Abstract
Rapidly changing technology transformed not only military affairs in the half century before 1914 but also the printing industry. In particular, images of all kinds became available to the public on an unprecedented scale. This allowed governments to call on artists both to propagandize the war effort and record the world-historical events. In the images they created during the Great War, official war artists did much to shape the public perceptions of such novel technologies as the tank. Especially in the robust war art programs of Britain and France, artists emphasized the blank menace of machines without evidence of human agency. Images of implacable machines rearing over blasted landscapes appeared in salons, books, magazines, newspapers, and in the new medium of film. The images sank home. During the interwar period, military mechanization incorporated tanks into armored forces that projected that same menace and invincibility on a larger scale, the very characteristics that commended tank forces to totalitarian regimes.
In the August 1989 issue of The Burlington Magazine, Julian Freeman discussed the recent redevelopments at the Imperial War Museum (iwm). Why, one might ask, would a military museum interest the readers of a magazine for art connoisseurs? Because this great memorial to the First World War was, Freeman (1989, 576) reminded us, “ever as devoted to Art as much as to War.” That the iwm came to rival if not surpass London’s Tate Gallery as a home for the work of twentieth-century British artists stemmed directly from the war art program instituted by the British government in 1916 (Atterbury 1989, 144–145; Malvern 2000, 188; Harries and Harries 1993). Like virtually everyone else during the Great War, artists and illustrators were enthralled by the new technologies of industrial warfare. Artists everywhere sought both traditional and novel ways to depict the new realities of industrial warfare. To a remarkable degree, the search for a new or revitalized visual vocabulary proceeded with government support. For the first time, artists also enjoyed state patronage to record images of the war, predominantly for propaganda purposes but also in recognition the Great War was a world-historical event. Official programs in many countries encouraged eminent (and not so eminent) artists to record every aspect of the war from the battlefront to the home front for present and future generations.
Government Support and Its Consequences
The willingness of wartime governments to support artistic endeavor was unprecedented and the consequences for society as well as the arts far-reaching. Modernist art movements—whether late nineteenth-century Impressionism (Minden 1993; Mallen 2015), early twentieth-century Cubism, and Futurism (Laroche 2014; Barooshian 1974; Berghaus 2009), or wartime Vorticism and Dadasism (Cork 1976; Peppis 1997; Mathews 1993; Buelens 2006)—all in one way or another reflected or refracted the experience of the Great War. Art historians have especially noticed how the modernist art movements of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century enabled some artists throughout Europe to depict the new kind of war in new ways (Dagen 1996; Pépin 2008; Fontanel and Wolfromm 2014; Hughes and Blom 2014). At the same, time the experience of war profoundly affected the character of postwar modernist art (Howlett and Mangham 1993; Cork 1994). This was no less true in Italy and Russia (Shell 1998; Cohen 2008) than it was in France and Britain (Silver 1989; Malvern 2004).
But art historians’ fascination with modernism should not obscure the fact that many artists continued to work in traditional styles as well. “While some figures employed a modernist approach that drew from avant-garde experimentation begun before the war or was born in reaction to its carnage,” as Jennifer Farrell of New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art observed, “others embraced a more traditional, figurative style; still others drew elements from both approaches or moved between styles for a variety of reasons” (Farrell 2017; cf. Stearn 1986; Nott 2015; Silver 2010). Whether modernist or traditionalist, artists of the Great War shared a far wider vision of what the subjects of war painting might include. Scenes of battle and the heroism of men in combat were joined by depictions of women working in war factories, soldiers receiving medical care, and a host of other topics not formerly considered relevant for military art (Pennell 1917; Pennell 1918; Anon. 2006; Fahlman 2019).
This cultural transformation arose, at least in part, from the confluence of two technological revolutions. Radical changes in military technology during the late nineteenth century did much to reshape the battlefield in the First World War and so to alter the very meaning of war, as is well known (Hacker 2005). But that same half-century witnessed no less radical changes in another major area of technology: printing and color reproduction. This raises the possibility that the First World War revealed not only a technical revolution that reshaped the realities of warfare but also a technical revolution that contributed to reshaping our perceptions of warfare. So large a question cannot be answered here, a small piece of the problem may be explored by studying how war artists, especially those more or less officially sanctioned in Britain and its empire, France, and the United States depicted military technology, with a special focus on the tank.
Mobilizing Artists
Artists, like everyone else, found themselves mobilized for war, quite literally in the case of the British Artists’ Rifles regiment (Lee 2000; and see that theme issue: iamamh 2000; Gregory 2006), sometimes for work of military utility, such as developing the new techniques of camouflage, largely in response to the new threat posed by aerial observation (Kahn 1984; Quagliati 2021). Perhaps the most spectacular development was the British use of dazzle camouflage for ships, an outgrowth of the vigorous but short-lived Voriticist art movement of 1914–1915 (Behrens 1999; Covert 2007; White 2017; Forbes 2009, 85–112). Artists were also called upon for wartime and postwar activities, such as painting face masks for disfigured veterans (Alexander 2007; Feo 2007; Lubin 2008; Powell 2016; Shaheen 2019).
More often their work contributed less directly to military activity, but mattered more to the larger war effort. For the first time, governments commissioned artists and illustrators to propagandize the war effort through colorful and ubiquitous posters (James 2009; Bownes and Fleming 2014; Anon. 2018). The art poster, only two or three decades old when the war began, had increasingly blurred the line between commercial art and fine art. Mainly in Paris during the last decades of the nineteenth century, such artists as Toulouse Lautrec and Théophile Steinlin, supported by coteries of critics, succeeded in elevating the advertising poster to a new form of fine art. Their success was enabled by the revolutionary changes in color printing technology, especially lithography, which like military technology, had also developed in the half-century before the war (Berry 1958; Day 1990, 674–681; Iskin 2014).
Simultaneously, a prewar revolution in printing technology had also fostered the explosive growth of the popular illustrated press. Steam power not only revolutionized manufacturing and transportation; it also transformed printing and the exchange of information. Newspapers were the first to benefit; the London Times in 1814 introduced steam-powered presses, which sharply reduced production time; the introduction of the rotary press in 1843 produced still greater efficiencies (Musson 1958; Berry 1958). Steam-powered rotary presses lowered printing costs and steam-powered trains and ships allowed books, magazines, and a wide variety of other printed materials to be widely and cheaply distributed. Still other innovations transformed printing technology in the last half of the nineteenth century, especially new techniques for reproducing images. First through mechanized wood engraving, then by photomechanical means—ultimately in color just by the time the war erupted but at that moment typically limited to covers, though notably l’Illustration had full-page color plates in some issues—this new reproduction technology fostered a dramatic increase in popular illustrated periodicals (Wright 2004; Beegen 2008; Cate and Hitchings 1978).
All of these developments promised great potential value to the war effort, a potential that Germany had been first to recognize, even though unlike Allied countries, it never established a state scheme for commissioning official war artists. Artists did visit the front as members of press units to make visual records of war. And of course, there were also soldier-artists in the ranks (Paret 1983, 433–436; Midgley 1993; Weissbrich 2014), of whom Otto Dix was the most famous, though mostly after the war (Merz 1999; McGreevy 2001; Fitzke 2015; Eberle 1985). France, like Germany, recognized the value of art but never established an official war art program, though it did authorize artists to visit the war front and purchased their work. The French Army Museum also commission official war artists (Lacaille 2000; Robichon 2000). France, like the United States, preferred illustrators, whose work appeared regularly in the periodical press (Lacaille 1998; Harris and Edelstein 2014). Given the augmentation and centralization of government powers during the war, the use of art as an instrument of the state seemed highly likely, but in the end, only Britain, alongside the dominions of Canada and Australia (Harries and Harries 1993; Brandon 2005; Hutchison 2019), had fully developed official war artist programs. The British official art program began as an offshoot of the clandestine propaganda organization usually referred by the name of its domicile, Wellington House, though it later merged with the Imperial War Museum after the latter’s establishment in 1917 (Kavanaugh 1998; Chaney 2002). Unlike the other belligerents, Britain and its dominions focused their art programs on artists rather than illustrators and ultimately eclipsed all the others in the amount of art created and its quality (Malvern 2016).
The American Official War Art Program
The American program was more modest in both scale and results than the British. Although the United States was late to enter the war, it followed the lead of its allies in mobilizing artists. In April 1917, a week after America’s declaration of war, President Woodrow Wilson issued an executive order creating a propaganda ministry, innocuously named the Committee on Public Information, which quickly became the creature of its director, George Creel (1876–1953). Creel recognized the value of graphic images in helping to persuade citizens to support war with their lives and money (Creel 1920; Maxwell 2015). He enlisted the aid of Charles Dana Gibson (1867–1944), the famous illustrator who created the “Gibson girl”—the idealized feminine beauty he had portrayed in pen-and-in magazine for two decades—to find support among artists, especially illustrators (Gibson 1969). The loose subcommittee formed to advise government agencies about their artwork needs had by November 1917 become the Division of Pictorial Publicity, the government’s major supplier of art, especially posters. (Van Schraak 2006; Rawls 1998; LeBrecque 2008).
From the Division of Pictorial Publicity also emerged the plan to appoint official artists for special service with the American Expeditionary Force (aef) in France. In sharp contrast to the eminent artists drawn into the British official war art programs, the eight Americans chosen were all well-known magazine, advertising, and book illustrators, though their backgrounds varied. The fact that illustrators chiefly comprised the committee selecting them seems almost certainly part of the reason, but probably is not the whole story. The second decade of the twentieth century fell squarely within the half-century that witnessed the revolution in the color reproduction of artwork, fostering the rise of illustrated magazines and ushering in what has often been called the golden age of illustration. Magazine and advertising illustrators were as well known. Working for a mass audience, they enjoyed a high degree of public recognition and a social status more elevated than they had known before the 1880s or have known since the 1920s. Their themes were often technological, featuring the engines of progress that drove the late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century American economy (Levin 1980; Bogart 1995; Thomson 1997; Brown 1998; Doezema 1988).
The choice of illustrators may also have been influenced by the remarkable exploits of the artist-journalists of the last half of the nineteenth century. From the 1840s onward, the rise of the illustrated press in Europe and America made artist-journalists, like war correspondents, a fixture in military campaigns. Artist-journalists, “special artists” as they were called, shaped public perceptions of big wars, like the Crimean, the Franco-Prussian War, and the Anglo-Boer (Keller 2001; Smits 2020; Martin 2006; Greenwall 1992), as well as small wars throughout the colonial world (Hodgson 1977; Johnson 1978; Springhalt 1986; Stearn 1992). Back home the field sketches were usually redrawn as wood engravings and printed in black and white (Martin 2014). Although older styles of military art persisted, the depiction of war and combat in the United States took on a distinctly more popular cast in mid-century. The public devoured the images of war and combat that looked so much like the product of direct observation and that flowed so quickly from the presses they seemed to appear almost as soon as the events themselves.
The Mexican War was the first American conflict to become the subject of the new penny-press revolution (Johannsen 1985, 222–230; Wolf 1984; Sandweiss et al. 1989), though such imagery exploded after mid-century. Printmakers and artist-journalists working for such illustrated periodicals as Harper’s Weekly and Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper chronicled virtually every aspect of the American Civil War (Stern 1959; Williams 1961; Park 1999; Katz and Virga 2012; Moore 2018). The Indian wars of the late nineteenth century attracted interest, and so did the Spanish-American War (Howell 1965; Jones 1970; Post 1960). Magazines continued to publish artists’ images of war after 1898; the illustrated periodicals were full of work both by frontline artists and home front illustrators (Siotto 2016). But private enterprise increasingly gave way to government sponsorship. In the Great War the artist-journalist was overshadowed by the official war artist. Instead of his magazine editor, the war artist now answered to the military authorities. From the army’s viewpoint, skilled craftsmen used to taking direction (if not orders) and to working under pressure to meet deadlines must have seemed exactly what it needed to secure propaganda images and a visual record of its accomplishments.
The new printing technology opened another venue for artist-illustrators in editorial cartooning, which entered a golden age of its own in the last half of the nineteenth century. Politics was the usual subject but war also provided fertile ground (Culbert 2008; Danjoux 2007; Cassell 2004). In America, the Civil War inspired cartoonists (Kent 2003; Lewin and Huff 2007) as did the war with Spain (Martinez-Fernández 1998; Miller 2011). When the Great War came, illustrated periodicals provided the best venue for cartoonists, whose observations, sometimes caustic, sometimes gentle, did so much to mold public opinion about the war (Allison 1918; Hecht 1919; Gosling 2008; cf. Lantry 2020). Cartoonists increasingly worked under government sponsorship and control as the war progressed. In fact, the war marked a significant stage in the transition of editorial cartoonists from artists to journalists (Ranitz 2014; Demm 2016).
The new printing technologies also provided a way for state-sponsored war art programs to reach a mass audience; the work of official war artists regularly appeared in newspapers and magazines in the later years of the war (Gallatin 1919; Siotto 2016). Numerous books and portfolios were also published during and immediately after the war in Britain (e.g., Bone 1917; Nevinson 1917; Anon. 1918; Holme 1919) and the United States (Peixotto 1919; Smith 1919; Harding 1920). This did not preclude more conventional displays. Travelling war art exhibits became a regular occurrence (Cortissoz 1918; Phillips 1919; Wellington 2017). They played a particularly significant role in British (British Information Bureau 1918; British Information Bureau 1919) and French (Anon. 1918; Phillips 1918) efforts to win American support in the war. Although critics mostly acclaimed exhibitions of war art, which drew large crowds both at home and abroad, widespread hostility toward artists as shirkers or worse also manifested itself (Fox 2010).
The eight artist-illustrators selected by the Division of Pictorial Publicity to join the aef were William James Aylward, Walter Jack Duncan, Harvey Thomas Dunn, George Matthew Harding, Wallace Morgan, Ernest Clifford Peixotto, J. André Smith, and Harry Everett Townsend. They all shared certain other traits besides having made successful careers as commercial artists. They were all white males ranging in age from 34 to 49, thus a generation older than most of the troops. They were distinctly more urban in origin than the American population of the time: six of the eight grew up in cities. All but one (Harvey Dunn) came from middleclass or upper middleclass backgrounds, again a far higher proportion than the population at large (Hacker 2008 and 2010). All eight had received formal art education, and five of the eight studied with Howard Pyle in Philadelphia, who trained a remarkably large number of America’s most successful illustrators of the era (Best 1980; Cutler and Cutler 2017).
Known informally as the “Official 8,” these men were commissioned as captains in the Corps of Engineers early in 1918 and reached aef Headquarters at Chaumont, France, in May. Once in France, they received a crash course on how to recognize the novel organizations and equipment they would be drawing and painting. Attached to the Press & Censorship Division of the Intelligence Branch (G-2) of the aef General Staff, they were stationed alongside accredited war correspondents in Neufchâteau, a town north of Chaumont. Each artist was issued a permanent pass, signed by both American and French high commands, giving them much freedom of movement. They worked everywhere from the ports where troops debarked to No Man’s Land. Using paint and brush, pen and ink, pencil, crayon, chalk, and charcoal to depict scenes of combat, training, and support, the Official 8 executed an impressive number of works during their months in the war zone (though never as much as their military superiors wanted) (Cornebise 1991; Krass 2006).
The Emergence of Tanks
In the half century before the Great War, military technology changed far more quickly than military organization and doctrine, setting the stage for the stalemate on the Western Front. Even beyond the (still-changing) military technology, stalemate also derived from the enormous productive capacity that made it possible to equip, maintain, and replentish huge armies. The Great War became the first great industrial war. Phrases like “war economy” and “home front” entered the lexicon to describe the conversion of industrial capacity, the reorientation of civic life, the concentration of all resources toward fighting total war, the mobilization of women and men through exhortation and conscription (Holmes 1988; Murray 1995; Hacker 2005).
As befitted a scientific-industrial age, efforts to break the deadlock on the Western Front called on technology. A range of mechanical innovations based on the internal combustion engine—trucks, tanks, and aircraft—did not prove to be decisive, but their promise inflamed imaginations, and not only of soldiers. In particular, tanks―tracked vehicles able to travel cross country, armored against enemy fire but dealing destruction with their own guns―seemed to promise an end to trench warfare, even if the war ended before that promise was entirely fulfilled.
Tanks made their first appearance on the Western Front in 1916. Britain led the way in tank development and production (Smithers 1986; Childs 1999). Tracked vehicles of trapezoidal shape with nondescript designations of Mk. I–X, British heavy tanks carried eight-man crews and mounted guns or machine guns in side sponsons. Able to traverse broken ground, crush barbed wire, and cross trenches, they achieved significant, if not decisive, success on the battlefield. For all their achievements, and though they improved over the course of the war, they remained slow, noisy, uncomfortable for their crews, and none too reliable—and indecisive (Fuller 1920; Liddell Hart 1959; Fletcher 2001). France independently developed tank-like assault artillery, notably the Schneider and the St. Chamond, both of which provided artillery pieces with an armored shell and tracked mobility; neither type was even as successful as British tanks (Dutil 1919; Bourget 1956; Ogorkiewicz 1973; Ellis and Chamberlain 1970; Gale 2013 and 2016). But France also developed the first modern turreted tank, the lightweight Renault ft, which carried a two-man crew and either a machine gun or 37mm cannon. Widely regarded as the best tank of the Great War, it was manufactured and deployed in numbers large enough to equip not only its own forces but those of the United States (Touzin and Gurtner 1970; Szafranski and Karmieh 2018; Wilson 1989) and played a vital role in the final Allied victory (Guénaff and Jurkiewicz 2004; Corn and Falbo-White 2018, 13–32).
Although tanks did not prove decisive in the Great War, they still inflamed the imaginations of soldiers and civilians alike. In 1918 Richard Haigh, a captain in the two-year-old British Tank Corps, published a small book on his Life in a Tank, He described his initial fascination with
an iron monster, breathing fire and exhaling bullets and shells, hurling itself against the enemy, unassailable by man and impervious to the most deadly engines of war; sublime, indeed, in its expression of indomitable power and resolution. . . . Above all, the new monster had our imaginations in thrall. (Haigh 1918, 1, 5)
There is something fundamentally awful in moving gun-platforms, where you cannot see the men working the guns . . ., the absence of a visible human agency. The crew were unseen: Invicta seemed to deal death of its own volition. . . . War is always frightful, but in mechanical warfare there is an added terror arising from the inherent insensibility of the machine.
(Quoted in Wilson 1929, 157–158)
Such comments can easily be multiplied (Fletcher 1994). The textual evidence for the sense of power and terror embodied in the new machines came primarily from the men who had actually experienced tanks on the battlefield, but their words resonated throughout society (Hacker 1982; Tate 1997).
Imaging Tanks in Britain
Soldier-writers were not the only ones who struggled to capture the impact of the new machines. War artists responded graphically to the sense of power and terror that the tankers wrote about. Like the soldiers, they were enthralled by the new technologies of industrial warfare. Whether avant garde or traditional, however, to a remarkable degree, they worked under government patronage—and not only in Britain. The willingness of wartime governments to support such efforts was unprecedented and the consequences for society as well as the arts far-reaching. Official programs in many countries assigned artists both well-established and obscure to record the Great War for present and future generations (Gallatin 1919; Winter 1989; Rother 1994; Malvern 2016). The British and French programs were particularly robust (Harries and Harries 1983; Gough 2010; Lacaille 1998).
The drawings and paintings of war artists attest to the excitement generated by the new technologies of warfare. British artists shared a sense of the special role technological innovation played in the Great War. A splendid 1918 painting by John Lavery (1856–1941) seems to symbolize that awareness. Belfast-born and classically trained in Glasgow, London, and Paris, Lavery became one of the UK’s official war artists in 1917 at the age of 61. Ill-health kept him in England, chiefly painting aircraft and ships (Lavery 1940; cf. McConkey 2010). The painting, titled ‘Rigids’ at Pulham, 1918. R23 Type British Airships at Pulham St Mary, Norfolk, juxtaposes two of the major military innovations of the Great War: A heavy tank, its dark trapezoidal shape already iconic, rests on the floor of an airship hangar flanked by the rear fins of two rigid airships.1
Lavery’s painting also suggests another aspect of British official war art. It did not take battle or soldier life as its sole subjects, a notable departure from past military painting and illustration (Paret 1997; Brandon 2007; Rabb 2011). A significant number of British Great War paintings and other artworks depict the industrial and logistic underpinnings of armed force, something virtually unknown in the military painting of an earlier age. A painting by another official British war artist, Bernard Adeney (1878–1966), may serve as an example. Though a generation younger than Lavery, Adeney too was already a well-established artist when he was appointed in 1917 (Anon. 2019a). His painting entitled The Experimental Depot for Tanks, Dollis Hill, London, N.W. shows the depot’s outside yard.2 An open-sided workshop stands to the left of the composition with tanks parked inside. Three mechanics are working on the foremost tank within the workshop, viewed by a group of officers. Four more mechanics strip the track from another tank in the right foreground. Other tanks are visible in the background, including a Whippet, the new British light tank just then being introduced.
While some artists sought to devise a new visual vocabulary to capture the grotesquely unfamiliar battlefield of industrial war, those who painted tanks generally were not among them. They tended to adapt the familiar tropes of Victorian battle painting to depict the new technical realities of war. The machine’s inexorability and insensibility, the blank menace that soldiers had stressed in their writing, appear again and again in the art, even in non-battle scenes. Bernard Adeney (1878–1966), for instance, shows Tanks Passing along a Road in France in ink and wash (Figure 1). The machines roll impassively through a town, with no visible evidence of human agency. The machine is equally insensible on the battlefield in Adeney’s painting of A Mark V Tank Going into Action. The rear view of a tank climbing over broken ground is unusual, but the tank’s rearing pose is typical.3 Another painting, entitled The Advance, offers Adeney’s version of the most frequent, almost iconic, depiction of British heavy tanks in action, with the machine in three-quarters front view rearing over a broken landscape, perhaps a nod to the rearing warhorse of an earlier generation (Figure 2).
W. Bernard Adeney, Tanks Passing along a Road in France n.d. Ink and wash on paper, 260 x 368 mm. Imperial War Museum, London.
Citation: Vulcan 9, 1 (2021) ; 10.1163/22134603-09010004
source: © iwm (art 3892)
W. Bernard Adeney, Tanks Passing along a Road in France n.d. Ink and wash on paper, 260 x 368 mm. Imperial War Museum, London.
Citation: Vulcan 9, 1 (2021) ; 10.1163/22134603-09010004
source: © iwm (art 3892)W. Bernard Adeney, Tanks Passing along a Road in France n.d. Ink and wash on paper, 260 x 368 mm. Imperial War Museum, London.
Citation: Vulcan 9, 1 (2021) ; 10.1163/22134603-09010004
source: © iwm (art 3892)
W. Bernard Adeney, The Advance (1918). Oil on canvas, 558 x 406 mm. Imperial War Museum, London.
Citation: Vulcan 9, 1 (2021) ; 10.1163/22134603-09010004
source: © iwm (art 2707)
W. Bernard Adeney, The Advance (1918). Oil on canvas, 558 x 406 mm. Imperial War Museum, London.
Citation: Vulcan 9, 1 (2021) ; 10.1163/22134603-09010004
source: © iwm (art 2707)W. Bernard Adeney, The Advance (1918). Oil on canvas, 558 x 406 mm. Imperial War Museum, London.
Citation: Vulcan 9, 1 (2021) ; 10.1163/22134603-09010004
source: © iwm (art 2707)Adeney was hardly alone in his fascination with tanks. William Orpen (1878–1931), a native of Dublin, studied both in Dublin and London. Like many other official war artists, he was both relatively young—he turned 36 in 1914, the year the war started—and already a well-established artist. In 1916 he received an army commission mainly to paint portraits of senior political and military figures. Sent to the Western Front in 1917, he continued portrait painting, but his shock at what he saw in France also compelled him to paint war scenes, a number of which featured tanks (Orpen 1921; Konody and Dark 1932; Gallois 2018). His charcoal, chalk, and watercolor painting, called simply A Tank, strongly resembles in composition in Adeney’s The Advance.4 In, another chalk and watercolor painting of Tanks, Orpen created an image even more menacing (Figure 3). The image of a rearing tank became a favorite of poster artists, as typified by a 1918 war bond poster by an unnamed artist showing the tank rearing over a ridge, its guns firing.5
William Orpen, Tanks (1917). Chalk and watercolor on paper, 609 x 736 mm. Imperial War Museum, London.
Citation: Vulcan 9, 1 (2021) ; 10.1163/22134603-09010004
source: © iwm (art 3035)
William Orpen, Tanks (1917). Chalk and watercolor on paper, 609 x 736 mm. Imperial War Museum, London.
Citation: Vulcan 9, 1 (2021) ; 10.1163/22134603-09010004
source: © iwm (art 3035)William Orpen, Tanks (1917). Chalk and watercolor on paper, 609 x 736 mm. Imperial War Museum, London.
Citation: Vulcan 9, 1 (2021) ; 10.1163/22134603-09010004
source: © iwm (art 3035)Three other official war artists each depicted tanks, though in quite different ways. Muirhead Bone (1876–1953), a Scot best known for his etchings, had just turned 40 when he was appointed Britain’s first official war artist in May 1916. Although he was by far the most prolific of the ninety or so artists who received official appointments, his work tended to center on landscape, architecture, and naval subjects. But he seemed also to have been intrigued by the machinery of war (Harris 2014; Willette 2016). One of his charcoal drawings showed tanks, which he characterized as “grim and daunting engine[s] of war,” crossing broken ground (Bone 1917, pl. vii). Like Adeney and Orpen, Bone chose a three-quarter front view to emphasize the machine’s blank menace.6
C.R.W. Nevinson (1889–1946) was among the youngest of the official war artists, much influenced by the radical art movements of early twentieth-century Paris where he studied before the war. Initially turned down as unfit by the British army, he volunteered as an ambulance driver in Belgium (Nevinson 1917; Nevinson 1937; Walsh 2005). Nevinson was still in his mid-20s when his extraordinary 1915 painting of a French machine gun crew and their gun, La Mitrailleuse, received its first public viewing in London in 1916.7 To layman and critic alike, it seemed to embody the lethal union of man and machine that characterized modern war. Nevinson‘s style turned more somber and realistic after he joined the British art program in 1917. In Nevinson’s 1917 oil painting of A Tank, man has vanished and only the machine remains, in all its hulking menace.8
Finally, Ian Strang (1886–1952), another young English artist who studied in London and Paris before the war, took a different tack (Anon. 2018b). His 1918 ink and watercolor painting, The Men in Road with Tanks, offers a blasted and brooding landscape.9 The road’s surface of churned and cratered mud is distinguished chiefly by the remains of blasted trees lining the route. Four tanks are almost lost in the shell craters either side of the road.
In addition to his vigorous depictions of tanks in action, William Orpen sketched tanks destroyed by enemy action. In a pencil drawing touched with watercolor called hm Land Ship ´Shell Out´, he depicted the blasted victim of enemy shellfire.10 In another pencil drawing heightened with a little color, Orpen depicted The End of a Hero and a Tank at Courcelette.11 This elegant image from the aftermath of an August 1916 action is unusual in showing the body of a dead soldier in the trench straddled by the tank remains. British authorities, in contrast to German, long resisted any artistic hint that battle might be lethal to those who fought (a stance Orpen came strongly to oppose) and even the depiction of wounded men was discouraged (Lennard 2011).
War artists from Australia and New Zealand regularly took derelict tanks for their subjects. Will Dyson (1880–1938), Charles Bryant (1883–1937), George Benson (1886–1960), and Nugent Welch (1881–1970), successful artists in their thirties when they left for France, all drew and painted wrecked or abandoned tanks (Hutchison 2019). Welch’s 1918 watercolor, Abandoned Tank, Flers, may be taken as representative, where a hulk sits to one side of the road among a blasted landscape.12 Commonwealth artists also depicted tanks in action, perhaps none more dramatically than New Zealand painter Harold Septimus Power (1877–1951), a largely self-taught but hugely successful painter of animals, especially horses, first in his homeland, then in Adelaide, and finally in London. Commissioned as an official Australian war artist, his work featured cavalry and horse artillery (Power 1974; Holden 1988). German artillery horses terrified by the looming tank on the ridge behind them were the focus of Power’s dramatic painting of The Capture of the German Guns, Third Battle of Ypres.13
French Illustrators
The French official art program was less centralized than the British and made much greater use of illustrators (Harris and Edelstein 2014). French depictions of tanks followed much the same pattern as British. Indeed, they seemed to begin with images of British tanks, such as a watercolor by Jean Jacques Berne-Bellacour (1874–c.1939) of a Mk. I male tank C13, just before the first tank combat on 15 September 1916.14 The son of an artist who specialized in military subjects, Berne-Bellecour followed in his father’s footsteps. His realistic military paintings, drawings, and prints found a ready market before the Great War and continued after it began.
Berne-Bellecourt’s older contemporary, François Flameng (1856–1923), also painted British tanks in action, as in a painting of the British tank assault at Cambrai for the magazine L’Illustration.15 Already a very successful painter of history and portraits for three decades, Flameng became even more renowned for his war paintings (Page 2019). France also developed its own heavy tanks independent of the British, although the French machines were, in modern terms, actually assault guns. Flameng illustrated them as well. An aquarelle (pen and ink finished in watercolor) and gouache painting shows Saint-Chamond heavy tanks leading an infantry attack on the Aisne in July 1918 (Figure 4).
François Flameng, Sur la champs de bataille de 1918. Les chars d’assaut.
Citation: Vulcan 9, 1 (2021) ; 10.1163/22134603-09010004
source: l’illustration no. 39 (1918)
François Flameng, Sur la champs de bataille de 1918. Les chars d’assaut.
Citation: Vulcan 9, 1 (2021) ; 10.1163/22134603-09010004
source: l’illustration no. 39 (1918)François Flameng, Sur la champs de bataille de 1918. Les chars d’assaut.
Citation: Vulcan 9, 1 (2021) ; 10.1163/22134603-09010004
source: l’illustration no. 39 (1918)The third and youngest of the French artists who helped define the image of tanks was Lucien Jonas (1880–1947), a prolific and widely published Great War illustrator. Three months after his mobilization in December 1914, he was officially accredited as “military painter seconded to the Musée de l’Armée” in Paris. During the war he traveled everywhere, sketching, drawing, and painting (Jonas 1918; Phillips 1918). In a 1918 charcoal and crayon drawing he illustrated Saint-Chamond heavy tanks in action.16 Formidable though they may have appeared, the French heavy tanks were none too successful, in sharp contrast to the outstanding performance of the French Renault light tanks (Zaloga 2010; Gale 2013 and 2016). Introduced in mid-1918, the Renault ft s made up in numbers what they lacked in size, even if they seemed little less menacing than their larger cousins (Zaloga 1988; Szafranski and Karmieh 2018). Jean-Jacques Berne-Bellecour used a woodblock to depict one of the light tanks in action (Figure 5).
Jean-Jacques Berne-Bellecour. A Renault F1 in action. Two-color ‘chiaroscuro’ woodcut, 1918. Fayolle 1920, vol. 3.
Citation: Vulcan 9, 1 (2021) ; 10.1163/22134603-09010004
Jean-Jacques Berne-Bellecour. A Renault F1 in action. Two-color ‘chiaroscuro’ woodcut, 1918. Fayolle 1920, vol. 3.
Citation: Vulcan 9, 1 (2021) ; 10.1163/22134603-09010004
Jean-Jacques Berne-Bellecour. A Renault F1 in action. Two-color ‘chiaroscuro’ woodcut, 1918. Fayolle 1920, vol. 3.
Citation: Vulcan 9, 1 (2021) ; 10.1163/22134603-09010004
America’s War Artists
This war was a new phase of human activity—far removed from the peaceful pursuits that art presented in our generation. It was a war of tremendous artillery preparation. . . . New engines of war lumbered across No Man’s Land; . . . machine guns, hand grenades, gas, air bombs were but a few of the new factors in the fighting. The realist documentations of these things as one found them, under conditions that made direct drawing impossible, fell far short of presenting them as convincingly as another moment might betray them, under dramatic conditions which gave you a glimpse that contained both vitality and beauty—beauty where before only the everyday atmosphere of ugliness existed. (Harding 1919, 455; cf. Harding 1920; Harding 1939; Hodges 2015b)
George Matthews Harding, Tanks Attacking Early Sept. 26th between Avocourt and Montfaucon (1918). Charcoal and wash, 22 x 29½ in.
Citation: Vulcan 9, 1 (2021) ; 10.1163/22134603-09010004
source: courtesy of national museum of american history, acc. 64592 (id af.25749), smithsonian institution, washington, dc
George Matthews Harding, Tanks Attacking Early Sept. 26th between Avocourt and Montfaucon (1918). Charcoal and wash, 22 x 29½ in.
Citation: Vulcan 9, 1 (2021) ; 10.1163/22134603-09010004
source: courtesy of national museum of american history, acc. 64592 (id af.25749), smithsonian institution, washington, dcGeorge Matthews Harding, Tanks Attacking Early Sept. 26th between Avocourt and Montfaucon (1918). Charcoal and wash, 22 x 29½ in.
Citation: Vulcan 9, 1 (2021) ; 10.1163/22134603-09010004
source: courtesy of national museum of american history, acc. 64592 (id af.25749), smithsonian institution, washington, dcHarding was hardly alone in his fascination with military technology. His colleague, Harvey Dunn (1884–1952), also depicted the man-machine interaction by focusing on the role of tanks in infantry-support (Figure 7). Dunn, the combat artist par excellence, put rather more emphasis on the men than the tanks than did Harding (Howell 1967–1968; Hodges 2015a). But neither displayed as much interest in tanks as a third American war artist, Harry Townsend (1879–1941). “There seemed to me work for a lifetime in Tanks, Aviation and Artillery,” he wrote in his diary. “Pictorially, they appealed to me with their decorative forms” (quoted in Reed 1972, 64; cf. Townsend 1991; Hodges 2016). This decorative turn may be illustrated by Townsend’s watercolor of “Two 6-Ton Tanks Climbing a Hill” (Figure 8). He never showed tanks with accompanying infantry, and seldom with human beings at all. Unlike their British and French counterparts, the American war artists tended to picture tanks as more helpful than menacing.
Harvey Thomas Dunn. The Tanks at Seicheprey, Sept. 1918. Charcoal and pastel on paper, 17 x 25½ in.
Citation: Vulcan 9, 1 (2021) ; 10.1163/22134603-09010004
source: courtesy of national museum of american history, acc. 64592 (id af.25726a), smithsonian institution, washington, dc
Harvey Thomas Dunn. The Tanks at Seicheprey, Sept. 1918. Charcoal and pastel on paper, 17 x 25½ in.
Citation: Vulcan 9, 1 (2021) ; 10.1163/22134603-09010004
source: courtesy of national museum of american history, acc. 64592 (id af.25726a), smithsonian institution, washington, dcHarvey Thomas Dunn. The Tanks at Seicheprey, Sept. 1918. Charcoal and pastel on paper, 17 x 25½ in.
Citation: Vulcan 9, 1 (2021) ; 10.1163/22134603-09010004
source: courtesy of national museum of american history, acc. 64592 (id af.25726a), smithsonian institution, washington, dc
Harry Everett Townsend. Two 6-Ton Tanks Climbing a Hill, 1918. Watercolor and pastel on white paper, 11 x 19¾ in.
Citation: Vulcan 9, 1 (2021) ; 10.1163/22134603-09010004
source: courtesy of national museum of american history, acc. 64592 (id af.26110), smithsonian institution, washington, dc
Harry Everett Townsend. Two 6-Ton Tanks Climbing a Hill, 1918. Watercolor and pastel on white paper, 11 x 19¾ in.
Citation: Vulcan 9, 1 (2021) ; 10.1163/22134603-09010004
source: courtesy of national museum of american history, acc. 64592 (id af.26110), smithsonian institution, washington, dcHarry Everett Townsend. Two 6-Ton Tanks Climbing a Hill, 1918. Watercolor and pastel on white paper, 11 x 19¾ in.
Citation: Vulcan 9, 1 (2021) ; 10.1163/22134603-09010004
source: courtesy of national museum of american history, acc. 64592 (id af.26110), smithsonian institution, washington, dcGermany and Tanks
Germany was slow to recognize the value of tanks and built only twenty or so of the model A7V heavy tank during the war, although a number of captured British tanks were pressed into German service (Foley 1970; Hundleby and Strasheim. 1990; Zaloga 2006). German war artists seem not to have found them an attractive subject, but New Zealand artist Nugent Welch did not share that view. His 1918 watercolor of a German Tank Captured by New Zealand Division, suggests that even more than the British and French heavy tanks, the German seemed to exude blank menace (Figure 9).
Nugent Welch. German Tank Captured by New Zealand Division, 1918. Watercolor, 254 x 358 mm. aaac 898 ncwa 424.
Citation: Vulcan 9, 1 (2021) ; 10.1163/22134603-09010004
source: national collection of war art, archives of new zealand, auckland
Nugent Welch. German Tank Captured by New Zealand Division, 1918. Watercolor, 254 x 358 mm. aaac 898 ncwa 424.
Citation: Vulcan 9, 1 (2021) ; 10.1163/22134603-09010004
source: national collection of war art, archives of new zealand, aucklandNugent Welch. German Tank Captured by New Zealand Division, 1918. Watercolor, 254 x 358 mm. aaac 898 ncwa 424.
Citation: Vulcan 9, 1 (2021) ; 10.1163/22134603-09010004
source: national collection of war art, archives of new zealand, aucklandIt is also worth noting that not all war artists were officially sanctioned. Soldiers in every army drew and painted on their own. In light of later events, the unusual preoccupation with tanks of a young soldier-artist in a Bavarian regiment is striking. Tanks are featured in four aquarelles by Adolf Hitler (1889–1945).17 They have a distinctly amateurish look about them, but the artist, not his skill, is the issue (Werckmeister 1997; see also Kasher 1992; Spotts 2001; Python 2018). Two depict wrecked tanks, a third shows two captured British tanks that had been converted to German service crawling across a blasted landscape, and in the fourth Hitler shows a German A7V tank patrolling the street of a devastated town.
A few years later, in Mein Kampf, he noticed “the general motorization of the world, which in the next war will manifest itself overwhelmingly and decisively” (Hitler 1925–1926, as quoted in Messenger 1976, 85; see also Geyer 1996), Shortly after he became Chancellor of Germany in 1933, Hitler conducted a review of armored units. “That’s what I need!” he exclaimed, according to Gen. Heinz Guderian, “That’s what I want to have!” (1952, 29–30; cf. Hart 2006, 27–49). As these wartime paintings and the musing in Mein Kampf suggest, this may not have been quite the instant epiphany it seemed to Guderian. Indeed, there may have been some subtle meshing of the power and menace of tank imagery with the mental set of authoritarianism and totalitarian politics, as Hitler was not alone in succumbing to the spell of tanks (Alonso et al. 2019, 5; Pöhlmann 2016; Searle 2017, 35–52): The image of tanks and mechanized warfare meant just as much to Mussolini’s Italy and Stalin’s Russia as to Hitler’s Germany (Sweet 1980; Knox 1996; Glantz 1990; Milsom 1970; Habeck 2003).
During the interwar period, thinking about the role of tanks in modern warfare shifted significantly. Under the rubric of mechanization, the infantry support weapon of the Great War was reconceptualized as part of an armored force capable of independent action or combined operations. Britain once again led the way, but Germany and the Soviet Union turned concept into reality (Hacker 1968; Harris 1995; Winton and Mets 2000; Steele 2005). The key to the political vision of military mechanization was its symbolism—of power, menace, and impersonal terror. J.F.C. Fuller, the wartime chief of staff of the British Tank Corps and prominent postwar advocate of mechanization, in 1936 asserted that terror might well decide the next war (Fuller 1936; see also Trythall 1977). As Alan Bullock suggested in his classic Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, a mechanized army appealed to Hitler because “it gave the impression that the German military machine was more than life size, that it possessed some virtue of invincibility against which ordinary men could not defend themselves” (Bullock 1961, 330; cf. Geyer 1986; Bessell 2004, 56). In its mechanized army, Nazi Germany realized one of the earliest dreams of fascism, the triumph of machine-augmented masculine power over all that is weak, soft, and effeminate, as Erich Fromm (1973, 344–345; cf. Spackmam 1996) long ago suggested in his Anatomy of Human Destructiveness. Tanks were at the heart of army mechanization and the artists of the Great War had played no small part in creating the tank’s image of terror, menace, and implacability that was writ large in the armored divisions it came to comprise.
Notes
Many pieces of wwi art described in the text could not be reproduced in this article, but are detailed here for reference. These and many others are available online in Imperial War Museum collections on vads: The Online Resource for Visual Arts, notably their Concise Art Collection and Posters of Conflict at https://www.vads.ac.uk/digital/collection/iwm and /iwmpc, respectively. For those the vads number is noted and linked below.
John Lavery, “Rigids” at Pulham: R23 Type British Airships at Pulham St Mary, Norfolk, 1918. Oil on canvas, 762 mm x 635 mm. vads: iwm:art 1256.
Bernard Adeney, The Experimental Depot for Tanks, Dollis Hill, London, N.W., n.d. Oil on canvas, 609 mm x 914 mm. vads: iwm:art 1868.
Bernard Adeney, “Mark V” Tank Going into Action, n.d. Oil on canvas, 508 mm x 609 mm. Reproduced in Anon. 2006, 6. vads: iwm:art 2267.
William Orpen, A Tank, n.d. Charcoal, chalk, and watercolor on paper, 590 mm x 450 mm. vads: iwm:art 2370.
Unknown artist, London’s Week, 1918. Lithograph poster, 496 mm x 375 mm. Sponsored by National War Savings Committee. vads: iwm pst 10236.
Muirhead Bone, Tanks, 1917. Charcoal on paper, 546 mm x 749 mm. vads: iwm:art 2121.
C.R.W. Nevinson, La Mitrailleuse, 1915. Oil on canvas, 610 mm x 508 mm, ref. N03177. Tate Gallery, London.
C.R.W. Nevinson, A Tank, 1917. Oil on canvas, 442 mm x 593mm. iwm: art 5275, Imperial War Museum, London. Reproduced in Anon. 2006, 168.
Ian Strang, The Menin Road with Tanks, 1918. Ink & watercolor on paper, 254 mm x 355 mm. vads: iwm:art 1641.
William Orpen, hm Land Ship ´Shell Out´, n.d. Pencil & watercolour on paper, 381 mm x 488 mm. iwm:art 2387. Available online in Imperial War Museum Concise Art Collection on vads: The Online Resource for Visual Arts at URL http://vads.bath.ac.uk/collections/IWM.html.
William Orpen, The End of a Hero and a Tank at Courcelette, n.d.. Pencil (with touch of color) on paper, 419 mm x 514 mm. vads: iwm:art 2389.
Nugent Welch, Abandoned Tank, Flers, 1918. Watercolor, 254 x 358mm. aaac 898 ncwa 421, item R22498038. Department of Internal Affairs, National Collection of War Art, Archives of New Zealand, Auckland. Available online at https://archives.govt.nz/images/abandoned-tank-flers.
Harold Septimus Power, The Capture of the German Guns, Third Battle of Ypres, Oil on canvas, 635 x 760 mm. See URL. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e9/f1/be/e9f1beff1fa79ae2c2a0e9106f4eba1a.jpg.
Jean-Jacques Berne-Bellecour, Sir John Dashwood’s Tank C13 lying in Angle Wood Valley, 1916. Watercolor.
François Flameng, Attaque britannique à Cambrai, septembre 1916 [sic]. Aquarelle & gouache on cardboard, 35x57cm. Published in L’Illustration and Reproduced in Lacaille 1998, 41. Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20070703043756/http://www.greatwardifferent.com/Great_War/Francois_Flameng_2/Flameng_Tank_02.htm.
Lucien Jonas, The Tanks, 1918. Charcoal & crayon, 435 x 645mm.
Adolf Hitler, Tank Patrol, 1917. Aquarelle-pencil and ink finished in watercolor.
Works Cited
Allison, J. Murray, comp. 1918. Raemaekers’ Cartoon History of the War. New York: Century.
Alonso, Miguel, Alan Kramer, and Javier Rodrigo. 2019. “Introduction.” In Fascist Warfare, 1922–1945: Aggression, Occupation, Annihilation, ed. by Miguel Alonso, Alan Kramer, and Javier Rodrigo, 1–24. Cham: Springer Verlag International.
Anonymous. 2019a. “Bernard Adeney.” Wikipedia. 19 Oct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Adeney.
Anonymous. 1918. British Artists at the Front, vol. 1, C.R.W. Nevinson, with introduction by Campbell Dodgson and C.E. Montague; vol. 2,. Sir John Lavery, with introductions by Robert Ross and C.E. Montague; vol. 3, Paul Nash, with introduction by John Salis and C.E. Montague; vol. 4, Eric Kennington, with introductions by Campbell Dodgson and C.E. Montague. London: Country Life and George Newnes.
Anonymous. 2006. Oil Paintings in Public Ownership in the Imperial War Museum. London: Public Catalogue Foundation.
Anonymous. 2018. World War One Posters: An Anniversary Collection. Mineola, MN: Calla Editions.
Anonymous. 2019b. “Ian Strang.” Wikipedia, 19 Oct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Strang.
Atterbury, P. 1989. “Rival to the Tate: The New Imperial War Museum.” Country Life (27 Apr.): 142–145.
Barooshian, Vahan D. 1974. Russian Cubo-Futurism 1910–1930: A Study in Avant-Gardism. Paris and The Hague: Mouton.
Beegan, Gerry. 2008. The Mass Image: A Social History of Photomechanical Reproduction in Victorian London. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Behrens, Roy R. 1999. “The Role of Artists in Ship Camouflage during World War I.” Leonardo 32, no. 1(Feb.): 53–59.
Berghaus, Günter, ed. 2009. Futurism and the Technological Imagination. Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi.
Berry, W. Turner. 1958. “Printing and Related Trades.” In A History of Technology, vol. 5: The Late Nineteenth Century, c. 1850 to c. 1900, ed. by Charles Singer, E.J. Holmyard, A.R. Hall, and Trevor I. Williams, 683–715. New York and London: Oxford University Press.
Bessell, Richard. 2004. Nazism and War. New York: Modern Library.
Best, James J. 1980. “The Brandywine School and Magazine Illustration: Harper’s, Scribner’s and Century, 1906–1910.” Journal of American Culture 3, no. 1(spring): 128–144.
Bogart, Michele Helene. 1995. “The Problem of Status for American Illustrators.” In Artists, Advertising, and the Borders of Art, by Michele Helene Bogart, ch. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bone, Muirhead. 1917. Two Hundred Drawings, in Ten Parts. London: Country Life and George Newnes; New York: Doubleday, Page, and George H. Doran.
Bourget, P.A. 1956. Le Général Estienne: Penseur, engénieur et soldat. Paris: Éditions Berger-Levrault.
Bownes, David, and Robert Fleming. 2014. Posters of the First World War. London: Bloomsbury.
Brandon, Laura. 2005. Art or Memorial? The Forgotten History of Canada’s War Art. Calgary: University of Calgary Press.
Brandon, Laura. 2007. Art and War. London: I.B. Tauris.
British Information Bureau. 1918. Official Catalogue. Lithographs reflecting Great Britain’s efforts and ideals in the Great War. Introduction by James Walter Smith. New York: British Information Bureau.
British Information Bureau. 1919. War Paintings and Drawings by British Artists. Catalogue. Introduction by Christian Brinton. New York: British Bureau of Information.
Brown, Michael. 1998. “The Popular Art of American Magazine Illustration: 1885–1917.” Journalism History 24 no. 3 (autumn): 94–103.
Buelens, Geert. 2006. “Reciting Shells: Dada and, Dada in & Dadaists on the First World War.” Arcadia: International Journal for Literary Studies 41, no. 2 (Dec.): 275–295.
Bullock, Alan. 1961. Hitler: A Study in Tyranny. New York: Harper & Bros.
Burnett-Stuart, John. 1928. “The Progress of Mechanization.” Army Quarterly 16(Apr.): 30–51.
Cassell, Lucy Shelton. 2004. “Drawing Swords: War in American Editorial Cartoons.” American Journalism 21 no. 2: 13–45.
Cate, Phillip Dennis, and Sinclair Hamilton Hitchings. 1978. The Color Revolution: Color Lithography in France, 1890–1900. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Art Gallery, with the Boston Public Library.
Chaney, Sarah. 2002. “How Far Can First World War Art and the War Artists Scheme Be Seen as Important in the Creation of the Imperial War Museum in 1917–20?” M.A. thesis, Courtauld Institute of Art, University of London.
Childs, David J. 1999. A Peripheral Weapon? The Production and Employment of British Tanks in the First World War. Westport, CT and London: Greenwood Press.
Cohen, Aaron J. 2008. Imagining the Unimaginable: World War, Modern Art, and the Politics of Public Culture in Russia, 1914–1917. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Cork, Richard. 1976. Vorticism and Abstract Art in the First Machine Age. London: G. Fraser; Berkeley: University of California Press.
Cork, Richard. 1994. A Bitter Truth: Avant-Garde Art and the Great War. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Corn, Paul H., and Alexander A. Falbo-Wilde. 2018. Supporting Allied Offensives, 8 August–11 Nov. 1918. Washington, DC: US Army Center of Military History.
Cornebise, Alfred Emile. 1991. Art from the Trenches: America’s Uniformed Artists. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.
Cortissoz, Royal. 1918. “Art: The Allied War Salon.” New-York Tribune, 10 Dec., 9.
Covert, Claudia T. 2007. “Art at War: Dazzle Camouflage.” Art Documentation: Journal of the Art Libraries Society of North America 26, no. 2 (fall): 50–56.
Creel, George. 1920. How We Advertised the War. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Culbert, Tom. 2008. “The Golden Age of American Political Cartoons.” Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era 7, no. 3 (Jul.): 276–295.
Cutler, Judy Goffman and Laurence S. Cutler. 2017. Howard Pyle: His Students & The Golden Age of American Illustration. Newport, RI: American Civilization Foundation.
Dagen, Phillipe. 1996. Le Silence des peintres: Les artistes face à Grande guerre. Paris: Librairie Arthème Fayard.
Danjoux, Ilan. 2007. “Reconsidering the Decline of the Editorial Cartoon.” PS: Political Science and Politics 40, no. 2 (Apr.): 245–248.
Day, Lance. 1990. “Language, Writing, Printing and Graphic Arts.” In An Encyclopedia of the History of Technology, ed. by Ian McNeil, 665–685. London and New York: Routledge.
Demm, Eberhard. 2016. “Caricatures.” In 1914–1918-Online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War, ed. by Ute Daniel et al. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin. DOI: 10.15463/ie1418.11023.
Doezema, Marianne 1988. “The Clean Machine: Technology in American Magazine Illustration.” Journal of American Culture 11, no. 4 (winter): 73–92.
Dutil, Léon. 1919. Les Chars d’assaut—Leur création et leur rôle pendant la Guerre (1915–1918). Paris: Charles Lauvazelle.
Eberle, Matthias. 1985. “Otto Dix and ‘Neue Sachlichkeit,’” In German Art in the 20th Century: Painting and Sculpture 1905–1985, ed. by Christos M. Joachimides, Norman Rosenthal, and Wieland Schmied, 452–454. Munich and London: Prestl-Verlag.
Ellis, Chris, and Peter Chamberlain. 1970. “The Schneider and the St. Chamond.” In Armoured Fighting Vehicles of the World, vol. 1: afv s of World War One, ed. by Duncan Crow, 65–76. Windsor: Profile Publications.
Fahlman, Betsy. 2019. “The Wonders of Work: Joseph Pennell and the Industrial Sublime.” IA: The Journal of the Society for Industrial Archeology 45, no. 2: 21–40.
Farrell, Jennifer. 2017. “Art as Influence and Response: A First Look at World War I and the Visual Arts.” The Met 150, 16 Oct. https://www.metmuseum.org/blogs/now-at-the-met/2017/world-war-i-and-the-visual-arts-introduction.
Fayolle, Marie Émile. 1920. La Guerre racontée par nos généraux, vol. 3, Les batailles de la délivrance. Paris: Schwartz.
Feo, Katherine. 2007. “Invisibility: Memory, Masks and Masculinities in the Great War.” Journal of Design History 20, no. 1 (spring): 17–27.
Fitzke, Kirsten. 2015. “Dix, Otto.” In 1914–1918-Online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War, ed. by Ute Daniel et al. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin. DOI: 10.15463/ie1418.10718.
Fletcher, David, ed. 1994. Tanks and Trenches: First Hand Accounts of Tank Warfare in the First World War. Stroud: Sutton, with the Tank Museum, Bovington.
Fletcher, David. 2001. The British Tanks, 1915–19. Ramsbury: Crowood.
Foley, John. 1970. “A7V Sturmpanzerwagen.” In Armoured Fighting Vehicles of the World, vol. 1: afv s of World War One, ed. by Duncan Crow, 53–64. Windsor: Profile Publications.
Fontanel, Béatrice, and Daniel Wolfromm. 2014. Art & Guerre. Paris: Palette.
Forbes, Peter. 2009. Dazzled and Deceived: Mimicry and Camouflage. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Fox, James. 2010. “‘Fiddling while Rome is Burning’: Hostility to Art during the First World War, 1914–18.” Visual Culture in Britain 11, no. 1: 49–65.
Freeman, Julian. 1989. “Redevelopments at the Imperial War Museum, London.” Burlington Magazine 131, no. 1037 (Aug.): 575–577.
Fromm, Erich. 1973. The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Fuller, J.F.C. 1920. Tanks in the Great War, 1914–1918. London: John Murray.
Fuller, J.F.C. 1936. “Is War More Horrible?” Army Quarterly 31 (Jan.): 237–246.
Gale, Tim. 2013. The French Army’s Tank Force and Armoured Warfare in the Great War: The Artillerie Spéciale. Farnham: Ashgate.
Gale, Tim. 2016. French Tanks of the Great War: Development, Tactics and Operations. Barnsley: Pen & Sword Military.
Gallatin, Albert Eugene. 1919. Art and the Great War. New York: E.P. Dutton.
Gallois, Caroline. 2018. William Orpen, an Outsider in France: Painting and Writing World War One. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Geyer, Michael. 1986. “German Strategy in the Era of Machine Warfare, 1914–1945.” In Makers of Modern Strategy: From Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age, ed. by Peter Paret, with Gordon A. Craig and Felix Gilbert, 527–597. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Geyer, Michael. 1996. “Restorative Elites, German Society and the Nazi Pursuit of War.” In Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany: Comparisons and Contrasts, ed. by Richard Bessel, 134–164. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gibson, Charles Dana. 1969. The Gibson Girl and Her America: The Best Drawings of Charles Dana Gibson. New York: Dover.
Glantz, David M. 1990. The Motor-Mechanization Program of the Red Army in the Interwar Years. Ft. Leavenworth, KS: Soviet Army Studies Office.
Gosling, Lucinda. 2008. Brushes & Bayonets: Cartoons, Sketches and Paintings of World War I. Oxford: Osprey, with the Illustrated London News Picture Library, London.
Gough, Paul. 2010. “A Terrible Beauty”: British Artists in the First World War. Bristol: Sansom.
Greenwall, Ryno. 1992. Artists & Illustrators of the Anglo-Boer War. Vlaeberg, South Africa: Fernwood Press.
Gregory, Barry. 2006. History of the Artists Rifles 1859–1947. Barnseley: Pen & Sword Military.
Guderian, Heinz. 1952. Panzer Leader, trans. by Constantine Fitzgibbon. New York: E.P. Dutton.
Guénaff, Didier, and Bruno Jurkiewicz. 2004. Les chars de la victoire, 1918. Louviers: Ysec.
Habeck, Mary R. 2003. Storm of Steel: The Development of Armor Doctrine in Germany and the Soviet Union, 1919–1939. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Hacker, Barton C. 1968. “The Military and the Machine: The Controversy over Mechanization in the British Army, 1919–1939.” Ph.D. diss., history, University of Chicago.
Hacker, Barton C. 1982. “Imaginations in Thrall: The Social Psychology of Military Mechanization.” Parameters: Journal of the US Army War College 12, no. 1 (Mar.): 50–61.
Hacker, Barton C. 2005. “The Machines of War: Western Military Technology 1850–2000.” History and Technology 21: 255–300.
Hacker, Barton C. 2008. “An Eye for War Machines: aef Artists in the Great War.” Paper presented at Artefacts and ICOHTEC, Victoria, British Columbia, 5–10 Aug.
Hacker, Barton C. 2010. “Picturing War: American War Artists, 1917–1919.” Paper presented at the “Unarmed on the Battlefield: Non-Combatants and the Experience of Combat in Modern War” conference, University of Glamorgan (Wales), April.
Haigh, Richard. 1918. Life in a Tank. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Harding, George Matthews. 1919. “The American Artist at the Front.” American Magazine of Art 10, no. 12 (Oct.): 451–456.
Harding, George Matthews. 1920. The American Expeditionary Forces in Action. Philadelphia: Privately printed.
Harding, George Matthews. 1939. “Drawing the War.” American Magazine of Art 32, no. 10 (Oct.): 569–574, 605.
Harries, Meirion, and Susie Harries. 1993. The War Artists: British Official War Art of the Twentieth Century. London: Michael Joseph, with the Imperial War Museum and the Tate Gallery.
Harris, J.P. 1995. Men, Ideas and Tanks: British Military Thought and Armoured Forces, 1903–1939. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press.
Harris, Lucy. 2014. “Sir Muirhead Bone: First Official War Artist.” History of Government blog, 22 July. https://history.blog.gov.uk/2014/07/22/sir-muirhead-bone-first-official-war-artist/.
Harris, Neil, and Teri J. Edelstein. 2014. En Guerre: French Illustrators and World War I. Chicago: University of Chicago Library.
Hart, Russell A. 2006. Guderian: Panzer Pioneer or Myth Maker? Washington, DC: Potomac Books.
Hecht, George J., ed. 1919. The War in Cartoons: A History of the War in 100 Cartoons by 27 of the Most Prominent American Cartoonists. New York: E.P. Dutton.
Hitler, Adolf. 1925–1926. Mein Kampf. 2 vols. Munich: Franz Eher Verlag.
Hodges, Jan. 2015a. “World War I Combat Artists—Harvey Dunn.” National Archives, The Unwritten Record blog, 2 Feb. https://unwritten-record.blogs.archives.gov/2015/02/02/wwi-combat-artists-harvey-dunn/.
Hodges, Jan. 2015b. “World War I Combat Artists—George Harding.” National Archives, The Unwritten Record blog, 13 March. https://unwritten-record.blogs.archives.gov/2015/03/13/wwi-artists-george-harding/.
Hodges, Jan. 2016. “World War I Combat Artists—Harry Townsend.” National Archives, The Unwritten Record blog, 25 Feb. https://unwritten-record.blogs.archives.gov/2016/02/25/world-war-i-combat-artists-harry-townsend/.
Hodgson, Pat. 1977. The War Illustrators New York: Macmillan.
Holden, Robert. 1988. “Power, Harold Septimus (1877–1951).” In Australian Dictionary of Biography 11: 268–269, Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.
Holme, Charles, ed. 1919. The Great War: As Depicted by Distinguished British Artists. London: The Studio.
Holmes, Richard. 1988. “The Age of Factory War.” In The World Atlas of Warfare: Military Innovations That Changed the Course of History, ed.by Richard Holmes, 96–113. New York: Viking Studio Books.
Howell, Edgar M. 1967–1968. “An Artist Goes to War: Harvey Dunn and the A.E.F. War Art Program.” Smithsonian Journal of History 2 (winter): 45–56.
Howell, Edgar McPherson. 1965. “Theodore R. Davis: Special Artist in the Indian Wars.” Montana 15, no. 2 (Apr.): 2–23.
Howlett, Jana, and Rod Mangham, eds. 1993. The Violent Muse: Violence and the Artistic Imagination in Europe, 1910–1939. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Hughes, Gordon, and Philipp Blom, eds. 2014. Nothing but the Clouds Unchanged: Artists in World War I. Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute.
Hundleby, Maxwell. and Rainer Strasheim, 1990. The German A7V Tank and the Captured British Mark IV Tanks of World War I. Sparkford and Newbury Park, CA: Haynes.
Hutchison, Margaret. 2019. Painting War: A History of Australia’s First World War Art Scheme. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[iamamh] International Association of Museums of Arms and Military History. 2000. “Peindre la Grande Guerre, 1914–1918.” cerma: Cahiers d’études et de recherches du musée de l’Armée no. 1: “Peindre la Grande Guerre, 1914–1918,” 1–236.
Iskin, Ruth E. 2014. The Poster. Art, Advertising, Design and Collecting, 1860s–1900. Hanover, NH: Dartmouth College Press.
James, Pearl. 2009. Picture This: World War I Posters and Visual Culture. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Johannsen, Robert W. 1985. To the Halls of the Montezumas: The Mexican War in the American Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.
Johnson, Peter. 1978. Front Line Artists. London: Cassell.
Jonas. Lucien. 1918. L’oeuvre de guerre de Lucien Jonas: Volume composé d’un choix de 100 dessins, text by Adolphe Brisson. Paris: Éditiones d’Art Guerrier et Modern.
Jones, Douglas C. 1970. “Remington Reports from the Badlands: The Artist as War Correspondent.” Journalism Quarterly 46, no. 4 (winter): 702–710.
Kahn, Elizabeth. 1984. The Neglected Majority: “Les Camoufleurs,” Art History, and World War I. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Kasher, Steven. 1992. “The Art of Hitler.” October 59 (winter): 48–85.
Katz, Harry L., and Vincent Virga. 2012. Civil War Sketch Book: Drawings from the Battlefront. New York: W.W. Norton.
Kavanaugh, Gaynor. 1998. “Museum as Memorial: The Origins of the Imperial War Museum.” Journal of Contemporary History 23 (Jan.): 77–97.
Keller, Ulrich. 2001. ‘“Bastard of History, Only Much Truer’: The Ascendency of Picture Reportage.” In The Ultimate Spectacle: A Visual History of the Crimean War, 71–118. New York and London: Routledge.
Kent, Christopher. 2003. “War Cartooned / Cartoon War: Matt Morgan and the American Civil War in ‘Fun’ and ‘Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper.’” Victorian Periodicals Review 36, no. 2 (summer): 153–181.
Knox, MacGregor. 1996. “Expansionist Zeal, Fighting Power, and Staying Power in the Italian and German Dictatorships.” In Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany: Comparisons and Contrasts, ed. by Richard Bessel, 113–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Konody, P.G., and Sydney Dark. 1932. Sir William Orpen, Artist & Man. London: Seeley Service.
Krass, Peter. 2006. Portrait of War: The U.S. Army’s First Combat Artists and the Doughboys’ Experience in WWI. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Lacaille, Frédéric. 1998. La Première Guerre Mondiale: Vue par les peintres. Paris: Citédis.
Lacaille, Frédéric. 2000. “Les missions de peintres du musée de l’Armée pendant la Grande Guerre.” CERMA no.1: 11–64 [see iamamh, above].
Lantry, Douglas N. 2020. “The End of Guy Brown Wiser’s Air War: Notes on an American Airman’s First World War P.O.W. Artwork.” In Home Front in the American Heartland: Local Experiences and Legacies of WWI, ed. by Patty Sotirin, Steven A. Walton, and Susan Collins, 112–136. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Laroche, Josepha. 2014. “Dada.” In 1914–1918-Online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War, ed. by Ute Daneil et al. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin. DOI: 10.15463/ie1418.10206.
Lavery, John. 1940. The Life of a Painter. Boston: Little, Brown.
Lee, Martine de. 2000. “Artists and the Artists Rifles—Cum Marte Minerva.” CERMA no. 1: 81–96 [see iamamh, above].
Lennard, Debra. 2011. “Censored Flesh: The Wounded Body as Unrepresentable in the Art of the First World War.” British Art Journal 12, no. 2: 22–33.
Levin, Jo Ann Early. 1980. “The Golden Age of Illustration: Popular Art in American Magazines, 1850–1925.” Ph.D. diss., American studies, University of Pennsylvania.
Lewin, J.G., and P.J. Huff. 2007. Lines of Contention: Political Cartoons of the Civil War. New York: Collins.
Liddell Hart, B.H. 1959. The Tanks: The History of the Royal Tank Regiment and Its Predecessors Heavy Branch Machine-Gun Corps, Tank Corps and Royal Tank Corps, vol. 1, 1914–1939; vol. 2, 1939–1945. London: Cassell.
Lubin, David M. 2008. “Masks, Mutilation, and Modernity: Anna Coleman Ladd and the First World War.” Archives of American Art Journal 47, no. 3/4: 4–15.
Mallen, Enrique. 2015. “Expressionism.” In 1914–1918-Online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War, ed. by Ute Daniel et al. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin. DOI: 10.15463/ie1418.10758.
Malvern, Sue. 2000. “War, Memory and Museums: Art and Artefact in the Imperial War Museum.” History Workshop Journal 49 (2000): 177–203
Malvern, Sue. 2004. Modern Art, Britain and the Great War: Witnessing, Testimony and Remembrance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, for The Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art.
Malvern, Sue. 2016. “Art.” In 1914–1918-Online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War, ed. by Ute Daniel et al. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin. DOI: 10.15463/ie1418.11006.
Martin, Michèle. 2006. Images at War: Illustrated Periodicals and Constructed Nations. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Martin, Michèle. 2014. “Nineteenth-Century Wood Engravers at Work: Mass Production of Illustrated Periodicals (1840–1880).” Historical Sociology 22, no. 1 (Mar.): 132–150.
Martinez-Fernández, Luis. 1998. “The Birth of the American Empire as Seen through Political Cartoons (1896–1905).” OAH Magazine of History 12, no. 3, “The War of 1898” (spring): 48–54.
Mathews, Tim. 1993. “The Machine: Dada, Vorticism and the Future.” In The Violent Muse: Violence and the Artistic Imagination in Europe, 1910–1939, ed. by Jana Howlett and Rod Mangham, 134–40. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Maxwell, Chloe. 2015. “George Creel and the Committee on Public Information 1917–1918.” Tenor of Our Times 4 (spring): 72–83.
McConkey, Kenneth. 2010. Sir John Lavery: A Painter and His World. Edinburgh: Atelier Press.
McGreevy, Linda F. 2001. Bitter Witness: Otto Dix and the Great War, German life and civilization 27. New York: Peter Lang.
Merz, Jörg Martin. 1999. “Otto Dix’ Kriegsbilder. Motivationen – Intentionen – Rezeptionen.” Marburger Jahrbuch für Kunstwissenschaft 26: 189–226.
Messenger, Charles. 1976. The Blitzkrieg Story. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Midgley, David. 1993. “The Ecstasy of Battle: Some German Perspectives on Warfare between Modernism and Reaction.” In The Violent Muse: Violence and the Artistic Imagination in Europe, 1910–1939, ed. by Jana Howlett and Rod Mangham, 113–23. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Miller, Bonnie M. 2011. “The Image-Makers’ Arsenal in an Age of War and Empire, 1898–1899: A Cartoon Essay, Featuring the Work of Charles Bartholomew (of the Minneapolis Journal) and Albert Wilbur Steele (of the Denver Post).” Journal of American Studies 45, no. 1: 53–75.
Milsom, John. 1970. Russian Tanks: The Complete Illustrated History of Soviet Armoured Theory and Design. New York: Galahad Books.
Minden, Michael. 1993. “Expressionism and the First World War.” In The Violent Muse: Violence and the Artistic Imagination in Europe, 1910–1939, ed. by Jana Howlett and Rod Mangham, 45–55. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
Moore, Jennifer E. 2018. “The Artist as Reporter: Drawing National Identity during the U.S. Civil War.” Journalism History 44, no. 1: 2–11.
Murray, Williamson A. 1995. “The Industrialization of War, 1815–1871.” In The Cambridge Illustrated History of Warfare: The Triumph of the West, ed. by Geoffrey Parker, 216–241. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Musson, A.E. 1958. “Newspaper Printing in the Industrial Revolution.” Economic History Review 10, no. 3: 411–426.
Nevinson, C.R.W. 1917. Modern War Painting, intro. essay by P.G. Konody. London: Grant Richards; New York: Robert M. McBride.
Nevinson, C.R.W. 1937. Paint and Prejudice. London: Methuen.
Nott, Dorothy. 2015. “Reframing War: British Military Painting 1854 to 1918.” Ph.D. dissertation, history of Art, University of York.
Ogorkiewicz, Richard M. 1973. “The French Tank Force.” In Tanks & Weapons of World War I, ed. by Bernard Fitzsimons, 95–101. New York: Beekman House.
Orpen, William. 1921. An Onlooker in France, 1917–1919. London: Williams & Norgate.
Page, Alexandre. 2019. François Flameng (1856–1923): Un artiste peintre dans la Grande Guerre. [Clermont-Ferrand]: Alexandre Page.
Paret, Peter. 1983. “The Artist as ‘Staatsburger’: Aspects of the Fine Arts and the Prussian State before and during the First World War.” German Studies Review 6, no. 3 (Oct.): 421–437.
Paret, Peter. 1997. Imagined Battles: Reflections of War in European Art. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Park, David. 1999. “Picturing the War: Visual Genres in Civil War News.” Communications Review 3, no. 4: 287–321.
Peixotto, Ernest. 1919. The American Front. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Pennell, Joseph. 1917. Joseph Pennell’s Pictures of War Work in England. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott; London: William Heinemann.
Pennell, Joseph. 1918. Joseph Pennell’s Pictures of War Work in America. Philadelphia and London: J.B. Lippincott.
Pépin, Carl. 2008. “Les artistes d’avant-garde au combat: Évolution et redéfinition de la pratique de l’art pendant la Grande Guerre (1914–1918).” Revue Historique des Armée 252: 96–103.
Peppis, Paul. 1997. ‘“Surrounded by a Multitude of Other Blasts’: Vorticism and the Great War.” Modernism/Modernity 4 no. 2 (Apr.): 39–66.
Phillips, Duncan. 1918. “The Heroic Soul of France: Lucien Jonas’ War Lithographs.” American Magazine of Art 9, no. 12 (Oct.): 490–503.
Phillips, Duncan. 1919. “The Allied War Salon.” American Magazine of Art 10, no. 4(Feb.): 115–123.
Pöhlmann, Markus. 2016. Der Panzer und die Mechanisierung des Krieges. Eine deutsche Geschichte 1890 bis 1945. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh.
Post, Charles Johnson. 1960. The Little War of Private Post: The Spanish-American War Seen Up Close. Boston: Little, Brown.
Powell, Julie M. 2016. “About‐Face: Gender, Disfigurement and the Politics of French Reconstruction, 1918–24.” Gender & History 28, no. 3 (Nov.): 604–622.
Power, Harold Septimus. 1974. The Art of H. Septimus Power. Adelaide: Rigby.
Python, Clive. 2018. “Artwork of Adolf Hitler.” Owlman blog. 7 April. https://owlman.neocities.org/art/hitler/.
Quagliati, Noemi. 2021. “Playing Hide-and-Seek in the German Press: The Presence and Absence of Camouflage in wwi Narrations.” Vulcan: The Journal of the History of Military Technology 9, no. 1: 18–49.
Rabb, Theodore K. 2011. The Artist and the Warrior: Military History through the Eyes of the Masters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Ranitz, Ariane de. 2014. Louis Raemaekers “Armed with Pen and Pencil: How a Dutch Cartoonist Became World Famous during the First World War. Rosemond: Louis Raemaekers Foundation.
Reed, Walt. 1972. “Harry Townsend: On Assignment during World War I.” American Artist 36, no. 358 (May): 62–67, 86–87.
Robichon, François. 2000. “Les missions d’artistes aux armées en 1917.” CERMA no. 1: 55–80 [see iamamh, above].
Rother, Rainer, ed., 1994. Die letzten Tage der Menschheit. Bilder des Ersten Weltkrieges. Berlin: Ars Nicolai.
Sandweiss, Martha A, Rick Stewart, and Ben W. Huseman. 1989. Eyewitness to War: Prints and Daguerreotypes of the Mexican War, 1846–1848. Fort Worth, TX: Amon Carter Museum; Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Searle, Alaric. 2017. Armoured Warfare: A Military, Political and Global History. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Shaheen, Aaron. 2019. “Spiritualizing Prostheses: Anna Coleman Ladd’s Portrait Masks for Mutilated Soldiers of World War.” Modernism/Modernity 26, no. 3 (Sep.): 639–662.
Shell, Oliver Christian. 1998. “Cleansing the Nation: Italian Art, Consumerism, and World War I.” Ph.D. dissertation, history of art, University of Pennsylvania.
Silver, Kenneth E. 1989. Esprit de Corps: The Art of the Parisian Avant-Garde and the First World War, 1914–1925. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Silver, Kenneth E. 2010. Chaos & Classicism: Art in France, Italy, and Germany, 1918–1936. New York: Guggenheim Museum.
Siotto, Andrea. 2016. “Images at War: Military Technology in the Illustrated Press of the Great War.” Vulcan: The Internaitonal Journal of the Social History of Military Technology 4, no. 1: 76–111.
Smith, J. André. 1919. In France with the American Expeditionary Forces. New York: Arthur H. Hahlo.
Smithers, A.J. 1986. A New Excalibur: The Development of the Tank, 1909–1939. London: Guild.
Smits, Thomas. 2020. “Foreign Images of War: L’Illustration’s Images of the Crimean War in Cassell’s Illustrated Family Paper.” In Smits, The European Illustrated Press and the Emergence of a Transnational Visual Culture of the News, 1842–1870, ch. 3. Abingdon and New York: Routledge.
Spackman, Barbara. 1996. Fascist Virilities: Rhetoric, Ideology, and Social Fantasy in Italy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Springhalt, John O. 1986. “‘Up Guards and at Them!’ British Imperialism and Popular Art, 1880–1914.” In Imperialism and Popular Culture, ed. by John M. MacKenzie, 49–72. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Spotts, Frederic. 2001. Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics. London: Hutchinson.
Stearn, Roger T. 1986. “War and the Media in the 19th Century: Victorian Military Artists and the Image of War, 1870–1914.” RUSI Journal 131, no. 3: 55–62.
Stearn, Roger T. 1992. “War Correspondents and Colonial War, c. 1870–1900.” In Popular Imperialism and the Military, 1850–1950, ed. by John M. MacKenzie, 139–161. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Steele, Brett. 2005. Military Reengineering between the Wars. Washington, DC: National Defense Research Institute.
Stern, Philip van Doren. 1959. They Were There: The Civil War in Action as Seen by Its Combat Artists. New York: Crown.
Sweet, John Joseph Timothy, 1980. Iron Arm: The Mechanization of Mussolini’s Army, 1930–1940. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Szafransi, Jacek, and Samir Karmieh. 2018. Renault FT & M1917 Light Tanks. Lublin Poland and Turka, Ukraine: Kagero Publishing.
Tate, Trudi. 1997. “The Culture of the Tank, 1916–1918.” Modernism/Modernity 4, no. 1 (Jan.): 69–87.
Thomson, Ellen Mazur. 1997. The Origins of Graphic Design in America, 1870-1920. New Haven, CT: University Press.
Touzin, Pierre, and Christian Gurtner. 1970. “Renault F.T.,” trans. by Stevenson Pugh. In Armoured Fighting Vehicles of the World, vol. 1: afv s of World War One, ed. by Duncan Crow, 77–88. Windsor: Profile Publications.
Townsend, Harry Everett. 1991. War Diary of a Combat Artist: Capt. Harry Everett Townsend, ed. by Alfred Emile Cornebise. Niwot: University Press of Colorado.
Trythall, Anthony John. 1977. “Boney” Fuller: The Intellectual General, 1878–1966. London: Cassell.
Walsh, Michael J.K. 2005. “C.R.W. Nevinson: Conflict, Contrast and Controversy in Paintings of War.” War in History 13, no. 2 (Apr.): 178–207.
Weissbrich, Thomas. 2014. “Dans les tranchées et dans l’atelier: Les peintres de guerre allemands. In Vu du front: Représenter la grande guerre, ed. by Sarah Houssin-Dreyfuss., 41–48. Paris: Somogy éditions d’art; Bibliothèque de documentation internationale contemporaine; Musée de l’Armée.
Wellington, Jennifer. 2017. “Art Exhibitiions: A Higher Truth in Air of Victory and for Posterity.” In Wellington, Exhibiting War: The Great War, Museums, and Memory in Britain, Canada, and Australia, 105–145. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Werckmeister O.K. 1997. “Hitler the Artist.” Critical Inquiry 23, no. 2 (Winter): 270–297.
White, Eric. 2017. “Technicities of Deception: Dazzle Camouflage, Avant-Gardes and Sensory Augmentation in the First World War.” Modernist Cultures 12, no. 1 (Feb.): 36–58.
Willette, Jean S.M. 2016. “Sir Muirhead Bone: Official War Artists.” Art History Unstuffed blog, 26 August. https://arthistoryunstuffed.com/sir-muirhead-bone-official-war-artist-part-two/.
Williams, Hermann Warner, Jr., 1961. The Civil War: The Artists’ Record. Washington, DC: Corcoran Gallery of Art.
Wilson, Dale. 1989. Treat ‘em Rough: The Birth of American Armor, 1917–20. Novato, CA: Presidio Press.
Wilson, G. Murray, ed. 1929. Fighting Tanks: An Account of the Royal Tank Corps in Action, 1916–1919. London: Seeley, Service.
Winter, J.M. 1989. The Experience of World War I. New York: Oxford University Press.
Winton, Harold R. 1988. To Change an Army: General Sir John Burnett-Stuart and British Armored Doctrine, 1927–1938. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
Winton, Harold R., and David R. Mets, eds. 2000. The Challenge of Change: Military Institutions and New Realities, 1918–1941. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Wolf, Bryan 1984. “All the World’s a Code: Art and Ideology in Nineteenth-Century American Painting.” Art Journal, 44 no. 4 (Winter):328–337.
Wright, Helena E. 2004. “Photography in the Printing Press: The Photomechanical Revolution.” In Presenting Pictures, ed. by Bernard Finn, 21–42. London: Science Museum.
Zaloga, Steven J. 1988. The Renault FT Light Tank. London: Osprey.
Zaloga, Steven J. 2006. German Panzers 1914–18. Oxford: Osprey.
Zaloga, Steven J. 2010. French Tanks of World War I. Oxford: Osprey.