One may look closely at the painting and have different opinions about the painting. For example, it is a clear image, it is empty, it is to tiny to even see the painting or perhaps there is simply noting in the painting. When one looks closely at the painting one can see the roots and branches of trees, dirt, rocks, and dust around the air. In The Things They Carried Tim O’Brien states that, “Like a killer forest fire, like cancer under a microscope, any battle or bombing raid or artillery barrage has the aesthetic purity of absolute moral indifference-a powerful, implacable beauty- and a true war story will tell the truth about this, through the truth is ugly” (77). In other words, the war causes so much damage to the soldier, to family members, but also to nature. The quote states, “like cancer under a microscope” war is metaphorically seen as a small act but there is so much more effects behind war. Also, war can sometimes be so hard to understand that one does not believe what actually occurred in war. The act of wars cause a lot of land damage and air contaminated with all the nuclear weapons that soldiers use. In addition, when the quote says “aesthetic purity of absolute moral indifference-a powerful, implacable beauty” it is saying that all the battles that are held in nature can bring up concerns but, it can also carry an appreciation of beauty. Furthermore, the word “Beauty” in the quote is referred to the shapes and the colors that occur during a battle. For example, the branches and roots of the trees were twisted into different shapes because of all the climbing that soldiers did in order to not be seen by enemies. While, the color of the painting is a pale peach that symbolizes all the shooting that occurred that caused the dirt to rise from the floor. In today's world, nature is being destroyed by wars that at times are not even necessary. For example, the Vietnam war is seen as a war that was unnecessary. Sometimes nature is destroyed in order to makes a better future in certain places. In reality, is killing people, destroying nature, hurting family members lives and risking your own, worth less than war?
War destroys nature but, it is seen as a natural act.
"NVAM Collection Online." NVAM Collection Online. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Mar. 2016.
I really like the visual that you used because it not only symbolizes the damage that war creates but it can also be seen in many other ways. When I first looked at it, I saw a clean piece of paper, but then I started reading and I saw a man's face screaming in the center so I thought that was supposed to be the visual. Then I started reading further and I realized that there are trees and the color of the paper represents the color of war. War is murky and not just straight, cut out lines so I like how your picture depicts that and it gives off a confusing feeling, just like war.
ReplyDeleteAt first glance of your visual I saw a few stains on a piece of paper, a few trees in the background but not much else. I think you did a nice job of looking past the obvious. I like how you addressed what one would see at first glance when looking at this picture, because that is what Is aw, however then you changed my point of view and completely opened up a new perspective to the photograph. I think when we think about war one usually thinks about dead soldiers and grieves for their family. You did a nice job of addressing the other side, what most people ignore. I really like your closing statement "war destroys nature but it is seen as a natural act" because it really makes you think about what the true meaning of war is.
ReplyDeleteI really like how you quote the "aesthetic purity of absolute moral indifference-a powerful, implacable beauty". I think this quote is very complex and then you do a good job of debriefing each word. The quote applies to your picture very well because the image is not very aesthetically pleasing. However if you look more deeply into the image the beauty is "implacable"
DeleteThe visual at first is vague (which is an intent of using this specific picture) but the analysis of it makes it very clear on what it is, and how it depicts war. This image was selected very well and the more you look at it the more clear it gets . I also think that the quote from O'Brien that you included “aesthetic purity of absolute moral indifference-a powerful, implacable beauty” not only describes war and your argument, but the image as well. The thesis, the analysis, and the image all go hand in hand with each other with no discontinuity. War is vague, but the more you look at it, the more clear it gets. If you are the artist, it becomes a reality, just like how war is more real than anything else in the eyes of a soldier.
ReplyDelete