Gassed (1919) | Hacker News Reader

Gassed (1919)

upload.wikimedia.org

11 pointsbrudgers21 comments

I have mixed feelings about a lot of Sargent (it is hard to dislike some, like "Madame X" but it caused a huge stink at the time), but this painting is impossible to just walk past. In terms of its composition I think its wonderful. The picture is clearly designed to provoke "the blind leading the blind" and might also get to "Lions led by donkeys" or even "jesus only had 12 and one was a double"

If you compare Sargent to the War art of Stanley Spencer, Stylistically they're poles apart, but not (I think) by intent.

Or the post-war cartoons of Grotz.

I think at root, all of them are trying to say "this is what the war cost"

There's a super portrait group of the war leaders in the National Portrait Gallery in London. I'm amazed it hasn't been mutilated by now. And.. guess who painted it...

https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw00108/G...

"There's a super portrait group of the war leaders in the National Portrait Gallery in London. I'm amazed it hasn't been mutilated by now."

Why would it be threatened? I'm not clear on why the portrait of WWI generals is controversial.

Because it depicts a group of people who, without hesitation, willingly caused incredible suffering across an entire continent. And they did so at a time that perceived itself to be the result of the enlightenment and humanism.

Does someone with such an interpretation have cause to mutilate the painting, though? Why not make a different painting (or some other art) conveying that sentiment, instead?

Rationally, sure, that's the better way - destroying art, records and evidence is something enemies of open societies do.

Emotionally, I can identify with people who feel that those who have proudly sown human misery do not deserve to rest in golden frames.

[edit] As OP mentioned, many have shown the other side of war; Grosz, Dix, Goya (https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2014/may/14...)

I feel like that is equally an argument against like, horror movies existing. Just because art depicts something doesn't mean it endorses it (it may have endorsed it when it was made, but we don't have to blindly accept their values).

I can emotionally identify with people who think that sowers of human misery are bad, but not with people who think art should be destroyed for what it depicts.

Give me a picture of Kissinger and a sharp knife and I would be sorely tempted to make confetti of it.

I can understand when someone refuses to address butchery with a polite and artful response.

A lot of British general were KIA so they at least they also lead themselves to the slaughter.

thanks for the officers picture

I find it absolutely mesmerising because of the part they played (both good or bad - depending on your subjective view point) on the number of deaths in the great war

It would interesting if there was a german equivelent portrait of the generals

They were too busy dealing with the Weimar Republic raising freicorps, to sit. Anyway, Grosz would have drawn them disgustingly.

For anyone having trouble viewing the image, visit the Wikimedia page for smaller resolutions (this is the page that should have been submitted instead of the full resolution image):

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sargent,_John_Singer...

I don’t think Sargent meant for it to be easy.

YMMV.

a story on gas use in WWI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_of_the_Dead_Men (the musical ballad for the story by Sabaton https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AFdwoyNT24)

"Over twelve battalions of the 11th Landwehr Division, making up more than 7000 men, advanced after the bombardment expecting little resistance. They were met at the first defense line by a counter-charge made up of the surviving soldiers of the 13th Company of the 226th Infantry Regiment. The Germans became panicked by the appearance of the Russians, who were coughing up blood and bits of their own lungs, as the hydrochloric acid formed by the mix of the chlorine gas and the moisture in their lungs had begun to dissolve their flesh. The Germans retreated, running so fast they were caught up in their own c-wire traps.[1] "

Is this supposed to be crashing my mobile browser? The image loads for a few seconds, lags badly, and then my whole browser just quits

Yes, this is a very large JPEG image (13549x5075 pixels, 46MB).

You can view smaller versions on the Wikimedia Commons page for the image (which is what should have been submitted instead of this enormous image - the page even includes a warning about this):

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sargent,_John_Singer...

That was it, thank you!

Other sizes, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sargent,_John_Singer...

Every time I think about WWI, it seems like about the most miserable and terrifying war conditions I can imagine.

But then when I watch old interviews with WWI veterans they all seem unusually chipper about it. Really kind of confuses me. Not sure if it was just a different time or if they had just repressed all the inhumanity of it.

This is a great painting about the nobility of the sacrifice that men of service make. War is deadly and gruesome, and yet millions of people take up arms, because the endeavor is unavoidable and vital. A beautiful painting to illustrate a noble and tragic commitment that so few of us are willing to make today.

I fail to see what is noble about coughing out your bloody, dissolving lungs - the painting refers to the gas attacks of WW1.

A knowing sacrifice for some greater good; that's the nobility not the sacrifice itself.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com