The First World War was a cataclysmic event that reshaped the world in countless ways, and its impact on the arts was profound and far-reaching. But what if this devastating conflict had never occurred? How might the trajectory of art in the 20th century have unfolded differently? While it’s impossible to predict with certainty, we can speculate on the potential paths art might have taken in a world unscarred by the Great War.
In the years leading up to 1914, the art world was already in a state of ferment and innovation. Movements like Fauvism, Cubism, and Futurism were challenging traditional notions of representation and pushing the boundaries of artistic expression. Without the interruption and trauma of the war, these movements might have continued to evolve along their pre-war trajectories, albeit in less radical directions.
Fauvism, with its wild, expressive use of color, might have developed into a more refined and widely accepted style. The shocking impact of works like Matisse’s “Woman with a Hat” (1905) would have gradually softened as audiences became more accustomed to non-naturalistic color. Perhaps Fauvism would have spawned offshoots exploring the emotional and psychological impacts of color in more subtle ways.
Cubism, pioneered by Picasso and Braque, was already moving towards greater abstraction before the war. Without the conflict’s disruption, this trajectory might have continued more smoothly. We might have seen a gradual evolution from Analytic Cubism to increasingly abstract forms, but perhaps without the abrupt shift to Synthetic Cubism that occurred during the war years. The movement might have retained more of its focus on the deconstruction and reassembly of visual reality, rather than incorporating the collage elements that became prominent in wartime.
Futurism, with its celebration of technology, speed, and modernity, might have continued to flourish. Without the sobering reality of mechanized warfare, the Futurists’ optimistic view of technology might have persisted longer. We might have seen more works glorifying the marvels of industry and urban life, perhaps evolving into a kind of hyper-realism that sought to capture the dynamism of the modern world.
The absence of the war might have also meant a delayed or altered emergence of some of the most influential post-war movements. Dada, with its embrace of the absurd and rejection of reason, was a direct response to the perceived madness of the war. Without this catalyst, would such a radically anti-art movement have emerged? Perhaps not in the same form, but the underlying currents of dissatisfaction with traditional artistic and social norms might have found other, less confrontational expressions.
Similarly, Surrealism, which grew partly out of the Dada movement and was deeply influenced by the psychological trauma of the war, might have taken a very different form. Without the war’s impact on the collective psyche, the exploration of the subconscious in art might have been more gradual and less intense. We might have seen a more playful, less ominous approach to dream imagery and psychological symbolism.
The geographical center of the art world might also have shifted differently. Paris, the pre-war capital of the art world, might have maintained its dominance for longer. The migration of artists to New York, accelerated by the war, might have been slower or taken a different form. This could have led to a more gradual internationalization of art, rather than the abrupt shift of the center from Europe to America that occurred in the mid-20th century.
