British Art and the First World War, 1914–1924 by James Fox (review)

This well-written and immersive book is pitched excellently for both a general and academic audience. From the first page—when the reader is flung into the scene of a tense crowd milling on the steps of the National Gallery on the outbreak of war—Fox's writing is captivating and entertaining, whilst also preserving intellectual rigor and attention to detail. Included are eleven color plates of wartime posters and paintings, alongside a substantial number of black and white images, helpfully allowing comparison between Fox's analyses and the images. Students to whom I have recommended the book have remarked on its ability to capture their interest. Each sentence is crisp and clear, the subtitles and conclusions present the argument clearly and consistently to the reader, and the chapters are logically organized to support the main premise.

The central argument is that although the First World War initially wreaked havoc on the artistic scene in Britain, it ultimately acted as a catalyst for artists to produce works that attracted public interest. In this, Fox reproduces an argument promoted by many contemporary artists: this unprecedented conflict had the unique potential to wash away the "self-contained sphere that the art world had previously inhabited," obliging artists and artistic institutions to begin to interact more closely with British society. Fox argues that this led art into a more "symbiotic union with national life than it had perhaps ever experienced before" (7).

The book consists of six roughly chronological chapters. The first two chapters focus on how initial experiences of war were damaging to artists and how commercial disruption almost provoked complete collapse in the art market. Chapter two innovatively utilizes a rich array of evidence, from academic theories through to popular novels, to demonstrate contemporary perceptions of art. The coming of war, Fox contends, largely rendered art an unacceptable activity. He presents a fascinating insight into the suspicions surrounding artists, including the impact of the Defense of the Realm Act, which prevented artists from sketching docks or harbors.

Chapter three explores individual and institutional reactions to these wartime criticisms. Fox argues that the art world began to promote the social role of art in national, and nationalistic, life. Paintings and sculptures were rebranded as repositories of national identity; the art market focused on charitable endeavors; and museums provided the public with information about war. The secretary of the Royal Society of British Artists was even asked to contact all "foreign-sounding" members to determine their Englishness; those who could not evidence this were told to voluntarily retire until after the war (57). Chapters four and five depict how war created a new demand for images as public interest in the frontline surged. Both chapters show how different media were stimulated by war, most notably the pictorial arts, which depicted war "truths," alongside pastoral landscapes, which embraced a nostalgic escapism. Chapter six focuses on the aftermath of war: changes in government policy towards art and education and the relationship between modern artists and traditional institutions. Fox concludes that post-war art was productive and socially engaged.

Fox's view, rooted in a perfectly supportable conception of war as possessing the ability to implement mass social change, nevertheless challenges much previous historiography. Art historians persist in presenting the war and its aftermath as a period of destruction for the art world. Fox's nuanced and complex image better characterizes the subtleties of a transformed art scene. This reinstatement of the vibrancy of the post-1918 British artistic community is laudable.

However, in stressing the impact of war and the robustness of the creative resurgence in the period, Fox is sometimes in danger of misrepresenting the importance of British art to pre-war public life. His contention is that "its leading dealers catered only to the wealthiest members of society; its exhibiting societies attracted small and rarefied audiences; and its ageing Academicians continued to paint mythological subjects that had little to do with the realities...