Is war an art form?

**VoodooTengo** · June 01, 2007, 09:26 PM

I think that this question could either go here or in the arts section, but i think it will get a better response here.

So anyway, is war a form of art?

I would say yes, as art reflects the thoughts and intentions of the artist, and a good battle plan well executed, can be as beautiful as any portrait, or as engrossing as any book. I actually think it is the most potent form of art, as art is supposed to deal with human emotions, and aside from maybe love pain, fear, and vengeance are some of the rawest human emotions, all well expressed in war. This came to mind the other day when i was reading about Gettysburg, and even though Lee lost based on the intelligence he had, i thought his battle plan was absolutely beautiful.

**Lord Rahl** · June 01, 2007, 09:31 PM

Yes, the captain is the artist and the tools of war are his colors to paint on the battlefield, the canvas. Just like any art, it takes someone with a creative ability to make something simple and bland into something intricate and moving/emotional.

**Chaigidel** · June 01, 2007, 09:42 PM

sun tzu man--- war is intuitive in alot of cases and so like an art so I agree war is an art albiet a dark one :O

**Cluny the Scourge** · June 02, 2007, 06:08 AM

Untold splatters of blood criss-crossed over soil and snow, broken bodies posing in infinite variety and placed according to how they fought and their selfdoms were ended, sultry soft smoke of shell-pits and the ruined dreams of burning homes, scattered gear of war gleaming and charred...yes, truly war shares many features with a vast Jackson Pollock painting viewed from high above. It's art alright - the beautiful art of slaughter.

And Lee's plan at Gettysburg was the lowest point of his career. Frontal attack on an entrenched enemy centre - mindlessly charging right into the centre with everything he had - something that was becoming obsolete even in the Napoleonic Wars, never mind the 1860s. He learned nothing from his enemy's crushing defeat at Fredericksburg, and he fully deserved to lose for wasting so many soldiers.

**Richard** · June 02, 2007, 06:31 AM

If war is an art then so is practically everything we do. I guess it's "an art" (as is potato peeling) but not "art", if you get my meaning.

**Ragabash** · June 02, 2007, 06:35 AM

I like to think that while wars have a habit of becomming an art in stories, paints, books, etc. it isn't direct form of art itself.

**Curtana** · June 02, 2007, 06:50 AM

It may be that war can be perceived as an art form.
The appreciation of it AS an art form requires a paucity of moral judgement which to many would be offensive.

**Chaigidel** · June 02, 2007, 08:12 AM

when suffering is joy to you then war is an art I think.

**Gary88** · June 02, 2007, 08:15 AM

its hard to see something destructive as 'art' i also think its too calculating to be an art, its more of a skill i think. i always find this hard because i think military aeroplanes are incredibly beautiful but then i remember what they are for.

**Garbarsardar** · June 02, 2007, 08:24 AM

Judging by my recent experiences in Tate Modern and the latest Turner Prizes art can surely be a form of war.

**Princeps** · June 02, 2007, 08:26 AM

No. Only if bar fights are an art form, or if raping women and murdering people is an art form. Its art only for the sick and for the ones who're inexperienced with war.

**Noble Savage** · June 02, 2007, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by VoodooTengo

I think that this question could either go here or in the arts section, but i think it will get a better response here.

So anyway, is war a form of art?

I would say yes, as art reflects the thoughts and intentions of the artist, and a good battle plan well executed, can be as beautiful as any portrait, or as engrossing as any book. I actually think it is the most potent form of art, as art is supposed to deal with human emotions, and aside from maybe love pain, fear, and vengeance are some of the rawest human emotions, all well expressed in war. This came to mind the other day when i was reading about Gettysburg, and even though Lee lost based on the intelligence he had, i thought his battle plan was absolutely beautiful.

Like the thread

I think war is art as true art is all about drawing emotive responses and debate. That is why people are intrested in War films and historical military study. It's almost romantic (apart from the dead bodies) .Pride,honour and courage. Nobility is ART

**Chaigidel** · June 02, 2007, 08:30 AM

we arent talking about the viscera I think of it , we are talking about the planning and the movement on the maps, the only true artist of the conflict would be the commanders--- everyone else is just pieces of the work --- and fighting has a definite and long established art to it hence-- the martial Arts

rape and murder are natural side effects of war and are bound to occur during war, suffering is joy so those who suffer are blessed.

but yeah I know what you mean its a horrible thing and disturbing to look upon, but no matter how evil and disgusting it is there is an art to it

**Noble Savage** · June 02, 2007, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by Chaigidel

we arent talking about the viscera I think of it , we are talking about the planning and the movement on the maps, the only true artist of the conflict would be the commanders--- everyone else is just pieces of the work --- and fighting has a definite and long established art to it hence-- the martial Arts

rape and murder are natural side effects of war and are bound to occur during war, suffering is joy so those who suffer are blessed.

but yeah I know what you mean its a horrible thing and disturbing to look upon, but no matter how evil and disgusting it is there is an art to it

Do you think Ambush is a piece of art or Guerilla warfare beautiful? I suppose thats why we all like to play games like TW ,because as you all say there is nothing more beautiful than a well planned battle. The Idea of the generals sitting on top of hills looking at maps and holding his telescope is quite romantic too

**TheBlobThing** · June 02, 2007, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by Chaigidel

suffering is joy so those who suffer are blessed.

I think those who are suffering would disagree with you

**Chaigidel** · June 02, 2007, 10:12 AM

I dont disagree with that statement, my statement is more of a metaphysical one, a view of mine on reality, and a way to make bad things good in my own life.---

**Oldgamer** · June 02, 2007, 10:31 AM

It's 1991, and the Coalition Forces have moved into Iraq. Their purpose is to engage and destroy Iraqi Republican Guard, and in so doing, remove Saddam's power in its purest and most oppressive form.

There were a few battles between the Coalition and the IRG, but then, they stopped. Why?

The IRG commanders had learned something. If they used a radio, or a phone, or anything that broadcast electronic signals, they suddenly died. Accordingly, they came up with a different mode of communication.

They sent messengers out on horseback, carrying their orders for a specific withdrawal of their units. The regular army could continue on with the fighting, and the dying. The Republican Guard would withdraw. Because they withdrew in good order, they survived. And because they survived, the regime of Saddam Hussein survived. The rest is history.

I don't know whether this was art, or not. It's been a long time since I studied Aesthetics. But the commanders of the Republican Guard learned quickly, and applied that knowledge to the palette of war. In broad strokes, they made a statement to the Coalition, which was quickly understood.

Having freed Kuwait, but failing to destroy the Republican Guard, the war was "called off" after 100 hours.

One thing I do want everyone to know, from the standpoint of a common soldier. The generals may engage in the "art of war", but the soldier has to endure the result, whether it is aesthetically pleasing or not ...