Why is this painting so shocking? - Iseult Gillespie

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: Helen Chang

On April 26th, 1937,

1937 年 4 月 26 日，

Fascist forces bombed the Basque village of Guernica in Northern Spain.

法西斯軍隊轟炸了西班牙北部 格爾尼卡的巴斯克村。

It was one of the worst civilian casualties of the Spanish Civil War,

那是西班牙內戰中 平民死傷最慘烈的事件之一，

waged between the democratic republic and General Franco’s fascist contingent.

戰爭雙邊為民主共和派 和佛朗哥將軍的法西斯軍隊。

For Pablo Picasso, the tragedy sparked a frenzied period of work

對畢卡索而言，這場悲劇 激發了一段瘋狂的創作時期，

in which he produced a massive anti-war mural,

這段期間，他創作出了 一幅大型的反戰壁畫，

aptly titled "Guernica."

命名也很巧妙，叫《格爾尼卡》。

The painting is a powerful work of historical documentation

這幅畫是很強而有力的作品，

既是歷史記錄，也是政治抗議。

and political protest.

But while Picasso’s artistic motivations are clear,

但，雖然畢卡索的 藝術動機很清楚明確，

the symbolism of the painting can be as confusing and chaotic as war itself.

這幅畫的象徵性則是 和戰爭本身一樣混亂且讓人困惑。

How can we make sense of this overwhelming image,

我們要如何理解這幅強大的影像？

and what exactly makes it a masterpiece of anti-war art?

是什麼原因讓它成為 反戰藝術的傑作？

The painting’s monumental canvas is disorienting from the start,

這幅畫的紀念性畫布 打從一開始就讓人迷惘，

rendered in the abstracted Cubist style Picasso pioneered.

用畢卡索率先創造的 立體派風格來呈現。

Cubism deliberately emphasized the two-dimensionality of the canvas

立體派會故意去強調 畫布的二維性質，

by flattening the objects being painted.

做法是將被繪製的對象平面化。

This afforded viewers multiple

這麼做會讓觀者有多重視角，

and often impossible perspectives on the same object;

且通常是不可能出現的視角， 來看同一個目標對象；

a technique considered shocking even in Picasso’s domestic scenes.

即使在畢卡索的居家畫作中， 這項技巧也被認為很震撼。

But in this context,

但在這種情境之下，

the style offers a profoundly overwhelming view

這種風格能形成 很深刻且強大的觀點，

of violence, destruction, and casualties.

來看待暴力、毀滅，和傷亡。

Multiple perspectives only compound the horror on display–

多重視角只是加重了 呈現出來的恐怖——

sending the eyes hurtling around the frame in a futile hunt for peace.

讓目光在畫框內四處飛馳， 徒勞地尋找和平。

On the far left, a woman holding her dead child releases a scream;

在最左邊，一名女子抱著 她死去的孩子，放聲大叫；

her eyes sliding down her face in the shape of tears

她的眼睛以眼淚的形狀 沿著她的臉頰滑落，

and her head bending back unnaturally to echo her baby’s.

她的頭部不自然地向後彎曲， 以呼應她孩子的頭部。

There is the statue of a soldier present below,

在底下，有一個士兵的雕像，

but he is unable to defend the woman and child.

但他沒辦法保衞這名女子和孩子。

Instead his broken body lies in pieces,

反之，他的身體破碎成四散的碎片，

his arm clutching a splintered sword in a signal of utmost defeat.

他的手臂抓著斷裂的劍， 表示最大的戰敗。

The tip of his sword meets a woman’s foot as she attempts to flee the devastation.

劍的尖端碰到女子的腳， 她在嘗試逃離這蹂躪。

But her other leg appears rooted to the spot,

但她的另一隻腳 很顯然固定在原處，

locked in the corner of the canvas even as she stretches to move it.

即使她延伸身體想要移動它， 它仍然被鎖在畫布的角落。

Another victim appears behind this slouching figure.

在這低頭垂肩的身影背後 出現了另一位受害者。

Falling helplessly as flames lick around her,

當火焰吞捲了她的周圍時， 她無助地倒下，

she too is caught in her own hopeless scene.

她同樣也是被困在 她自己那沒希望的場景中。

Each of these figures bordering the painting are horribly trapped,

這些人物形成了這幅畫的邊界， 他們都被以恐怖的方式困住，

giving the work an acute sense of claustrophobia.

讓這件作品有種強烈的幽閉恐怖感。

And where you might expect the canvas’ massive size to counteract this feeling,

你本來預期這畫布的巨大尺寸 應該可以抵消掉這種感覺，

its scale only highlights the nearly life-sized atrocities on display.

但它的規模反而讓作品上 接近真實大小的殘暴更為明顯。

Some possible relief comes from a lamp

可能讓人鬆口氣的地方是一盞燈，

held tightly by a ghostly woman reaching out her window.

一名像鬼一樣的女子從她的窗戶 伸出手，緊緊抓著那盞燈。

But is her lantern’s hopeful glow truly lighting the scene?

但，她的提燈所發出的希望之光 真的能夠點亮這個場景嗎？

Or is it the jagged lightbulb–

或者，是這個鋸齒狀的燈泡——

thought to represent the technologies of modern warfare–

一般認為它是代表 現代戰爭的技術——

which illuminates her view of the chaos below?

照亮了下方的混亂， 讓她看得更清楚？

From the coffin-like confines of her window,

她的窗戶就像是 棺材一樣侷限著她，

her arm guides the viewer back into the fray,

從這扇窗戶，她的手臂 引導著觀者回到爭鬥中，

to perhaps the most controversial symbols of all–

回到可能是畫作中 最爭議的象徵——

two ghostly animals caught in the destruction.

兩隻像鬼一樣的動物， 被困在毀滅當中。

Does the screaming horse embody the threat of Franco’s military nationalism;

大聲叫著的馬兒是否具體呈現了 佛朗哥軍隊的民族主義？

or does the spike running through its body convey its victimhood?

或者，穿過牠身體的尖刺 傳達了它的受害者狀態？

Does the white bull represent Spain,

白色的公牛是否代表西班牙？

the country of matadors and a common theme in Picasso’s work–

西班牙是個鬥牛的國家， 也是畢卡索作品的常見主題——

or does it stand for the brutality of war?

或者它代表的是戰爭的殘酷？

In this scene of strife, these animals raise more questions than answers.

在這個衝突的場景中， 這些動物帶來的問題比答案更多。

And additional elements hidden throughout the frame

在畫中各處隱藏的額外元素

offer even more secrets for close observers.

帶給仔細觀賞的觀者更多的秘密。

At the top of the canvas flashes a bird desperate to escape the carnage.

在畫布的上方，掠過一隻小鳥， 迫切地想要逃離大屠殺。

And the abundance of animals on display may hint at the bombing’s date–

有這麼多動物呈現在畫作中， 可能是在暗示轟炸的日期——

a market day which flooded the streets

那天是市場日，

滿街都是村民、動物， 及其他可能的受害者。

with villagers, animals, and other potential causalities.

Like the bombing of Guernica itself,

如同格爾尼卡的轟炸事件本身，

Picasso’s painting is dense with destruction.

畢卡索的畫作中也滿是毀滅。

But hidden beneath this supposed chaos, are carefully crafted scenes and symbols,

但，在這片混亂的背後藏著 精心製作的景象和象徵，

carrying out the painting’s multifaceted attack on fascism.

實現這幅畫作對於法西斯主義 最多面向的攻擊。

Decades after its creation,

在完成後數十年，

"Guernica" retains its power to shock viewers and ignite debate,

《格爾尼卡》仍然有可以 震撼觀者和引發辯論的威力，

and is often referenced at anti-war gatherings around the world.

在全世界的反戰聚會上， 也常常會提到它。

Hundreds of viewers have grappled with its harsh imagery, shattering symbolism

數百名觀者在努力破解它的 嚴酷意象、令人不安的象徵性，

and complex political messaging.

以及傳遞的複雜政治訊息。

But even without a close understanding of it’s complicated subtext,

但，即使無法精準了解 它那複雜的弦外之音，

Picasso’s work remains a searing reminder of the true casualties of violence.

畢卡索的作品仍然在強烈地提醒，

不要忘記暴力的真實死傷。