Blast

                To say that reading both volumes of Blast was an interesting experience would be an understatement. As someone reading these works in 2015, I found myself thinking “you can’t say that/write that” in a magazine that was to be published and circulated. The reason I felt this is presumably because I have been indoctrinated with the idea that when discussing politics and the economy one must maintain some degree of respectful political correctness. Wyndham Lewis and the other contributors of Blast certainly did not feel the same way. In terms of diction, both editions maintained the use of caustic accusatory language. This was especially prevalent in the extensive manifesto and “blast and bless” list in the first edition.

While I was confused by much of the content and opinions recorded in the first edition of Blast, I would definitely say that the preliminary blast and bless list left me with the most questions especially as it was the first thing I read in this journal. It begins by blasting England for its climate and extensively explained how the air and sky made England a dreadful place. Later when it came to the bless section, England was lauded for its superior ships, seafaring people, ocean ports, and hairdressers (??) (11-28). For someone trying to speculate on the authors’ feelings about the topics mentioned on the lists, I found that the blasts and blessings seemed to contradict each other. Even after reading both volumes, I am still unclear as to where the authors would situate themselves in terms of allegiance or nationality.

One thing that definitely was clear to me when reading both editions is that art is VERY IMPORTANT to the contributors and Wyndham Lewis. On page 38 of the second publication, Lewis gives a very extensive (and opinionated) editorial on the different types of contemporary art that were prominent in the early 1900s (Vorticism, Futurism, Cubism, Caricature, Realism...). While I am not an art critic in the least, on thing that struck me was the type of art that was featured in these journals that were so focused around the importance of art in society. Many of the drawings and paintings featured were relatively simplistic abstract geometric shapes. Not to belittle any type of art, but Lewis and the other authors spoke so highly of the value and power of art and I found myself wondering if these works were really “all they were cracked up to be”. As someone who is not that well versed in close reading and understanding abstract art it seemed that Lewis and co. we’re making a “big deal” out of what seems like shapes and rigid lines that don’t even seem to go together. One piece of artwork that stood out from the rest was “Types of the Russian Army” by Kramer on page 31 of the second edition. This caricature drawing seems like something that would be considered “off limits” to publish in a time of war as anti-Russian propaganda. As we have discussed in class, the government in basically all of the countries involved in the war regulated (or attempted to) what the general public would see as to prevent resistance to the war. With that being said, I can understand why there are only two editions of Blast ever published with their sharp words and unapologetic criticisms.