Production versus Destruction: Art, World War I and art history

Abstract

Studies on the theme of art and World War I routinely focus on art produced during the conflict; it is suggested in this article that the wartime destruction of art is also worthy of art‐historical attention. Destruction was as much, if not more, of a concern at the time and the damage done to historic monuments in north‐eastern France, along the line of the Western Front, was the subject of a large literature during and after the war. This contemporary literature raises particular problems of interpretation, however, as it was all of a propagandist nature; in the absence of disinterested evidence, the simple approach of asking ‘what happened’ is not possible and the content of the propaganda becomes more interesting than its truth value. The damage caused by German shells to French Gothic cathedrals supplied opportunities for an exchange of traditional Franco‐German cultural hostilities, this time with apparently concrete examples. The propaganda and counter‐propaganda concerning the bombardment of Reims Cathedral is taken as an example here, with a comparison of French accusations of German barbarism with German accusations of a cynical French use of the church for military purposes – the fight was on for the title of the most truly ‘cultured’ nation. As much of the propaganda was written by architectural historians, including medieval specialists Emile Mâle and Paul Clemen, the story of the destruction of art was told in art‐historical terms, with the dropping of shells on a cathedral characterized as the destruction of French Gothic by stylistically jealous Germans. It is argued here that, given the extent of contemporary interest in and use of war damage to art and architecture, to ignore this more negative feature of the relationship between art and war in favour of the more positive aspects of production and reconstruction is to give an imbalanced view of the concerns of the time.