It is fascinating that a piece of art is able to be interpreted in such diverse ways. The Family of Man exhibit is seen by some as being representative of American imperialism and as having messages of race, ethnicity, and national superiority. Others, including the original designer of the artwork, saw the pictures that were included as being anti-war. Steichen had tried to turn the public against war through two exhibits during World War Two and one during the Korean Conflict in which the horrors of war were shown to the public. These failed to satisfy Steichen, who did not think the public reacted in the manner that he wanted them too. The Family of Man exhibit was meant to highlight the best parts of society in order to demonstrate why man should not fight against each other. Through different cultures, ethnicities, and nations there are things that link human beings. People and families share the same emotions and connectiveness with one another, which was highlighted in the exhibit through showing people from across the world in similar situations and displaying the same emotions. It seems odd that if the creator of the art wants to illicit a particular emotion from the audience that there would be such wide ranging debate as to what the work of art means. How can it be that if Steichen wants to create feelings that oppose war that some people see the exhibit as representing American imperialism. Much of the criticism of the exhibit began in the 1960’s and 1970’s at the height of US involvement in Vietnam, when the anti-war movement was also at its strongest. The first thing I thought of when considering how a piece of art that was supposed to illicit feelings that opposed war could instead cause people to see images that promoted one ideology over another was how often times the books that are most widely read about war are often books that demonstrate why wars shouldn’t be fought, or at least show the trivial reasons in which people may die in war. I thought of “All Quiet on the Western Front” and “Fallen Angels”. Neither of these two books glorify war, but are widely read within the military community. I thought of how these books, which go against what it is that provides these people with jobs and a livelihood, could be so widely accepted by the people in the military. The relationship into how different people can take away a different understanding from the same literature or the same piece of art is something that I think was appropriately explored in the reading. People see what they want to see in a piece of art, and over time the general opinion towards artwork can change based upon the opinions of a few people that spread and based upon the culture and time period that the artwork is introduced in.
I made a connection between how many of the books that are prominent within the military are actually opposed to war and how the Family of Man exhibit was supposed to be anti-war and was taken by some to be imperialistic and based on promoting a certain ideology.
I really enjoyed how you took outside sources such as “Fallen Angles” and “All is Quiet on the Western Front” into you argument on The Family of Man exhibit. It illustrated that you grasped the material and was able to compare it to other sources you were already familiar with. I agree that Turner and Steichen interpreted the art in the exhibit in different ways. I think it was interesting that you noted that the criticism did not begin until the 1960s and 1970s during the height of American involvement in Vietnam. Do you think that there were people critical of it at the beginning or these views developed as the world changed?
I certainly agree with your interpretation of The Family of Man exhibit. I don’t really believe there was any subversive intent behind Steichen’s work as people in the 60’s and 70’s saw. I think after seeing the horrors of war, as well as the rise of authoritarian regimes in Germany and Italy, that Steichen wanted to get back to a more human, less government controlled way of viewing the world, as evident in his setup of the exhibit. I think that his exhibit was also important in reminding people that there exists other countries outside of the United States, and that all people of the world are pretty similar when you get down to the basics.
I liked how you included the pictures of the books, “Fallen Angels” and “All is Quiet on the Western Front”, to help connect them to the Family of Man exhibit. I agree that art, in its many forms, can be interpreted in many different ways. Turner viewed Steichen’s exhibit very differently than what Steichen had originally intended the message to be, just as the soldiers read the books even though they aren’t pro-war books. I think this proves that depending on your perspective and values, people will have different interpretations of art. We should also take the time period into consideration when we look at critics view’s of art as well.
You had a lot of good outside resources I enjoyed although in all honesty I haven’t read them all I still understand the list of your point. One take away I was interested to read was that you linked it to the Vietnam War. I think that was a great link. I huge part of history is linking key events to the past, like you mentioned with WWII and the Korean photos the original designer had produced. It is great how you were able to connect a future event that played in nicely with the topic at hand. Since we are supposed to ask a question to your post I would like to ask do you think a specific type of people saw the images to be imperialistic, such as an activist group or a minority group of some sort?
I like how you used a lot of outside resources to build your argument and add some depth to your blog post. I agree that people see what they want to see in The Family of Man exhibit. For example, one person who sees the nuclear blast image might see the apocalypse while another might see a country with incredible power.
I appreciate your perspective, especially when you said “People see what they want to see in a piece of art, and over time the general opinion towards artwork can change based upon the opinions of a few people that spread and based upon the culture and time period that the artwork is introduced in.” People naturally view life through a biased lens based on personally experiences and upbringings. I think you did a great job highlighting the perspectives that Turner had, as well as addressing alternative interpretations.