etibbetts post 11

Erica Tibbetts
1. War images become “official” the same way any element of culture becomes imbedded in the popular consciousness, through repetition, acceptance, interest, consumption and/or a support for some accepted value. A picture of Michael Jordan slam-dunking, or a space shuttle taking off, or of Marilyn Monroe having her dress blown up; all are iconic and instantly recognizable to the American public. They have been viewed repeatedly; they support the American ideals of hard work, beauty, advancement, domination; they are all aesthetically pleasing to an extent. We accept them as a culture because they do not challenge us or our beliefs.

There is, of course, a whole different set of images that have been ingrained in the American psyche due to their abrasive subject matter. Images from the depression, pictures of 9/11, of bombings or other events that have shocked the American public still become part of the accepted culture, even if they do not represent an ideal.

In the case of war photos, both reasons for acceptance can be drawn upon. War is a great economic stimulator, a great unifier, a means of glorifying a people and nation, a way of building patriotism, a means of gaining power and respect, but also a gory, often vilified, act that never occurs without controversy, death, and suffering. Yet, the images created from war still enter and become a part of the pubic consciousness.

From the war in Iraq the images that seem to have become official are

a) the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s statue http://www.cbc.ca/news/photogalleries/saddam_timeline/pages/13.html

b) soldiers in camouflage outside a building in Baghdad

http://www.iraqi-dinar-exchange.com/news/older-iraqi-dinar/1559.html

c) tanks on the way to Baghdad

http://middleeast2.blogs.bftf.org/files/2007/07/iraq_war_topix2.jpg

d) President Bush on an aircraft carrier

http://www.defendamerica.mil/images/photos/may2003/index/ii050103j.jpg

There are two main purposes served by these images. The first is the purpose of unification, patriotism, and strength. This applies to the picture of the toppling of Saddam Hussein, and to the picture of Bush on an aircraft carrier. The former shows the downfall of a dictator, a man thought to be evil and representative of everything the United States is fighting against. By pulling down his statue, the U.S. is showing that they are stronger, they have taken control, and they are in power.

The picture of Bush on an aircraft carrier is symbolic of the President as leader, as the first line of defense, as the most powerful man in the world. He is ready to fight for his country, to take up arms with the “common soldier”. This image is meant to show that the President cares, that he is not above or removed from the struggles of the soldiers.

The other two images are slightly more ambiguous in their purpose. The soldiers on a city street, with civilians in the background could be read negatively. They are intruding upon a foreign setting, and imposing themselves upon people who may or may not need their help. They could be seen as a liberating force, who are there to help the onlookers. They could be seen as a disruptive, destructive force. They could also be indifferent. The soldiers and the people behind them are from two totally different worlds and probably have opposing outlooks on life. This type of image shows the invasive nature of war.

So, in a sense it can serve two different purposes. It could unite, but it could also divide.

The picture of the tanks is also ambiguous in nature. It shows force, power, technology and progress. However, it also shows the violent, invasive nature of war. The picture could serve to rally people to the cause, to feel patriotic, to be unified. However, again it could also serve to show the problems created by war. It depends a lot on the context in which the image is displayed, and the viewer. The viewer’s beliefs will probably change how he or she views this image.

2. I do agree that images can be ideological, yet I think the word “harmful” is too loaded to be applied universally and without any other sort of tweaking. In her article, Dr. Libby sets out to prove that “the Abu Ghraib pictures (and by extension any photographs) can be theorized as examples of visual culture and positioned in relation to culture wars fought over images” (Libby). Essentially, images can create a powerful argument and an opinion of the world that is not inherent in the actual thing captured, but in the way the subject matter is captured.

Libby points out, “much of the fault and horror does in fact lie in the images, precisely because images are not transparent screens through which the viewer can see some truth beyond, but constructed cultural objects whose intelligibility is made possible only within a larger matrix of other signifying practices and the social relations of which they are a part” (Libby). We are a visual culture, especially the current generation. We watch television, play games, surf the internet on computers and cell phones, see billboards, and even demand that our music be set to video in order to visualize the lyrics. We think through images in a way that no previous generation has. So, when we see pictures of Abu Ghraib we see more than just a prisoner tied up, or performing a sex act, or being “punished”. We see a commentary on the American spirit, on the American desire to be in control, on the American desire to have “fun”. Libby describes how the act of taking pictures implies the quotidian and enjoyable, “[there is a] jovial nonchalance with which the pictures depict such horrific acts and the ways in which the viewer’s memory simultaneously draws on the production and circulation of our own everyday pictures” (Libby). Americans take pictures at family gatherings, at sporting events, in places and during activities that are fun, wholesome, memorable. When the soldiers in these pictures smile, or give a thumbs up, they are extending this enjoyment to the activites in which they are partaking. The viewer identifies with this, whether consciously or not. The image is relate to enjoyment, and at this point the viewer can either be repulsed by what he or she sees, and denounce the American military, the war, and the spirit behind it. Or, he or she can look at this image and embrace the retribution that is being dealt to so called “terrorists”. Either way, the image is not merely an image, it makes the viewer take a stand, it shows the flaws in the American approach to enjoyment, power, and gender or is reveals in the viewer an indignant sense of hatred towards the unknown and the “other”.

In relation to the problem of gender and power, Libby says, “the pictures and the acts they depict employ gender as a weapon of torture and how this strategy is effective only within belief systems that construct binaries of “masculine” and “feminine” in terms, respectively, of “strong” and ‘‘weak,” valorizing the masculine over the feminine” (Libby). The only reason the soldiers use this form of “torture”- that of subjugating a man’s will and power to a woman’s, is because they believe that any man will be ashamed of this, thus creating a preconception that the man is and should always be more powerful. The image is not merely capturing the act, but showing a belief system, creating a support for a male dominated culture.

In the “Inconvenient Evidence” article, the following accusation is made, “The photographing of prisoners, both in Afghanistan and in Iraq, seems to have been not random but, rather, part of the dehumanizing interrogation process” (Hersh). In this sense, then, the photograph itself is almost not as important as the act of taking it. The constant flashing, the knowledge that one is being examined and recorded is almost as terrifying (to someone in a compromised position/situation) as actually seeing the physical product.

The same article discusses the actual product, the photograph itself, and the mixed implications this product can have, Away from the photojournalistic flourishes designed to make war palatable— the heroic flag-raisings, the dogged foot soldiers close to the action, the sense of shared humanity among combatants, and the search for visual evidence that war is universal and inevitable— the often-banal JPEGs from Iraq proffer a ver y different picture: war is systematic cruelty enforced at the level of everyday torture” (Wallis). The photographs show the cruelty, the overarching problems with war, the underlying cruelty of the American desire to control and command. They cease to be just images of what happened, and instead become accusations.

Susan Sontag, in her article about the events that took place ace at the Abu Ghraib prison has a slightly different take. She says, “So, then, is the real issue not the photographs themselves but what the photographs reveal to have happened to ''suspects'' in American custody? No: the horror of what is shown in the photographs cannot be separated from the horror that the photographs were taken -- with the perpetrators posing, gloating, over their helpless captives” (Sontag). She makes no effort to separate the method, the act, the context of the picture from the actual event it is capturing. The only horror of the scene is what is actually taking place, not what the picture stands for. I have trouble believeing this, because any image needs some sort of framework. NO image can be read purely for what it is, without some understanding of something that is not inherent in the picture itself. A viewer must know where the different people are from, why they are where they are, what is occurring, under what circumstances these people were brought together, etc. Without this information, the picture cannot be read. With this information, the picture cannot be viewed solely on what it depicts.

Later, Sontag says something along the same lines as Libby, in that pictures are no longer just the physical object: “The pictures taken by American soldiers in Abu Ghraib, however, reflect a shift in the use made of pictures -- less objects to be saved than messages to be disseminated, circulated” (SOntag).

Pictures are not just records of an event, they are ideas, they are art, they are an ideological weapon. Pictures can change the way people think about an event, about a person, about themselves. Images are so important in this culture that we cannot escape the supreme power of any permanent, or semi-permanent imagery.

3. People have the right to know what they are a part of. The American public has a right to know what their tax dollar is supporting, what their name, their country, their fellow citizen is being involved with. However, no depiction of events is ever unbiased. There is always some sort of political spin involved when an image of war, or prison, or soldiers, or detainees is displayed. So, the public can never receive the truth they deserve. In this case it is hard to say whether or not images should be censored. I don’t believe in censorship. I believe images have the power to show people the evil or the beneficence of their actions, or the actions they are supporting or protesting. I think that images have the ability to form ideology, but I believe a viewer should be allowed to make these choices for him or herself. And, with the way images are produced and disseminated, I don’t think this will ever be possible.

So, while I disagree with censorship, I don’t know how I feel about images of war being spun to an all too gullible audience. Viewer’s can be manipulated too easily to understand what an image actually does or does not mean, and in the case fo the Abu Ghraib pictures, a viewer could probably be convinced either that the “torture” being dished out was worthy of the crimes committed, or that it was totally unwarranted.

So, I guess in reality I don’t want censorship or a lack thereof, I want an unbiased media and an educated public… good luck with that.

post 11

Kelly Gordon Post 11
1.Images become official images of war when they are captured or obtained by the mass media and dispersed to the public audience to be interpreted as a form of propaganda. They tend to provide the audience with the opportunity to choose whether or not they support the war. Concerning war, images impact the public so much more than words. One could hear that 1,000 soldiers died, or 5,000, or 50,000, and still it might not register to the reader exactly how catastrophic the conflict is. If there were an image featured that depicted that number of people lying dead in the street or on barren land, most people would immediately become disgusted with the violence of war. Official war images exist to exploit what is occurring during wars. They also exist to either persuade the viewer to become pro-war or anti-war. All images during wartime are used as propaganda by the media and the government. 2. I agree with the "Culture/War" article when it states that "images can be ideological and even harmful" because images are so persuasive. War images can contribute to the loss of support of a war that might better both countries' economies and social dispositions. It is a fact that people in wars die. Innocent people, soldiers, and "evil" people in wars are all killed at one point or another. By capturing that image on a camera, the photographer is exposing a gruesome image to the public and therefore often aiding an anti-war sentiment. This is harmful and dangerous when wars should or must be fought for a moral or obligated purpose. No one wants to see bloody children, but they are a fact of war. Likewise, people don't want to support a war if they see images of children dying gruesome and pitiful deaths. This isn't good for a country or a country's campaign for war if people are persuaded by the affectation of an image. If the image speaks to a person's emotions they are unable to take a rational side concerning the war. People are persuaded by their emotions to become anti-war because these images are pushed into their faces. If a country is making the world a better place by participating in that war, then the depreciating support by its people because of images portrayed by the media does not expedite the war process.
Also, images are easy to manipulate in order to convey the message that the photographer is attempting to send. It is more difficult for an individual to affect another individual through articles or news broadcasts because its easy for the reader or listener to keep in mind that it is the writer/broadcaster's opinion. With images, people tend to take them as solid fact. What they often forget is that photographers tamper with images until they appear just as they want them to. There isn't as much truth in images as people might believe.
Sontag suggests that we should "ignore the images as such and focus ont he events depicted in them." The predicament with this theory first arises when we question whether or not the image is a mimesis of an event or a photograph that has been tampered with in order to incite a certain emotion in the viewer. Images cannot be trusted to depict the events that they capture. They are just like words -- easy for the artists to manipulate only more deviously affective.
3. Images of war should not be hidden from the public during war time. One of the most valued things concerning the United States is its media coverage. Our media might not be unbiased, but it is open and free compared to that of Russia, China, and North Korea. United States citizens have a right to know what is going on in the war regardless whether or not the images depict the exact truth or if they persuade an individual against supporting the war. The Abu Ghraid photos most certainly should have been shown to the public so that the citizens of the United States might learn that they aren't as holy as they think they are. Some people who are United States citizens are just as evil as those Iraqis guilty of oppressing their country's people. We need to know that if there are people in the military who are abusing their position, they are being held responsible for their actions and being punished for them. They also need to serve as an example for any other wrongdoers in Iraq who are "interrogating" their prisoners illegally. Those individuals must learn from those who were caught. That type of behavior must not be tolerated by the American government and both the public and the military must hear, see, and accept that.
Still, the pictures should not be celebrated. As an American, I am ashamed to believe that those so-called heroes fighting in Iraq might be committing human rights violations in line with those of Saddam Hussein. If they are depicted in an exhibit, they should not be shown as art, but rather as evidence of those members of the 320th Battalion who committed such acts not only against the Iraqi prisoners but also against all the Americans supporting them from home.

Amanda D. Post # 11

Amanda Dhillon

1. It seems that the most recognized images of a war are those that have been granted an unofficial title of being an “official” war image. Accordingly, then, those images that either become the center of a culture war/ conflict or are displays or a great patriotic victory are the ones that become a war’s “official” images. The progression of a culture war over an image or an image’s iconic status stemming from its patriotic nature causes overexposure of the image to the public, which then begins to recognize it as a symbol of the war, helping it achieve an “official” status. Thus, when the image is seen repeatedly by multitudes of people, in the news, on propaganda, in advertisements, etc., it becomes a figurehead and an “official” image of the war during which it was created. Images from the Iraq war that have reached such a status must be ones which have been everywhere in the public eye, ones which the people can directly connect to the war, and there are three excellent examples of these: the photograph of an Iraqi prisoner standing blindfolded on a box at Abu Ghraib, the photograph of the toppling of a Saddam Hussein statue, and President Bush arriving on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln. Each of these images also is used to serve the interests of certain groups or parties, thus enhancing their status as “official” images by thrusting them further into public gaze. The Hussein and Bush photographs are generally used in support of the war effort to show US victories to the people and make it appear that everything happening in Iraq is positive and going according to plan. The photo of the prisoner at Abu Ghraib contradicts the message sent by the previously mentioned images, showing that there are atrocities being committed in this war, and it is not as black and white as is made to seem. The line between “good guys” and “bad guys” is blurred for the American public viewing this image because no longer are the US soldiers glorified “liberators” of the Iraqi people; they are also torturing the very people they supposedly protect.

Saddam Hussein statue: http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42397000/jpg/_42397683_saddam1_ap.jpg

Prisoner on box: http://staffwww.fullcoll.edu/tmorris/elements_of_ecology/images/abu_ghraib.jpg

President Bush on aircraft carrier: http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/images/2007/05/01/bush_in_flight_suit_at_air_base.jpg

2. While it can be understood that images are not merely “transparent screens through which the viewer can see some truth beyond” (Libby 44) because in many cases they are captured after deliberate staging and other manipulations or purposeful biases, more attention should be focused on the events depicted rather than the images themselves, as these images are representative of deeper conflicts and problems, particularly in the case of the Abu Ghraib photographs. As Sontag explains in her article “Regarding the Torture of Others,” too much emphasis is placed on the photos as a way to avoid dealing with the greater issue at hand, the nationally embarrassing and outrageous conduct of the military at Abu Ghraib. She explains how the presidential administration found itself “shocked” (Sontag 1) at the images and berated and banned them from publication instead of dealing with the military leaders and soldiers in the photographs who committed these torturous acts against the Iraqi prisoners and who received far lesser of negative repercussions than the images themselves. Here in is the primary issue that should be focused on, as the images do represent something much worse than what they physically are (as was stated earlier, they are not simply “screens”). They represent a prejudice and hatred toward the Iraqis and perhaps even their religion as they establish a social/ethnic hierarchy that, unfortunately, some Americans feel is the truth of the world order. In this, the photos do carry a harmful ideology, as others could view them and interpret this possibly implied message as truth, especially since the culture industry has conditioned white people of privilege to view others in this way through various means of visual representations (film, images, etc.), but this is not quite as important as that issue which lies beyond this. As Sontag states throughout her article, people take the images too far and they become a kind of scapegoat, diverting the blame and attention from addressing (no less fixing) the real problems. Thus, the image itself as a physical entity should fall into the background when uncovering the true issues at play—the events depicted in them. Images, as can be seen in the case of the Abu Ghraib photos and the subsequent treatment of and reaction toward the photos versus the people and events within them, can often get in the way of discovering and correcting the real social problems that they depict.

3. It is very difficult to determine whether or not images of war should be kept from the public during wartime, and arguments can be made to justify both cases. It would seem, though, that citizens, particularly in nations that consider themselves democratic, should be given the ability (and probably the right) to view such images despite the negative reactions that will undoubtedly result. For instance, photographs such as some of those taken during the Vietnam War of seemingly helpless villagers and children being attacked or displaced by US soldiers would be enough to convince some that war is not right and should be abruptly brought to a close before there is any more damage to civilians and other innocent bystanders. Obviously, displaying images like these to the American public would demolish domestic support for the war, making it harder for the government and the military to continue on. Such a hindrance to the war effort and lack of support can be enough, sometimes, to cause a disastrous end to a war. However, despite the problems from and vicious outcry of the public against a war because of exposure to war images, the people should have the ability to know what actions and policies their country is really executing halfway around the world, and what their military, their national defense, is truly acting out and how they are fairing in battle. They should be spared neither atrocities nor losses and victories as long as they are the true events of the war. As far as the Abu Ghraib photographs are concerned, they should not have been or be “exhibited.” They are not photographic art and thus should not be treated as such, as it implies a sort of glorification. However, they should be circulated in other media, such as in the newspaper or on the television news broadcasts, as the people of the US should have the right to know what kinds of “criminal behavior” (Sontag 3) their military are engaging in. This is especially important because when actions such as those depicted in the photos are carried out, they should be punished just as severely, and the photographs can work as visual evidence and reveal this truth to the people and the administration, who should take appropriate action to stop, to prevent, and, to the extent possible, amend the horrible deeds of the soldiers involved. Photographs of war can be very effective records of the events and progress of war, and the people should be able to have access to this information since war concerns all of a nation’s citizens.