This Painting Is More Horrifying Than It Looks. Here's Why

At first glance, this black and white cubist work might feel a little cartoonish. It's exaggerated cubist figures and simple black and white don't feel like they're saying much. But take a closer look and you'll soon notice that it's far from cheerful. This masterpiece by Pablo Picasso has become known as one of the greatest political artworks of all time. But where did Picasso get the idea to paint this sprawling hellscape filled with anti-Nazi sentiment before World War II had even started? And how did the painting become a political statement just by existing? Let's find out. The work might seem simple at first glance, but a second look reveals its complexities. Its central subject is a startled horse, illuminated by a lamp with an exposed bulb as it stumbles around its fallen rider. Supposedly, Picasso himself said the horse represented the people of Guernica. The center of the painting is so chaotic, you might not even notice that the rider on the ground has been dismembered. The electric lamp illuminating the horse is no accident either. Some believe this is a symbol of progress, contrasted with the more old-fashioned gas lamps. In context, this could be a symbol of progress being used to justify tragedy. Do you have a different interpretation? Tell us in the comments. To the left, a bull looms over a mother who cries as she holds her dead child in her arms. The bull was particularly controversial because Picasso often used it as a symbol for his own ego. This caused some people to believe the work shouldn't be viewed as political. Others say it symbolizes irrational power, and Picasso is rumored to have said it symbolized brutality and darkness. To the right, another woman hangs her arms above her. A ghost-like figure carries a gaslight. A woman behind it screams as she's consumed by flames in what appears to be a ruined building. The architecture seems to mimic the living figures in the painting too. It's blown-out windows and doors echoing the screaming mouths and terrified eyes of the dying. The painting is dotted with hidden imagery that adds to the darkness. Picasso's iconic harlequin cries a diamond tear just off-center. The harlequin is a traditional symbol of duality, but it also holds power over life and death. It might be a counterbalance to the devastation and destruction in the painting. Although, if it was, it doesn't offer much relief from its hidden position. Look closely, and you'll notice that the horse, the bull, and the screaming mother all have daggers where their tongues should be. Squint, and you might notice a human skull superimposed over the horse, right in the center of the painting. On closer inspection, the horse's chainmail actually appears to be torn newsprint. Which has led some people to think that Picasso learned about the bombing in his home country via an article in a newspaper. Picasso began drafting his painting with a photographer, recording his process at every step. Some historians believe that the black-and-white photographs were what inspired Picasso to revise his idea into the stark monochrome palette. He took this a step further by seeking out house paint with a matte finish. Even near the end of the process, Picasso had painted a red tear on the mother's face, but he didn't keep it. This was all very intentional. The simple color palette helps remove any core focus points in the painting. While that might seem like a strange decision, it works in the context. It means the entire painting is leveled out, and the viewer is forced to look at it in its entirety. That offers no relief from the horrors you're seeing. Even at the center of the painting, which should be the main focal point, Picasso has added a scramble of jagged lines and chaotic scenes to remove any sense of real focus. Look to the center, and you'll witness the conflict and violence. Look to the sides, and you're confronted with personal tragedy. In other words, there's no escape. Some critics also believe that the lack of passion in the color palette makes the painting even more chilling. What are your thoughts on this celebrated work? Does it deserve all the praise it's received over the years? Let us know what you think in the comments. We probably all know the year that World War II broke out. One of the worst periods in human history began in 1939, right? Well, that's the date that would have appeared in your high school history book. But for the Spanish, the war really began in 1937. At the time, they were already fighting their own war. The Spanish Civil War had already broken out six months earlier. The Republican forces were fighting back against future dictator General Francisco Franco. Hitler was hugely in favor of Franco's nationalist government coming to power because he believed they would make Europe more sympathetic to his own imperialist aims. Their alliance was about to become devastating to a little town in the Basque country of Spain called Guernica. Franco encouraged the Nazis to stage an attack against the town to help his war effort. If you're wondering why he was so interested in a town with a population of only 5,000 people, there's a simple answer. Guernica was considered the northern core of the Republican resistance. Franco's Nazi allies were more than happy to help. The resulting raid was led by the Nazi Luftwaffe. It was absolutely devastating to the tiny town. The Nazis bombed the town for two straight hours, deliberately targeting civilians, including women and children. By some estimates, at least a third of all residents were either killed or injured in the attack. It might seem a bit weird that the Nazis were so willing to waste resources on that attack, but their motivations were sickeningly sinister. They had been using the town as practice for a bigger war. Essentially, they wanted to test if their new weapons and military tactics would be as successful as they'd hoped. In other words, this little town was the perfect training ground for what would become their Blitzkrieg tactic. The commander of the operation, the infamous colonel Wolfram von Richthofen, described the destruction of the little town of Guernica as simply wonderful. So where does Picasso fit in? He'd already been living in Paris for several years, but he was vaguely involved in the attack on Guernica without knowing it yet. He'd just accepted a commission from the Spanish Republican government to create a mural for their pavilion at the Paris exhibition that year. It was a strange move from the famous artist because he normally avoided politics in his work, and he'd already lost interest in the idea he was working on for them. When he learned about what had happened in Guernica, he immediately abandoned the idea he was already working on. He set up a new campus, 11 feet tall and 25.6 feet wide, and his monumental painting began to take shape. The huge painting took only about three weeks to complete, but he had no idea just how political the work was about to become. It was installed at the Paris exhibition in a prominent spot. In fact, it would have been one of the first things that visitors saw as they entered. But surprisingly, this work, that's considered a masterpiece today, got a cool reception when the world first saw it. Luckily, the Spanish Republic took the work on tour through Scandinavia and England as a way to raise funds and awareness for their cause. Suddenly, people were talking about it. It was receiving amazing reviews from art critics as Franco won the Civil War in Spain. Now Picasso was ready to get more political than ever before. He refused to allow his now famous painting to be moved to Spain as long as Franco was in charge, stating that the painting would only return to the country it was made for if the Republic is restored. However, he was rightly concerned about the Nazi occupation of France, so he allowed New York's Museum of Modern Art to hold onto the painting for safekeeping. They toured the painting around the U.S. for almost 20 years, where it gained more and more critical acclaim. As it became increasingly famous, scholars began fiercely debating its subject matter. Picasso had almost encouraged this by including some of his signature iconography, like the bull and the harlequin. Whatever the interpretation was, it was almost universally agreed that it was a deeply emotional and very dark work. But did this painting ever return to its rightful home in Spain? Sadly, Picasso died in 1973. That's two years before Franco died and Spain's political landscape changed. Picasso would never know what happened to his masterpiece. However, negotiations soon began to get the painting to Spain. In 1981, the Museum of Modern Art agreed to allow Guernica to be rehoused in an annex of the Prado Museum in Madrid, which is where Picasso himself had requested the painting be exhibited. However, controversially, if you want to see it today, you'll need to go a few blocks away from the Prado, to the Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofia. Perhaps Guernica will continue to cause controversy for as long as it exists. If you want to keep your art knowledge growing, then be sure to click subscribe. And may your life be artful!