The NYT has an Op-Art piece, "The Memorial of the Mind" (by Michael Norman & Ben Steele), today which I find fascinating. The article is about Ben Steele, one of the last surviving veterans of the Bataan Death March in WWII, and the sketches (see fig. below) he produced of his memories of a Japanese war prison and his fellow POWs. It's interesting, to me, for two reasons; firstly, because the sketches are really well done, stark depictions of POWs and wartime, and secondly, because Private Steele then went on to become an art professor at Montana State University. I'll present my thoughts on both in this post. I apologise if the analysis is a bit rambling, but after spending the last 4 months refining and re-refining my Master's thesis, I truly am not in the mood to do much editing.
(images taken from: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/05/25/opinion/20090525_opart.html)
The starkness of the sketches is expected, deliberate, and appropriate. Let me explain. Expected because pen/pencil sketches in their monochrome palate and the 'rough hurried-ness' of depiction will usually create a very distinct and sharp image. And, of course, the subject matter itself results in such portrayals. I would also argue that Steele deliberately creates an unrelieved image, perhaps to typify the atmosphere and the reality of POW camps. He does this by selecting black and white sketching (with cross-hatching rather than shading) as his medium as opposed to softer mediums such as watercolours or colour sketches. He also is pointed in choosing images to draw. For example, the emaciated self-portrait is an immediate, grisly reminder of the horrific nature of war. Lastly, the atmosphere created is appropriate because romanticising war and POW camps, for instance, is rather ridiculous. Need I say more?
Steele's post-war occupation reminds me that service in the military has not always been meant to be a career as much as a requirement in a time of need. Of course, such a statement also exposes my subconscious opinion that artists cannot be soldiers unless they are forced into it, especially given that Steele joined the army at the behest of his mother, not the government. It would be interesting to compare Steele's work with other, more recent veteran art, plenty of which exists, I'm sure. The fact that Steele joined a radically different occupation after the war and yet kept producing images of war emphasizes the staying power of personal experience. How do/did others respond to returning? Do they seek to completely distance themselves? Do they embrace the past/their actions?
The media today is reporting Angelina Jolie's presence at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague watching the trial of Congolese warlord, Thomas Lubanga, who is charged with using child soldiers.
A few comments following these reports question why African warlords are being brought to justice but not potential war criminals in the United States. The answer for this is simple, the United States has not ratified the Rome Statute which would necessitate full cooperation with the proceedings of the court including the arrest and surrender of suspects. The United States did sign the treaty which signifies that a commitment to refrain from such acts as fall under the aims of the treaty but in no way obliges complete cooperation. This is emphasized further by two facts: (1) the United States government has always been very clear that it's signature is/was not a prelude to ratification, & (2) in 2002, America [and Israel] 'unsigned' the treaty.
There are few indications that Barack Obama will switch the position taken by previous administrations in this matter. His response to questions on the ICC are typically vague and emphasize the importance of national security and sovereignty, indicating that the current structure and policies of the court do not guarantee these two factors. He does acknowledge the importance of the court unlike the Bush administration, where there was a concerted effort to argue against the court's position and authority. While some of these arguments have merit and raise important questions regarding the court's structure and its jurisdiction, many were influenced by the isolationist tendencies of the American government. The significance of the United States in international politics and the continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan emphasizes the need for the current administration to engage in dialogue with the goal of ratifying the treaty and signalling a more meaningful cooperation with the UN and its various bodies.
