Sometimes the painting starts to relate very directly to either sights seen or experiences felt, other times it just goes off on a tangent that you really can’t articulate.
-Susan Rothenberg
I’d be lying if I said Fernando Botero’s interpretations of Abu Ghraib didn’t disturb me. How could I forget the pile of naked human bodies, stacked and left as a spectacle? Or even the pink blood and the urine being sprayed all over an exposed man's stomach and genitals? I’m actually in awe that he was able to create something so realistic and accurate without having looked at the actual torture images. Yet, at the same time my reaction to his images is less intense than the photographs. I think it’s easy to convince myself that these people aren’t “real” because of the different art form, but they are brought to life in a completely different way.
One also has to keep in mind how and where they are viewing the painting. Going to an art gallery or art museum is extremely different for me than seeing a painting off my computer screen. It’s a whole new experience when you have the painting, sculpture, drawing, and other art physically and literally in front of you in their organic form.
The men being tortured are portrayed as puffy, muscular, and stout. According to the text parallel to Botero’s images, the simplified style of the tortured subjects is supposed to allow more reliability for people. Their bodies always seem to be curved and in movement, more than likely because of pain. They are not only vulnerable because they are bonded up and stripped naked, but they are also blindfolded. This does make the subjects more relatable because the “windows of the soul” are being covered up, this could be anyone. The various skin colors also show that these men are from no specific or known culture. There are few characteristics about the men that make them unique in their appearance, which I think ties into the reliability aspect as well as the loss of identity and individuality. This makes sense because to most of the American soldiers who were torturing them didn’t give them an identity other than perhaps “terrorist” or “animals.”
I find the random blue-gloved hand in the image of the dogs attacking the victim interesting. It serves as a reminder of who is behind this occurring hell. This person is also holding onto a leash for one dog, as if it really matters because it’s about to bite the man’s neck off anyway. I think this is a good representation of who is in power in this situation and who literally holds the reigns of control. The blue sticks out on my mind, like it’s am image I will not forget. It’s actually disturbing. The hand looks like it’s covered in a medical glove, protecting the torturer from the hell they are dispelling. Here’s one last ending remark: the anatomy of the most vicious dog and the victim look alike. The ribs are bulging out of the sides of their puffed chests, their mouths are both opened a tad, their skin looks lumpy, and their bodies mirror one another in posture and pose. One major difference is the man’s hands are behind his back and he cannot fend of the dogs, which epitomize torture. Analyzing this image makes me wonder what the man said. Did he scream? Did he call for anyone? Wow, these paintings are getting to me more than I expected.
One last aspect I want to touch upon is the lingerie wearing and how this is used as a form of humiliation. I feel that this puts into perspective the conservative gender roles of the torturers. To them, this it’s funny to see a man in women’s attire and women’s bras. Putting a man in a bra would not be “humorous” in all environments, but in this one it “is.” This is all speculation of Middle Eastern traditions, but it might be offensive and taboo for a man to wear designated women’s clothing. I think one can really gain the dark sense of humor of the torturers by the lingerie.
I’m surprised there are so few artistic interpretations from Abu Ghraib. Have major events such as this, 9/11, and Katrina been captured through different mediums than photography? I have seen various artistic remakes of the Holocaust and times in history like the Great Depression, but not 21st century events. Anyone who has seen otherwise please let me know because I would love to know about more recent interpretations! Do artists feel less need to capture our century because of the up rise of photography? I really hope not because I think we still need paintings and other creations besides photography. I think that we need these images that can help us escape from the subject being presented, or simply understand the subject in a different way.
