing death, while the land on the right is green, much like healthy, beautiful grassland (Victor, Par 4). The Korean women are mourning the death of their people and children while the soldiers dressed like medieval knights, presumably American soldiers, point their weapons at the innocent civilians. Picasso shows the weakness of these civilians (mainly women and children) through their nakedness while the soldiers are dressed and armed (Victor, Par 3). The nakedness of the civilians shows their weakness in this situation and how powerless they are while witnessing their motherland crash and burn by the powerful opposition. Furthermore, these soldiers resemble medieval knights, symbolizing justice, chivalry for the country, and ultimately, resemble medieval knights fighting for their powerful lords. Picasso, however, questions whether their actions are truly justified, as innocent children run and women cry in disbelief.
This piece of art work directly relates to the questioning of war because through the mourning, distorted faces of North Korean women, Picasso questions the audience about the purpose of the Korean War. Both sides claim that the purpose of the Korean War was to bring justice to Korea—North and South combined. Then who was this action supposed to benefit? USSR, China, and North Koreans were fighting to bring the South into communism. Simultaneously, the United States and South Korea were fighting to protext themselves from communism invasion. Both sides wanted the extra piece of land for their government; how is this supposed to help the residents of the Korean peninsula? Residents of Sinchon had been murdered by their fellow countrymen just because they lived in the Northern side of the country. The redness of the land the women are standing on and the green color of the land under the soldiers’ feet show how green the red land used to be before it was soaked with the blood of the innocent people who had to die. The toddler playing on the ground shows how clueless children are of the situation they are in, yet they were killed due to the greediness of their government. The pointed guns imply that the people on the left side of the painting will be killed in any moment (Victor, Par 11-13). How can this act be justified?

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Welcome!

Have you ever thought about why we, as human, are always involved in a war? The reason seems unclear, though our government repeatedly proclaims that the war is for the people and their well being. As we look back, government’s claim seems questionable. Who is it supposed to benefit? Are we really going on a war for the benefit of the people, not for the thirst to gain more power? All the artists in this gallery question the core reasons of war and the overall result in the end. While Picasso, Bansky, Neshat and Fairey question and criticize the government for their shadiness, Miller’s “We Can Do It” poster shows our government’s intentions at the war. Is what you're fighting for the same as what the government's fighting for? If not, what does this tell us about the truth behind all the wars we've encountered?

Femininity in Propaganda

Ariana's Blog, Femininity in Propaganda questions the role of American women during the times of war. While this gallery questioned the purpose of war and the shadiness behind it, Ariana's blog questions the role of women during the American propaganda campaign. In V for Victory, it questions the usage of "We Can Do It" poster and the government's attempt by stirring up the feminist movement and Neshat's Rebellious Silence questions the difference between what the women are seeking to get out of the war versus what the male dominate government seeks. Femininity in Propaganda goes even further, comparing works of art that portrays women as weak soul that needs protection, such as Enlist by Spear, to some other propaganda posters, like Rosie the Riveter by Rockwell, where the government provokes women to take the position of men, much like Miller's "We Can Do It", and what the difference signifies. Femininity in Propaganda questions the women's role in the war, which also questions what women's purpose in the war, compared to the government's, is.

The Needlessness of War

What is the purpose of war? Exactly why do people fight and what (or who, or how) is it supposed to benefit? Both sides of the war kill millions of people and yet everything seems to be justified in the end. While V for Victory asks these questions, Derek's The Needlessness of War states that no matter what the war is for, "in the end, it just wastes people's lives" (Derek). He also states that "no matter how much progress is achieved through war, there is just as much and more regression". He is absolutely correct in saying this- one war leads to another war due to the regression it brings in the end. In the blog, he uses Fairey's Hug Bombs and Drop Babies to show the irony of U.S. government and their slogan, "We need to use our global supremacy to protect our children", though we use our children at times of war. Furthermore, in the art work Phan Thi Kim Phuc by Nick Ut, he points out that the United States was involved in the Vietnam War to persecute their beliefs of communism, though the U.S. is famous for freedom of rights and liberties. Though not all of the art works in this blog relates to the questioning of war, some of the art pieces in The Needlessness of War points out that war is pointless because the purpose of war is, pointless.