The first article was much more interesting to me in that it made more points that analyzed the content or revealed something below the surface whereas the second article focused more on the statement of facts or a historical account. Yet, the second reading drove home the fact that this subject is still important today. This was indirect, as it simply listed all of the shows upcoming about the topic, pointing out small things about specific artists, but it reinforced the fact, while the first reading spoke more about the universality of war across all time.
My favorite part of the articles was in the first one when they say that war or violence is a bad thing for everyone, no matter who is specifically depicted or involved in the fighting. Afterward they talked about the best way to represent war or violence, and whether it need include blood and gore or not. It is an interesting thought that someone can represent violence better without even showing it in their work, and instead focusing on something that strongly alludes to it. This could be seen in the second article with the Rock Drill example (which is terrifying).
In the first article, the woman who chose the art to go in the specific exhibit said, “a documentary photo or a journalistic photo is art when one is completely taken in by it and, at the same time, one is transported by it," I thought that this quote went quite well with the one from Goya from the presentation on Monday that went something like ,
"The best work looks and draws on nature in an effort to resonate with the human condition," which also showed no specific bias towards any medium. Goya worked in a variety of media and his work was referenced as being the best representations of war across all time, so there seems to be a consensus that the specific medium does not lead to a better end result in conveying the effects of war.
The second article focused less on Goya, omitting him from the discussion to focus on more recent wars like WWI, but they still reference photojournalism and one artist even defends his work saying, "It isn't photojournalism." While the first article focuses on saying that the medium doesn't matter, the second one simply includes what the artist says about his own work, possibly in defense to what is commonly thought of photojournalism as having less meaning as 'art'.
While both articles tackled the same issues in different ways, both speaking about war and violence, it is intriguing that it ultimately comes back to the issue of what we consider art. Should an artist defend their art as something that it is not so that they get better coverage or so that someone will assign more meaning to it than it actually has? Possibly questions for a future post.