War as art.

depends on how you define art imo...but it's definitely not art. Its a terrible thing

War has exactly as much to have with art as BDSM has to do with love poetry. It's nothing but murder, and a sadistic one on the top of it. If all humans /males included / had to get pregnant at least once, and give birth and raise kids, and invest like 20 years at least in one human being, they wouldn't claim that the act of taking all that in one split second is of any positive value, but only a destructive one. If all humans were to follow the good intentions of their religions in their purest form, they would never think to kill one person, let alone thousands, and live with it. But of course, religions are cling to to make whoever claims they are whatever feel good, not really to perfect one's actions and thoughts - the usual human arch-hypocrisy of whoever claims they believe in god and then kills they fellow human being.

War is the worse action that human beings can perform, and the fact that they like it an put millenia of efforts to learn how to excell in it show what human a failed ethical experiment humans are. From biological POV, war is Darwinian, it cannot be avoided, because just like animals fight for resources, humans do too; however, to praise the murder, capped with rape and destruction that come with war, as an "art" is absolutely unethical from the POV of everything that we so self-righteously like to claim makes us different from animals.

To learn how to excel in killing, how to inflict pain, and how to break human souls methodically has nothing to do with studying how to create beauty, or how to engineer a useful contraption that will save people time and effort in creating or producing food. On the opposite, it's the very opposition of everything creative, everything of value, it';s a murder on state-organized state level. Kill a man, one goes to prison for years; kill humans  with hundreds, vaporize, rape and torture, cut babies from their mothers' wombs, starve humans to death and mutilate then for life - one gets a medal for - that's what humanity came up with, as a supreme irony of ironies.

I have no respect for humanity that created and praises war as an art. Dogs are better beings that humans are, and in fact all animals - they kill by necessity, and only as much as they need to survive, humans kill with thousands, and praise this horror as deserving study, and honor. Phui!

What's worse, war turns the ones who win through killing others is cruel beings, to be able to do it, and in hypocrits, because they have to justify it to themselves; I've seen that in all military men I spend my life amongst, in variety of roles in my life; they are all, without exception, mutilated human beings, no matter if they realise this or not. This is what the study of war and the action of it did to them - it's not a minor thing to take away a life it comes at a price, a terrible one - one's personal dehumanization. This is not a art, it's the full opposite of it, for which I cannot find a word

With all what humans did in wars, with all that they partook in destroying, we better hope that there is no god, otherwise there will be a hell to pay.


Edited by Don Quixote - 19-Apr-2012 at 19:22

I'm very far from utopianism, I recognize war as Darwinian, hence part of life; this doesn't mean that I have to agree with it, condone it, approve it, or help proliferate it. There is no positives in war , and sufferings and tyranny is war on one's own people, so if this tyranny didn't happen, no war would be needed to alleviate it. War drags one war act after another, and there is no end of it, and the suffering it drags after itself, so don't try to justify it to me.

I know what you think and what you demanded, this is not news for me, we had other  conversations in other threads - it is your choice how you think and feel about it. Do I lack personal respect for you - no, I lack respect for humanity that thought you and involved you in doing that and thinking like this. You just proved my point about how study and act of war affects people involved in it. I grieve for persons, I despise humanity for doing that to people.

I'm sure you would think differently if you and your family and your kids were a subject to war done on them, being raped and killed and tortured in front of your eyes. You better hope you personally never have to suffer that side of war. It's easy to speak from the POV of world power, personal and state one, when it;s not your back on the rack.

And please, I can use personal insults and insinuations too, let's don't fall to that level. Besides, I'm not lay, I had undergone basic military training, and spend years working in the Bulgarian Ministry of Defense, my mother was a journalist for military journal, all I ever knew in my life is/was military - what I say is from experience, not from books. I had to pay prices I'm pretty positive you didn't have to pay, and worked with women and children who had to pay even heavier prices, so someone else can prized themselves of "job well done"; books don't teach you that. So, you may disagree with my opinion as much as you want - you have no right to brand it with despising words.

I know you shall continue, so will I; if you you think you'll get me to "chagrin" you'll have to wait one eternity or another.




Edited by Don Quixote - 19-Apr-2012 at 20:08

Originally posted by d'artagnan Your misinterpreting what I'm saying. I'm not saying that war is beautiful(though I do personally see a kind of beauty in it). What I'm saying that like any great art the work that it consists of(which I personally don't think I could say any better then you did so I'm merely going to quote you), "To learn how to excel in killing, how to inflict pain, and how to break human souls methodically," it needs to be studied perfected and nurtured so that we can become the masters of this Darwinistic art form.This may seem terrible to you but I'm a student of military history as well as a marine reservist who plans to make his life career in the military I think that the study of this is more of a priority then almost any other subject, but then again isn't that how everyone feels about what they do. I don't ask that you look for beauty in this kind of art. Only to see if it really is art. Thank you, Hunter Johns

Edited by Centrix Vigilis - 21-Apr-2012 at 18:00

There was an African artist who made furniture out of seized Kalashnikovs. I also remember reading about a musician who turned an assault rifle into a guitar

Originally posted by d' artagnan Your misinterpreting what I'm saying. I'm not saying that war is beautiful(though I do personally see a kind of beauty in it). What I'm saying that like any great art the work that it consists of(which I personally don't think I could say any better then you did so I'm merely going to quote you), "To learn how to excel in killing, how to inflict pain, and how to break human souls methodically," it needs to be studied perfected and nurtured so that we can become the masters of this Darwinistic art form.This may seem terrible to you but I'm a student of military history as well as a marine reservist who plans to make his life career in the military I think that the study of this is more of a priority then almost any other subject, but then again isn't that how everyone feels about what they do. I don't ask that you look for beauty in this kind of art. Only to see if it really is art. Thank you, Hunter Johns

Well, considering that war will always be part of human life, most lamentably, and will always be started by someone, someone else have to know how to counter it, and finish it fast with a minimum of human cost; such knowledge comes with study, and without it one is left defenseless against those who perpetrate violence against him/her - I acknowledge that. I acknowledge that is necessary to know how to protect oneself and others, but I'm afraid this is as far as I can go.

Maybe is a question of semantics, and I probably would be fine with another word like "skill" or "knowledge"; "art " for me conveys education in beauty and mercy, and is uplifting, making one thing of higher things that common realities of life. So I cannot see art without beauty and morals in it, it's just how I interpret the word 'art'.

War knowledge is a necessity, a dire necessity, one that is done like a surgery - with clenched teeth and keeping in mind to do it fast, because it has to be done. Art is done with adoration, inspiration, with positive influence in mind - I cannot do war like that, so I can't see it like that. But this is just me, I don't insist that everyone is like that.

I guess that my main objection against seeing war as an art is that art, IMHO, is healing, a projection of dreams, beauty, positiveness; while war is injuring, in it's best is a surgery, in it's worse is hell, none of which is a dream.
So I cannot put them both in one bag, which is only my opinion, I don't require anyone to agree with it. 

To Nick: AWESOME!!!

To Don Quixote: Fair and understandable(if somewhat narrowsighted) reasoning.

Edited by d' artagnan - 23-Apr-2012 at 08:35

Genocide isn't war. War is a battle between two groups with large numbers on their side Genocide on the other hand is the complete destruction of one group by another. I already see the argument thats about to come my way but I'll just wait and respond when it does.

As for the dead bodies being art. I wouldn't go nearly that far in my insanity as to suggest that there was beauty in death. Merely the striving between two groups to destroy each other has beauty the resulting aftermath is always revolting to anyone who is not a complete sadist.

Thats the argument I knew would come and I'm glad it did because it gives me a chance to ask my favorite question.

How do you define war?

If you define war as any act of aggression of one group towards another then yes all those terrible things are indeed part of war, but is that neccesarilly war.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War

I know that wikipedia is not neccesarilly the best reference to use but for such a basic thing as a definition I think it'll work fine. So allow me to quote a sentence,"War should be understood as an actual, intentional and widespread armed conflict between political communities, and therefore is defined as a form of political violence,". Do you see what I'm getting at war is defined as a intentional battle between two political communities. Now look at acts of genocide how many of them were intentional both ways. The answer is that very few of them are. For the best example take WWII. The NAZI's never declared open war on the Jews because the Jews never offered a fight thus the extermination process was not a act of war but merely a act of political genocide.

Now as for the civilian aspect I agree that the modern type of warfare known as Total War does have a tendency to be decided as much on the home front as much as on the battlefield. One only needs to look at the starving of Germany in WWI or the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagisaki to see the importance of attacking civilians in world war. The problem with taking this into effect when you look at war as a art form is that your saying that art is only beautiful, but thats not always true Van Gogh was far from a beautiful minded person and Picasso's work is disturbed at best. So if you say that attacks on civilians are only strategy based maneuvers then you begin to see the morbid beauty of it. The idea that one can kill a small part of a population and yet completely destroy a nation by doing so because it makes the war real for them might not be aesthetically beautiful but it does leave one in awe at the power of reality when its forced into the minds of people through acts of brutality and sometimes, yes monstrous cruelty.