War and the City Essay Example for Free

War and the City EssayPaintings and photographs are pieces of art. As such, it has always depicted animateness. It has become a re compriseation of reality. More importantly, it represents the measure wherein these artists are living. They created what they see, and through the artists eyes and perspective, we are able to witness what theyve seen as if it was right in front of us. In this light, the three photographs have struggle as the unifying theme. Although differently expressed, each image portrays pain and helplessness, and with it a faint spark of hope for a better tomorrow. But the latter implication cannot be readily noticed at first glance of the picture. When we look at them, we only see dismay and fright. They are a reminder of a life others were not able to witness, a terror for others. They displayed this in every symbolic or upfront manner, but they never failed to show the emotions involved. The striking difference among these pictures, on the other hand, resi des on how they were presented. The first image by Goya made use of warm colors and upfront action.Picassos painting used of a lot of symbols. Meanwhile, the 9/11 photograph captured a moment during the after shock of the attack. These images each have a different perspective, taking war from various angles. In the end, they each(prenominal) say war is never pleasant. Every artist has a responsibility for every piece of art they render. More importantly, the artist who constantly depict the realities of war should be careful about their pieces. Unfortunately, paintings and photographs are works of art, and are avenues for freedom of expression.It should not be constrained. But knowing that what they show in their works would either create or break their names as an artist can be very constraining. However, if they let themselves be taken by this constraint, and did not chance the consequences, them they would not have been able to become masters in their fields. In my perspective, I believe that the artists should really show the horror and brutality of war. We are at the age wherein being romantic and subtle are no longer the focus of art.Strong and provocative pieces are more the trade of art today. However, presumption that the other two pieces were created during a different period, it does not mean that being upfront about war only started in recent history. War is a fact of life, regardless of the time when they were created. It should not be covered with romanticized implications to depict war. thither is no other way to present war as it is. We cannot destine how it feels to be in the middle of one. We only have pictures to show us how is it like.It is the closest to reality as we can get, and it is a reality we have to face. There are a lot of things one can perceive from one piece of art depicting war. But I dont believe that these will enkindle violence for the audience. Usually, these pieces are present the effects of war, and the basic facts about it. It was not created to persuade others to resort to war, unless that was the underlying message and it was bluntly said. However, majority of these kinds of artworks only present facts, and are not usually political in nature.They are perspectives, concepts and ideas from the artists point of view. We dont always have to agree or disagree with them. A silent apprehensiveness would have been enough.Works CitedGuernica Testimony of War. Public Broadcasting Service. 1 April 2008 http//www. pbs. org/treasuresoftheworld/guernica/gmain. html. Third of May. Museo Nacional Del Prado. 1 April 2008 museoprado/mcu. es/i34. html. World Trade Center September 11, 2008. SHI. 1 April 2008 http//dmetcalfe. homestead. com/AMERICA2. html.