violentiam arte
violentiam arte (noun): the motif of violence in art
Perhaps Man was born into war. Hobbes claims our primal state, also called the “state of nature”, was one of extreme competition, chaos and violence. Although this seems radical and pessimistic, it is not unlikely. According to Nietzsche, there is within us an innate desire to gain power (the “will for power”). This can guide Men to turn their “will to power” inward and seek self-mastery, but it may also occur as a desire of expansion, to gain mastery over others. One way to look at Giacometti’s human figures is in relation to this theory. Like many other post-war artists, Giacometti was trying to make sense of a world where violence had been pushed to its extreme. Through war, Men searched for expansion - whether that be the expansion of their nation’s power or of the territory they believed their “race” was entitled to. However, this desire for expansion led to a reduction of Men themselves, from the dehumanisation of concentration camp victims, to the loss of individualism of soldiers. In other words, by wanting expansion, Men caused the reduction of human life’s value. By presenting the human figure as slender, elongated, and grey, Giacometti portrays what violence has made of Man - a lifeless frail skeleton, devoid of any humanity. Art is not only a way for Men to portray the violence they endure, it can also help them make sense of it. And if violence is so innate to Man, surely art can help us make sense of ourselves.
Mark Rothko
IN DEPTH: In what ways do artists portray human violence?
a) Societal Violence
When thinking about violence in art, the first type of violence that comes to mind is societal. As Rousseau believed, society can be a source of corruption for man.
Mark Rothko’s earlier works portray cold figures, almost puppet-like, to embody the loss of community and aloofness that societal structures can result in. In ‘Underground Fantasy’, the harsh architectural lines make it seem as though the figures are separated by the city’s walls themselves. None of the figures are sharing looks, making them seem even more distanced and alone. Finally, the figures’ stature is distorted to make them look completely unnatural, almost puppet-like. All these elements paint the violence of urban society - a structure where inequalities are exacerbated, and where individuals are reduced to a cog in the machine, leading to an increase in isolation. Rothko’s figures also resemble Giacometti’s both in terms of their slender, lifeless appearance, and the artists’ desire to strip down the human figure to reveal the loss of humanity enforced by societal violence, whether that be through war or urban daily life.
Marcel Duchamp also comes to mind when thinking about societal violence and art. Most famous for his “Fountain” sculpture, Duchamp wanted to show the absurdity of a system that judged art and felt they were in a position to decide what qualified as art and what did not. Duchamp’s sculpture was met with outrage, as people claimed a piece of sanitary ware was inappropriate, distasteful, and could not be presented as artwork. Duchamp’s work is dually violent. First, it rebels against the violence of a judgemental and exclusive system; but most importantly, it uses violence to spread a message. Duchamp picked the most shocking and controversial object to be his messenger. This is no accident - in order to reverse the culture in place at the time, the artist had to shock his way into the art world and spur a conversation. “Fountain” is now one of the pillars of contemporary art, and is said to have completely changed the narrative around taste in art - not bad for a urinal.
Underground Fantasy, 1940
Fountain, 1917
b) Psychical Violence
Nothing is more violent than the human mind. From the constant warfare of unconscious entities, to the psychological turmoils of mental disorders, the human psyche is arguably the most powerful force Man possesses. The unconscious became an important topic of conversation after WWII, mainly due to the popularisation of Freud’s theories, and the general attempt to understand how Mankind could have turned to such cruelty and chaos.
Once again, Mark Rothko was deeply involved in this - this time however, through his latest work. Rothko wanted to explore the unconscious relationship between the human mind and colour. For this reason, his paintings are often incredibly large, so the viewer can be fully immersed in the colour; and stripped of all shapes so the unconscious reaction can occur, without the bias of the conscious mind. Rothko claimed to be the most violent artist of his time. This may seem surprising at the sight of his work, but it becomes clearer once we understand his interpretation of ‘violence’. He believed the violence did not always refer to cruel acts inflicted on others, but could simply allude to intense emotions.
Whilst Rothko portrayed how violent even the most ‘normal’ of minds could be, Vincent Van Gogh, on the other hand, captured the violence of mental unrest. His use of unnatural perspective, vivid colours and movement almost give his work a sense of inebriation. Most interestingly, his self-portraits maintain this idea of movement and bright colours. This way, Van Gogh showcases how mental unrest not only alters our perception of the external world, but also our sense of self. Like Duchamp, his paintings have a dual violence. They portray the violence of mental distress, and do so in a violent way. Indeed, Van Gogh’s paintings can sometimes be almost disturbing. “Still Life With a Plate of Onions” displays common objects but also an empty bottle of absinthe, which changes the entire appearance of the painting - it is no longer the simple portrayal of daily objects, but the distorted perception of a man in distress.
The Rothko Chapel, 1971
Still Life With a Plate of Onions, 1889
There are many other forms of violence, and countless artists who have successfully captured their essence. From surrealist artists’ rebellion against the violence of reason, to pop artists’ violent redefinition of culture, art and violence seem to constantly compliment each other, as if violence had its own beauty. It is clear there is a violence of art, as well as an art of violence.