Why is this painting so shocking Iseult Gillespie

On April 26th, 1937,

Fascist forces bombed the Basque village
of Guernica in Northern Spain.

It was one of the worst civilian
casualties of the Spanish Civil War,

waged between the democratic republic and
General Franco’s fascist contingent.

For Pablo Picasso, the
tragedy sparked a frenzied period of work

in which he produced a
massive anti-war mural,

aptly titled “Guernica.”

The painting is a powerful work of
historical documentation

and political protest.

But while Picasso’s artistic
motivations are clear,

the symbolism of the painting can be as
confusing and chaotic as war itself.

How can we make sense of this
overwhelming image,

and what exactly makes it a
masterpiece of anti-war art?

The painting’s monumental canvas is
disorienting from the start,

rendered in the abstracted Cubist style
Picasso pioneered.

Cubism deliberately emphasized the
two-dimensionality of the canvas

by flattening the objects being painted.

This afforded viewers multiple

and often impossible perspectives
on the same object;

a technique considered shocking
even in Picasso’s domestic scenes.

But in this context,

the style offers a profoundly
overwhelming view

of violence, destruction, and casualties.

Multiple perspectives only compound
the horror on display–

sending the eyes hurtling around the
frame in a futile hunt for peace.

On the far left, a woman holding her
dead child releases a scream;

her eyes sliding down her face
in the shape of tears

and her head bending back unnaturally
to echo her baby’s.

There is the statue of a soldier
present below,

but he is unable to defend
the woman and child.

Instead his broken body lies in pieces,

his arm clutching a splintered sword
in a signal of utmost defeat.

The tip of his sword meets a woman’s foot
as she attempts to flee the devastation.

But her other leg appears
rooted to the spot,

locked in the corner of the canvas
even as she stretches to move it.

Another victim appears
behind this slouching figure.

Falling helplessly as flames
lick around her,

she too is caught in her
own hopeless scene.

Each of these figures bordering the
painting are horribly trapped,

giving the work an acute
sense of claustrophobia.

And where you might expect the canvas’
massive size to counteract this feeling,

its scale only highlights the nearly
life-sized atrocities on display.

Some possible relief comes from a lamp

held tightly by a ghostly woman
reaching out her window.

But is her lantern’s hopeful glow
truly lighting the scene?

Or is it the jagged lightbulb–

thought to represent the technologies
of modern warfare–

which illuminates her view of
the chaos below?

From the coffin-like confines
of her window,

her arm guides the viewer back
into the fray,

to perhaps the most controversial
symbols of all–

two ghostly animals caught
in the destruction.

Does the screaming horse embody the
threat of Franco’s military nationalism;

or does the spike running through
its body convey its victimhood?

Does the white bull represent Spain,

the country of matadors and a common
theme in Picasso’s work–

or does it stand for the
brutality of war?

In this scene of strife, these animals
raise more questions than answers.

And additional elements hidden
throughout the frame

offer even more secrets for
close observers.

At the top of the canvas flashes a bird
desperate to escape the carnage.

And the abundance of animals on display
may hint at the bombing’s date–

a market day which flooded the streets

with villagers, animals, and
other potential causalities.

Like the bombing of Guernica itself,

Picasso’s painting is dense
with destruction.

But hidden beneath this supposed chaos,
are carefully crafted scenes and symbols,

carrying out the painting’s multifaceted
attack on fascism.

Decades after its creation,

“Guernica” retains its power to shock
viewers and ignite debate,

and is often referenced at anti-war
gatherings around the world.

Hundreds of viewers have grappled with
its harsh imagery, shattering symbolism

and complex political messaging.

But even without a close understanding
of it’s complicated subtext,

Picasso’s work remains a searing reminder
of the true casualties of violence.

1937 年 4 月 26 日,

法西斯军队轰炸了
西班牙北部的巴斯克村庄格尔尼卡。

这是西班牙内战中最严重的平民
伤亡之一,

发生在民主共和国和
佛朗哥将军的法西斯特遣队之间。

对于巴勃罗毕加索来说,这场
悲剧引发了一段疯狂的工作

时期,他创作了
一幅巨大的反战壁画,

恰如其分地命名为“格尔尼卡”。

这幅画是
历史文献

和政治抗议的有力作品。

但是,虽然毕加索的艺术
动机很明确,但这

幅画的象征意义可能
就像战争本身一样令人困惑和混乱。

我们如何理解这个
压倒性的形象

,究竟是什么让它
成为反战艺术的杰作?

这幅画的巨大画布
从一开始就让人迷失方向,以毕加索开创

的抽象立体主义风格呈现

立体主义故意

通过压平被画的物体来强调画布的二维性。

这为观众提供了对同一物体的多种

且通常是不可能的视角

即使在毕加索的家庭场景中,这种技术也被认为是令人震惊的。

但在这种情况下,

这种风格提供了一种

对暴力、破坏和伤亡的深刻压倒性观点。

多重视角只会加剧所展示
的恐怖——

让眼睛在框架周围飞驰
而过,徒劳地寻找和平。

在最左边,一个抱着
死去的孩子的女人发出一声尖叫;

她的眼睛像泪水一样顺着她的脸滑下

,她的头不自然地向后弯着,
以呼应她孩子的声音。

下面有一个士兵的雕像

但他无法
保护女人和孩子。

取而代之的是,他破碎的身体碎裂成碎片,

他的手臂紧握着一把断裂的剑
,表示极度失败。 当她试图逃离灾难时

,他的剑尖碰到了一个女人的脚

但她的另一条腿似乎

固定在原地,
即使在她伸展移动它时也被锁定在画布的一角。

另一个受害者出现
在这个懒散的身影后面。

当火焰
在她周围舔舐时,她无助地倒下,

她也陷入了
自己绝望的场景中。

与画作接壤的这些人物中的每一个
都被可怕地困住,

使作品有一种
强烈的幽闭恐惧感。

在你可能认为画布的
巨大尺寸会抵消这种感觉的地方,

它的规模只会突出展示中近乎
真人大小的暴行。

一些可能的缓解来自

一个幽灵般的
女人从窗户伸出来紧紧握住的灯。

但她的灯笼充满希望的光芒
真的照亮了现场吗?

或者是锯齿状的灯泡——

被认为代表
现代战争的技术——

照亮了她对
下面混乱的看法?

从她窗户的棺材般的
限制,

她的手臂引导观众
回到战斗中

,也许是最具争议的
象征——两只

被毁灭的幽灵动物。

尖叫的马是否体现
了佛朗哥军事民族主义的威胁?

还是穿过它身体的尖刺
传达了它的受害者身份?

白牛是代表西班牙、斗牛士

的国度和
毕加索作品中的一个共同主题——

还是代表
战争的残酷?

在这个冲突的场景中,这些动物
提出的问题多于答案。

隐藏
在整个框架中的其他元素

为近距离观察者提供了更多秘密

在画布的顶部闪烁着一只
急需逃离大屠杀的鸟。

展出的大量动物
可能暗示了爆炸的日期——这

是一个集市日,街道上挤满了

村民、动物和
其他潜在的死因。

就像格尔尼卡本身的轰炸一样,

毕加索的画作
充满了破坏。

但隐藏在这种所谓的混乱之下,
是精心制作的场景和符号,

执行这幅画
对法西斯主义的多方面攻击。

在创作几十年后,

《格尔尼卡》仍然保持着震撼
观众和引发争论的力量,

并经常在
世界各地的反战集会上被提及。

数以百计的观众都在努力应对
其严酷的图像、破坏性的象征意义

和复杂的政治信息。

但即使没有深入
了解其复杂的潜台词,

毕加索的作品仍然是
对暴力真正受害者的强烈提醒。