The flag, canvas of a world

The demonstrations of recent days represent a wave of global mobilization, voicing deep concern over the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and demanding action from governments and the international community. Powerful, sometimes violent social protests that use indispensable symbols such as flags. This calls for a careful analysis that transcends their materiality to delve into their ontological function. The flag is undoubtedly a semantic vehicle. Its essence lies in its ability to ‘bring together,’ to become a symbol (from the ancient Greek σύν, “together,” and βάλλω, “to throw”), uniting physical entity (the colored fabric) with an intelligible and abstract one (nation, ideology, movement). In this sense, the symbol does not merely represent; it is what it symbolizes, in an inseparable union between signifier and meaning. This is not convention, but an implicit condition of collective existence itself. 

The artistic representation of the flag offers a privileged field of inquiry into the many functions of the symbol in human culture. The works of Frida Kahlo, Édouard Manet, and Mykola Samokysh emerge as case studies that illustrate the symbol respectively as an expression of identity, an element of atmosphere, and an object of conflict.

In Still Life with Parrot and Flag, Frida Kahlo does not display the Mexican flag in a context of public celebration. On the contrary, she places it in an intimate setting, among native flora and fauna. The flag does not wave but lies like ripe fruit, integrated into the vital cycle of nature. This positioning denotes a relationship that is not rhetorical but organic with national identity. The symbol is not a political abstraction but a visceral, rooted reality, nourished by the same soil that yields the fruit and animals depicted. Kahlo’s analysis is a deconstruction of national symbolism as an external entity, reaffirming it instead as an inalienable component of being. Technically, the work stands out for its use of oil on masonite—a frequent choice for the Mexican artist, as it provided a smooth and resistant surface. The palette is rich and vibrant, dominated by warm, earthy tones that evoke the fertility of the land: deep reds, intense yellows, and dazzling greens, rendered with meticulous brushwork.

The chiaroscuro is not dramatic but sufficiently present to lend volume and depth to the objects, especially the round forms of the fruit, which appear almost ready to be harvested.

Manet’s Rue Mosnier Decorated with Flags takes an entirely different perspective. Here, the flag is reduced to a chromatic patch, part of a visual and sensory mosaic that captures the frenzy and light of a fleeting moment. The celebration of July 14, 1878, is described not through heroic figures but through an idea, a chaotic image. The flags do not convey a clear political concept; rather, they contribute to the creation of an atmosphere, a collective experience both shared and transient. In this context, the symbol sheds its function as abstraction to become a sensory phenomenon, an element of perceptual flow.

The painting is characterized by rapid, almost sketch-like brushstrokes. Instead of meticulously defining every detail, Manet employs broad, visible strokes to render the scene. The flags are not painted with precise lines but appear as vibrant patches of red, white, and blue. This technique lends the surface a tactile quality. The paint is applied thickly, creating a sense of immediacy and movement that reflects the chaotic atmosphere of the celebration.

The strong chromatic contrasts between the vibrant flags and the muted tones of the buildings and pavement generate a sense of visual dynamism. The painting captures a fleeting moment—an instant of a vibrant, temporary event—emphasizing the impression of light and color over narrative or symbolic meaning. This focus on pure visual sensation, rather than political or historical allegory, is what makes the painting so innovative. It stands as a key example of how artists were beginning to explore the objective reality of the visible world itself, rather than using it to tell a story or convey deeper meaning.

Battle for the Flag by Mykola Samokysh, the Ukrainian artist, presents the symbol in its most agonistic sense. The flag is not an object, as in Manet’s work, but the telos (from the Greek τέλος: end, purpose) of the conflict itself. It is the element for which one fights, suffers, and dies. Samokysh elevates the flag to a sacred object, whose defense or conquest transcends the act of war to embody the struggle for identity, sovereignty, and honor. The symbol’s value lies not in its fabric or colors, but in the sacrifice made for it. Here, the symbol becomes both the efficient and final cause of historical narrative, revealing its power to mobilize—a violent mobilization, as we still see today.

Samokysh creates the work with a pictorial technique that heightens the pathos and dynamism of the scene. 

The composition is carefully designed to maximize tension: figures are disorderly mixed together, with diagonal lines guiding the viewer’s gaze toward the focal point—the contested flag at the center. Samokysh uses light dramatically, with warm, enveloping colors and sharp contrasts to emphasize shadow and conflict.

Art thus unveils the multifaceted nature of the symbol. From its organic integration into life and culture, to its reduction to a mere atmospheric phenomenon, and finally to its elevation as the ultimate cause of human conflict, the flag proves itself not merely a sign but a dynamic entity, charged with meaning depending on the context of its analysis. Its interpretation cannot be separated from a deep inquiry into the relationship between humanity, identity, and the world it inhabits. Today, flags in public squares embody man, humanity, peace.

Opening image: Frida Kahlo, Naturaleza Muerta con Perico y Bandera (Still Life with Parrot and Flag), 1951. Courtesy WikiArt