To watch with chapters “1916,” “1920” and “1925b.”
This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.
June 25 WAR
12 thoughts on “June 25 WAR”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
A shape takes form, built around a mannequin head once used for styling wigs, now holding odd things fastened to its surface. Sitting on it: a tape measure, next to a straight piece of wood meant for measuring, along with a metal drinking cup. A wallet made from reptile hide rests nearby, joined by the inner workings of a timepiece usually kept in a coat pocket. Stuck there too are broken parts from an old camera, pieces no longer whole. None came from an art supply store – they were picked up elsewhere, ordinary stuff given new place. Used like this, they shift meaning, pulled from daily life into something else entirely. That move – taking what exists and giving it strange purpose – sat at the core of Dada thinking. The idea wasn’t about skill or beauty but challenge, aimed right at long-held views of what counts as art.
Out of ruins came Hausmann’s piece, shaped by the wreckage left behind when war tore through old beliefs. Progress once felt certain – until machines and reason helped unleash horror instead. Dada didn’t want logic after that; it wanted something jagged, broken, awake. The Mechanical Head stares back at us, not with thought but with gears bolted where insight should be. A person built from knobs and dials, their self defined by what sticks to the surface. Hausmann claimed most Germans carried only whatever random junk fate slapped onto their heads. Inside? Nothing stirred. Just silence where thinking ought to happen.
Rather than showing deep feeling or thought, this piece turns the old portrait upside down – where once artists sought souls, now there stands a vacant figure, eyes empty, mind shaped entirely by what presses upon it from outside. A metal cup bears a scratched heart, hinting at feelings reduced to something breakable, temporary, easily swapped out. Instead of inner life glowing through skin, we get machinery where thinking should be, gears standing in for conscience. Some see in this a twist on Hegel, flipping his belief that history moves by grand ideas; here, progress crawls forward on coins, wrenches, and wires. What was meant to reflect character instead mirrors junkyards and wallets, revealing a time when being human feels assembled, not born.
What sticks around isn’t merely an old machine part, but something sharper – a quiet warning about how we lean on gadgets now. Instead of admiration, Hausmann shows a hollow frame wired up like a person who forgot they were once flesh. Through that shell he wonders whether screens and gears shape our choices more than we admit. This stiff figure? It mirrors how identity today often feels assembled rather than lived. The face without eyes still watches back
Hi Reginal
I like your idea that Hausmann’s Mechanical Head shows a person becoming like a machine. The objects on the head make it seem like the person’s thoughts are coming from the outside instead of from inside.
Hi reginal!
Love how you go deep into the entire purpose of dada, where it would show how much artists were affected during the time, its pretty understandable as well the way that life has become souless and that we’re just machines with no heart.
In This lecture, I think war changed modern art in a strong and painful way. Before World War I, many artists believed that modern life, technology, and machines could bring progress. But the war showed another side of modern technology. Machines were not only used for transportation or new inventions. They were also used to hurt and kill people on a very large scale.
What interested me most is that artists did not all respond to war in the same way. Some artists used art to show anger. Some used art to show fear and sadness. Others used art to show that war had made the world feel broken and meaningless. This is why many artworks from this period can look strange, disturbing, or even ugly. I think the artists did not want to make war look beautiful. They wanted viewers to feel how violent and confusing it was.
I also think photography and printmaking were important during this time. A painting can take a long time to make, but prints and photographs can spread to more people. They can show details of suffering, broken bodies, destroyed cities, and soldiers’ lives. Because of this, war art can feel more direct. It does not always let the viewer look away comfortably.
Otto Dix’s war images are a strong example. His works show the damage caused by war instead of showing soldiers as heroes. The bodies, empty spaces, and destroyed landscapes make war feel cold and real. I think this is important because many people may have wanted to forget the war after it ended. Dix did the opposite. He forced people to remember what happened.
The lecture also made me think about Dada. Dada artists often used strange images, collage, and nonsense words. At first, this style may seem playful. But I think it was also a response to war. If the world could become so violent and irrational, then maybe normal art and normal language were not enough anymore. Dada artists broke rules because they did not trust the old rules that had failed society.
At the same time, I think art about war raises a difficult question. Can an artwork show violence without making violence look interesting or beautiful? Artists have to find a balance. They want people to look at the truth, but they do not want suffering to become entertainment.
The theme of these events of war is dada, it’s a type of art where they use pieces of propaganda posters, In order to create art. They don’t really necessarily use colors and instead use the colors that are provided in propaganda posters. It felt like a chaotic place to live in, where multiple things were happening and you couldn’t control a single thing. The dada didn’t entirely depend on art, some of them also included people making strange outfits and also an odd type of language for poetry. Hugo Ball, the man who started the movement, made an odd outfit and a poem called Karawane which uses an odd language Hugo ball used:
jolifanto bambla o falli bambla
großiga m’pfa habla horem
egiga goramen
higo bloiko russula huju
hollaka hollala
anlogo bung
blago bung blago bung
bosso fataka
ü üü ü
schampa wulla wussa olobo
hej tatta gorem
eschige zunbada
wulubu ssubudu uluwu ssubudu
–umf
kusa gauma
ba–umf
Adding to the theme of dada, Hugo makes a completely new language to dismantle what society and logic has to offer instead of using natural languages people would normally use. I feel like Hugo wanted to make this type of movement to make these depressing ideas be more of a positive thing. With enduring the idea that we’re living through a chaotic time so why not make the most of it? Not only was this a way to dismantle what society normalizes, but also to make fun of what people think of how art really is, having a logic, reason or capitalism. An example of this, can be Hannah Höch, Cut with the kitchen knife through the belly of the Weimar Republic, c. 1919 it consists of a ton of jumbled up photographs of various people, objects and words, more strongly the consistent dada words. From the artwork there’s a lot of things to see, the colors give it that depressing feeling to the work making people feel like they understand what they were dealing with during the time as there could have been nihilism in these times where war was still going.
Looking closely to these works you can see political leaders that are in bizarre positions, as Hannah wanted to critique them. As making this war is making them look ridiculous and not a good look for their reputation. The Dada theme has been a major influence to what makes art look like art, and it goes against everything that society may say it’s not right. It’s enjoyable to look at the chaotic ideas artists would have at the time.
The horror and sorrow of war not only impacted the lives of ordinary people but also profoundly shaped the psychological approach artists took toward their work. War destroys everything, bringing death and madness, and inevitably alters artistic concepts. From Dadaism to New Objectivity, these movements vividly demonstrated to audiences the heavy impact reality had on art.
Through this lecture, I gained insight into Dadaism and the “madness” inherent in its artistic philosophy. Raoul Hausmann’s *Mechanical Head* (or *The Spirit of Our Time*) was created using a mannequin head as a base, onto which various discarded everyday objects and mechanical parts were affixed. With this piece, Hausmann offered a biting satire of the “objectification” of individuals within modern industrial society. He believed that ordinary people in this era lacked the capacity for independent thought—possessing “empty heads”—and were defined merely by the mechanical and technological fragments pasted onto their skulls. The creation of the *Mechanical Head* symbolized a loss of agency and the cessation of critical thought, reducing people to controlled “machines” within the social apparatus. The mechanical fragments attached to the skull suggested that machinery might be supplanting human thought and emotion, transforming people into entities that were “rational” yet devoid of feeling. This compels us to reflect: were machines created to aid human progress, or have they evolved into objects capable of replacing human thought? When we question this, we must ask whether the advent of machinery exacerbated the brutality of war, or if people simply harnessed machines to achieve their own ends. Did an artistic mindset born of madness—intended to oppose the madness of war—ultimately incite anger and frenzy within the public, thereby contradicting the original goal of opposing the suffering caused by war?
With the subsequent emergence of New Objectivity, artists seemed to realize that “mad” art might only fuel inner rage. They began to return to a realist style, creating works with a detached—almost pessimistic—mindset to document the suffering wrought by war. Max Beckmann’s painting *The Night* conveys this anguish to the viewer; its distorted lines and somber tones evoke a sense of unease and claustrophobia. The figures are depicted in a grotesque manner, with expressions and postures that reflect the artist’s own distorted and pessimistic state of mind. The composition leaves virtually no empty space, entirely filled by figures—as if reflecting the dwindling space left for the individual in the reality of society. World War I profoundly influenced Beckmann’s artistic philosophy; his service as a medical orderly during the conflict fundamentally transformed his style. His work became increasingly angular and emotionally charged, with a pervasive sense of pessimism and anguish.
Both Dada and the subsequent New Objectivity movement sought to halt the war and oppose the tragedies and suffering it wrought. Artists shifted their creative approaches to convey the brutality of war and articulate their own perspectives: should art employ elements of madness to combat madness, or should it simply present reality directly to the viewer?
In my opinion, the war depicted in this lecture represents a significant leap forward for art, moving from rejection of meaning to the revelation of reality, and demonstrating a courageous willingness to reveal the truth. Starting from the nihilism of Dadaism, it conveys the artist’s interpretation of the world and the assault on old viewpoints.
Dadaism does not embrace meaninglessness merely for the sake of it; instead, it uses absurdity and irrationality as a strategy to challenge the rationality that gave rise to mechanized warfare. Beauty is not the focus of art; the true inner feelings of the artist are the first requirement of art. These artists confronted the social contradictions of their era and attempted to subvert it, changing the values present in those wars. However, the impact of reality turned the radical Dadaism into a transitional state of art, while the calm, realistic new objectivism took over the “flag” of anti-war.
They did not follow the radical techniques of Dadaism but adopted a calm realistic attitude, thereby stripping away the false appearances of society. Max Beckmann’s paintings are among the key works; “La notte (The Night)” subtly depicts the entire society becoming fragmented due to war, with violence no longer confined to the battlefield. It invades the family, turning the previously symbolizing safety home into a space filled with torture and terror. Everyone is a victim of war; men go to the battlefield on a path of life and death uncertainty, while smoke and gunfire rage in the air, and women and children at home are frightened. All of this is the devastation brought by war. Another important work of the new objectivism, George Grosz’s “Pillars of Society, 1926”, depicts those who brought about the war and exposes the hypocrisy of the ruling elite class. They have absurd expressions, their heads are filled with feces, war, beer, and there is no the most appropriate people. They are aloof, they discuss interests. The new objectivism criticizes the indifference of society and the corruption of the government, expressing the symptoms of social pathology through paintings. The more realistic the picture, the sharper the criticism. Romantic and idealistic utopias no longer exist in this society. People need to truly use their eyes to see and their hearts to feel the corruption of this society.
To me, “observation” is the core of “new objectivism”. Seeing the truth, seeing reality, seeing everything that must be seen, using a calm gaze to scrutinize corruption, violence, and suffering. Only by facing the truth can society begin to resist the various conditions that lead to war. Even though the painting itself cannot end war, it can refuse to let violence be forgotten or concealed.
This lecture focuses on dada and the art that followed it. I understand that dada is a form of protest, specifically anti war. By utilizing weird composition and just chaotic subject matter to bring attention to the anti war effort. It’s all about opposition and resistance, rejecting the academic standards and art standards. When talking about this movement and the pieces created in conjunction to it, I think about Hobbie Brown. He’s a spiderman variant, I specifically mean the version of him from the Spiderverse movies, he’s character revolves around fighting against the establishment. Even his art direction conveys that, constantly changing colors, with a shifting background of different textures and colors to boot. I’m guessing that his art direction and his demeanor which is a result of punk culture could also be attributed to dada’s anti war and establishment culture. The two movements share similar ideals of creating and pushing expression in opposition of established norms as protest.
I thought that the way the lecture and texts talk on the subject of nihilism was also interesting. Not every text necessarily mentioned it by name but it was always present especially in 1925b. Nihilism is an outlook on the world and life, believing that nothing or little matters. An outlook in which everything that can go wrong will go wrong. This translated over into art as a medium. Artists like Otto Dix portrayed these feelings by changing the human form to match this emotion. It’s a feeling closely threading the line to pessimism. A lot of art during the period had themes of the darkness and ugly truth that hide underneath the mask of humanity. By shifting the sizes, placement and hue of specific body parts or the subject as a whole artists were able to convey a feeling of unease or a new normal that is detrimental to society. Even the medium itself which took pride in its portraits and standardized art forms was ignored in favor of different types like collages.
Throughout this lecture, I kept thinking about how art movements are just as important as historical events, like warfare. Art has been used throughout time to depict events, religious views and document important figures. In this specific lecture, it was used to make a statement about World War 2 in a more satirical way. Which in my opinion, hits close to home because it reminds of the statement “history tends to repeat itself”. I couldn’t help but think of some of the covers from The New Yorker and newspaper strips in comparison to some of the work that we saw from the Dada artists. The only difference is that in today’s world, we’re able to express ourselves (within reason) without having to face authoritative consequences. Actually, to counter that, we do. Cancel culture, exists… The Dada artists had a lot to lose and interestingly, some people called their work “primitive”. I find this ironic because we covered Primitivism in a previous chapter… I truly respect and acknowledge the courage that one had to take to gather with similar likeminded individuals to say something about the world around them. Especially during a time where people were being executed.
The most interesting aspect to me about Dada was not the critiques themselves about political figures, but really the humor. I found the pig that was dressed in the military outfit (from the first Dada Fair in Berlin) to be quite humorous, in a dark way. Even the fact that some of the Dada artists made fun of the movement itself made me chuckle. The artists were making statements about their experiences and world views, but they were also acknowledging that everything wasn’t all doom and gloom. Behind all of the madness, there had to be some sense of hope and light… There was also the element of self-deprecation, making fun of language and what we could call in modern ways “trolling”. One example that perfectly embodies this was the painting “Skat Players” by Otto Dix from 1920. At first glance, you see these oddly shaped militaristic figures playing a game of cards. When you look at the small details you see that their bodies are amputated and disfigured. The greens and blues used on their outfits pop out, but in a very muted sort of way. It contrasts against the browns and dark colors behind them. Could this be a way of showing contrast between humor and the realities of warfare? For me, it’s a way of captivating someone’s attention, but also making one think of the deeper issue at hand. Warfare is destroying us. Overall, the Dada movement makes me think of how you could use your talents (whether it’s art, film, poetry) and likeminded people to make a change and statement about the world around you. It makes me also appreciate having technology and platforms where you could bring awareness to societal issues.
War is very interesting for me. It’s more of a dark topic that goes in depth with the events that happened in World War I. The death of many people, others in general, changes the ways people make their work. Many people portray their emotions of war very differently. Some portray it as sad while others portray it as anger. Especially with the New Objectivity movement (Neue Sachlichkeit), which has people like Otto Dix, portraying their versions of World War I as gloomy and realistic as possible. Having art at the time reflecting trauma while having a gloomy theme. It’s crazy because it impacted both people as well as artists.
When Otto Dix presented the War series, each and every one of them were very graphic and it displayed the horrors of the war. Normally you’ll have others displaying heroic paintings and pieces but for Otto Dix, it’s more of showing the aftermath of the war. Considering how we went through the war and got traumatized by what was happening. The movement I feel, is what inspired Otto Dix to have his way of displaying what he had seen during this time.
Sometimes I wonder how artists, who go through traumatic experiences like this are able to still make art?
Forgive me if my comment is a bit unfocused, but I wanted to talk about… contradiction. The intentions, some of the art pieces, and the soul itself of Dada, are contradictory. Dada is this assault on reason, as brought out in the lecture. It does so by embracing absurdity to mock society’s conventions. The movement’s birth was out of disgust and a stand of opposition against the war. You have these refugees developing this in Zurich and standing against war in their own wild way.
Now this is just my opinion, but I don’t agree with their…’ take’. At least the Zurich Dada movement. It depends on your perspective on war. They were going against the order of the world, the conformity, and the instilled structure of the state of the world at that point. Cool…but based on my perspective on war, they were representing war through their absurdity that they focused on. I look at the randomness and chaoticness as a reflection of war, especially a world war. To me, war on any scale is usually absurd and arbitrary. When the lecture talked about how Hugo was almost creating a new language through his piece, “Karaware,” I thought about the new weapons and methods of war that were born. Under the context of this analogy, the weird clothes with the tribal influence are very similar to the camo, or special terrain-specific armor, developed in wars. So they took a stand by cloistering from the war, thinking about it with a rational mind. But by thinking war is rational, they ultimately represented the chaoticness of the war regardless of their intentions.
As far as the Paris and especially the Berlin Dada movement, I agree with their approach a little more because they were actively including their political stance on the matter within their works. Now I gave the warning on my comment being unfocused, just because it mirrors how I feel about some of these movements. Dada, to me, kind of falls under the abstraction and primitivism umbrella. Many works in the Dada movement intended to take a stand against war—I feel like that is the core of what Kandinsky was talking about in his book. Getting the spectator to feel something. Regardless of the mediums used, one of the core takeaways from abstraction is very prevalent in Dada. So unfocused might be the wrong word, but there has definitely been a lot of overlap with these movements and the theories that trailblazed for them.
i think dada is the first art movement that as heavily inspired by historical event as it is. The great war or WW1 i feel like radicalize everything not just art. it wasn’t that the antifascist ideas of the time and dissent of the upper class didn’t exist it was just merely stoked by the existence of war. In a way the war justified their radical view points. there is some similarity with the portrayal of historical figure in dada that is akin to political cartoons. While this artist would poke fun at the political machine there is feeling that it itself plays into the political machine itself. looking at the various art that are made at the time a good portion of them are made with antiwar agenda like Otto Dix’s war series. there is a wonder if the reason why some member of the cabaret Voltaire switch to a more nationalist especially in Germany is due to the over Exposé of war such as the case of Maurice Barres. With the mock trial of Maurice Barres, there is even more of that irony with them taking up office to put others on trial as if they themselves are an authority figure. it has sort of cult like outlook to it with it demanding a certain amount of loyalty. looking at the various artwork the artworks varied in technique and subject, some being collage like other based on realism. there is a certain feeling of disorganization that dada differed from other art movement. This discourse give the whole movement a feeling that the dada movement is not trying to actually accomplish meaningful changes but rather settles with pointing out pain points. This taken from the majority of the mocking tones that the art pieces have.
A parallel i would want to make is to that of the Vietnam war. there was similar disdain for the war in that many artists pointed the satirical aspect of the war pointing figures like Nixon and us involvement within the war. Other aimed to share tragedies and casualties as a way to address the horrors of the war similar to Otto Dix. How a major divergence is the within the number of satirical art pieces there is also a large amount of direct promotion artworks that preach for the ending of the war and advocation of peace. take the popular slogan “make love not war” at the time as a example. This sense of agency is not felt in the dada movement. of course this difference could be chalk up to the difference in length between the wars but it does raise the question how dada would have evolved if the war continued.