In Book X of Plato’s The Republic, Plato discusses the influence of the poet’s and painter’s work on the soul. He proposes that works of these artists are negative in several ways- they remove the viewer even further from the truth, or the ideal realm, and they appeal to the emotional side of a person’s soul, instead of the rational in which he deems “the best side.” Yet he acknowledges that the pull artistic works has on the emotional side of a person’s soul can be useful because it unifies. Throughout modern history, various figures have attempted to use artistic works to glorify their achievements and unite the people. In the early stages of America’s war with Iraq, the images presented by the media to the American public had a very distinct flavor- they were of Iraqi children cheering on American soldiers who were fighting for their liberation, men cheering in the streets because of the end of a tyrant’s regime, and a president standing behind a “mission accomplished” sign on a Air Force flight hanger. One of the most pervasive images from the time was the photo of a group of Iraqis tearing down the statue of their former leader. It represented the end to a tyrants rule, the liberation of a weary people, and victory against terrorism. It helped Americans feel that they were right to be in
The second set of images is from an anti-war campaign. They use a popular advertisement, for Apple iPods, and alter them to show more controversial images of the war, particularly the scandal from the Abu Ghairb Prison and soldiers in battle. They would be considered provocative, divisive, and combative by many. The works, however, are intentionally meant to be disharmonious in order to evoke an emotional response against the conflict in
3 comments:
Before taking this RCC, I didn't really give a second thought to photos in magazines and newspapers. However, seeing the picture of the toppling statue of Saddam Hussein again after today's class made me see the picture through another light. Although the statue of their former dictator is crashing to the ground, the "liberated" people standing around the statue do not seem overjoyed. The are simply standing there; moreover, there is no cheering, no waving of hands, or any sign of happiness. If photoshop had been available in Plato's time (or if Plato had been alive today), he may have suggested the use of photoshop to remedy the lack of enthusiasm in the Iraqis in order to uplift the American people as well as justify the war.
Regarding your second set of images, it is amazing how effective the pictures are because the artist has mixed today's pop culture with current events. Plato would not have approved these images because they not only serve to divide a nation, but they also show the artist's use of skill to imitate and deceive.
After Friday’s class discussion, I thought a little more into the image of Saddam Hussein. As we discussed I believe this image is a perfect example of the diminishing value of photographic truth. It’s not a question of Photoshop or any other method of digital imaging, but rather a question of whether or not this image was “set up.” Were the spectators featured in the image placed there or not?
Now more importantly, in the context of our current section, if in fact the spectators were placed there would Plato agree or disagree with this method even if it does empower the state and lead it on a prosperous path toward unity and glorification? Ultimately the idea of the image was to convey the message that the locals supported our presence in their country. In doing so, Americans would feel that the war in Iraq was just and necessary to preserve freedom and justice, thus empowering the nation. So would Plato agree or not?
As Joe pointed out in his Blog, there is a significant difference between Plato’s Republic and ours. Therefore, my answer is two-fold. In Plato’s sense of Republic, Plato would agree with this method because it empowered the state toward unity and supported the “philosopher-king” and his methods. However, in our contemporary Republic, Plato would disagree with this method because the truth value of this image would only create mistrust among Americans leading the nation toward disharmony and conflict.
The points you made in class about the first set of photos was very enlightening. For me the word “propaganda” possesses a negative connotation, so I automatically connected it with the negative impact of images causing disharmony and conflict. But through discussion I realized that these images are propaganda used for unification. The image represented is not telling the whole truth of the situation, in particular the one failing to display the small size of the crowd around the toppling statue. Instead we assume that the crowd is extending even out of the picture. This handy cropping was used to bring the nation together in support for the war, symbolizing the end of a tyrant’s reign. And for many, this was the achieved result, adding another influence on the American opinion that the war is just and serves a good purpose. Thus we have propaganda used in a positive light, to move the nation forward towards unification.
Post a Comment