I don’t think war images can ever become “official” in the sense that they depict reality. Rather, the term “official” is loosely fitted to the images that are portrayed heavily throughout all forms of mass media: TV reports, magazines, newspapers, etc… I mean who really has the authority to determine whether or not a war image is “official?” I believe the validity of every photograph has to be called into question, and the answer is impossible to reach. Rather, images are “essentially windows into a larger, truer reality that must be deciphered using the pictures as clues” (Libby 45). It would seem unrealistic to me to firmly believe that “photographs are objective renderings of the real world that provide an unbiased truth because cameras are seemingly detached from a subjective, particular human viewpoint” (Practices of Looking 17). Granted, pictures taken spur-of-the-moment, identified by poor lightning and blurriness as well as other photographic flaws, can idealistically become “official,” but that is assuming the situation in which they were taken was not created but merely witnessed. Essentially, photographic truth has to be called into question.
In that respect, war images are ideological and harmful because it is their inherent nature to evoke a response or reaction and convey a message to the viewing public. It is their very intention to influence viewers and sway support either for or against the war in question. Gruesome pictures of the atrocities of a war are meant to foster and promote an anti-war sentiment and create opposition among the viewing public. On the other hand, pictures of President Bush giving a thumbs up or a soldier smiling while serving his country are meant to foster and promote a pro-war sentiment and gain support among the viewing public. In either sense, war photographs are propaganda. They destroy an individual’s ability to think for him or herself and cater to one’s immediate reaction which is far rasher.
It would be too unrealistic to demand that images be kept from the public view during wartime. I think keeping images from the public would be a good thing in that it would free the viewing public from this form of propaganda. However, this brings up the more important issue of censorship and essentially our First Amendment Rights. Where is the freedom in government’s complete control over what is seen on television or in magazines and newspapers? Furthermore, as Dr. Susan Libby points out, “Avoiding…or censoring [photographs] in the public sphere would prevent us from recognizing and choosing ethically to act on their many implications for our society both as records and representations” (Libby 48).Therefore, it is important that we as a nation are able to view photographs in time of war. Essentially, I think awareness is the ultimate argument. We as a nation must be made aware of what’s going on beyond our borders. We need all aspects of media available and free from complete government control in order to optimistically be able to think for ourselves. If this means exhibiting the Abu Ghraib photos at the International Center of Photography, then by all means it should be done. The end justifies the means.
These images seen here would fit under the loose definition of "official" because they were published in a major magazine and shown seemingly on every television report and newscast.
2 comments:
I agree with Kevin when he discusses how war images are used as propaganda. However, I believe they, as propaganda, influence your emotions on war, they don't entirely cultivate them. The difference is the amount of affect these propaganda images have. I believe images might help to inspire a change of thinking but it couldn't be achieved all on its own. I think propaganda brings out feelings that we have subconsciously towards a given subject. I don't believe it's a bad thing that propaganda is used to affect the dispositions of others. In a way, it enables us to exhale and recognize those thoughts. Propaganda is essential in that sense. Thus, it shouldn't be censored because it aides the public with taking sides.
Your claim that “the very intention (of war images is) to influence viewers and sway support either for or against the war in question” made me speculate on the possibility of a middle ground. The pictures do not necessarily have to be pro- or con-war if they foster feelings of support or opposition in viewers. Instead they can be for or against what is being shown in the images in respect to the war. For example, showing the Abu Ghraib pictures does not have the absolute function of opposing the war. The purpose can instead denote disagreement with the way the war was being executed. The image can avoid actually being against the war, and still be against the methods of fighting depicted. In this case, the pictures could be seen as anti-torture in war rather than anti-war completely. A supplement to this conclusion could be photos with pictures of war prisoners being treated humanely. The images could thus be in support of the war effort, as long as the treatment of prisoners is done respectfully.
Post a Comment