Justin Wright Post 11

1. War images can become official through government or media proclamation. In either case, such images must be easily recognizable and also emotionally charged in order to come into widespread use. These images are usually propagated by the media, which will reuse them again and again in order to avoid the need to find new material of the same quality, and because of viewer identification with the images due to familiarity. If the images reinforce a particular view of a war, then this view must be held by a large majority of the people in order to become well known.

The first image, perhaps the most widely known so far of the Iraq War, is of the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s statue after the invasion. There are actually hundreds of images of this – because it was staged as a media event by the military. Civilians were brought in from a village to produce a fake crowd, and they watched as the statue was pulled down. In most photographs, it appears as if a large crowd was present but this was due to the framing of the picture. In this particular shot, the large empty areas can be seen, making it evident that support for America was not as strong as the typical images of this event suggest.

The photograph of a detainee in a black shroud and hood standing on the box is the most often reproduced image of the Abu Ghraib photographs, which number over eighteen hundred. This image is most often used because it is not offensive, and the media tries to self censor itself in order to keep viewers. The more sexual Abu Ghraib photographs are typically not shown. Also the anonymous man (who has since been identified, but he is still masked) stands on a box that resembles a pedestal, while spreading his arms in the typical pose of the martyr – the cross. But instead of having his hands nailed, they are attached to electrodes, a more modern version of a painful death. These images were originally taken to serve the interest of the soldiers who conducted interrogations, but now they have been used by anti-war activists as the icon of protest.

A picture from a gallery on the official White House website entitled “Photos of Freedom” shows marines distributing food to civilians. The behavior in the photograph is civil – there are no riots breaking out over limited rations. The truck is also fully loaded with supplies – showing America’s infinite reserves of wealth, which we gladly are sharing with our new democratic partners. Since this image promotes the Iraq War by assuring that we are helping the nation far more than harming it, the President’s interests are furthered. Also, this image could easily have been posed and framed to get this effect. Here, the official status is gained by the government’s proclamation that this is a good image.

2. While I believe that the need for reform emphasized by images such as the Abu Ghraib photographs are a primary concern, I think that downplaying the images as Sontag suggests will lead to a lesser understanding of the events themselves. We must understand what we decide to condemn, and only by deep examination of the images can this be done. The most important thing to ask about any image is “why was this created?” The answer to this will reveal the bias. All photographs are biased, since they only offer an edited version of reality. Only what lies between the borders of the lens, and happened in the fraction of a second of exposure is often promoted as a true and unbiased account, although it will be laced with ideology.

The irony here is that the Abu Ghraib photographs were taken by soldiers promoting the abuse, but now they are used to condemn it. The conflict in ideology seems almost sick – the soldiers smiling behind the naked bodies of detainees forced into humiliating poses. While with one photograph there is some doubt about the events that occurred around it, and the image’s staging, there is much less doubt with a series. There were over eighteen hundred photographs of the Abu Ghraib incidents, which showed the evolution of different torture sessions so that some sense of the passage of time could be gained through still images.

While these considerations seem to remove most of the uncertainty around the events, they also continue to propagate the misconception that photographs are a perfect form of truth. Just because some photographs tell the same story that occurred does not mean that others will be so candid. These misconceptions are harmful to visual literacy and the examination of ideology behind images – the lack of such scrutiny leaves one vulnerable to propaganda.

3. In a democratic society, the voters must be informed politically in order to make the most informed decisions. Withholding any sort of information necessarily compromises this, yet there are instances of national security where the public must be kept in the dark. But the effect of a war is not one of these areas. The public needs to know what exactly they are voting for directly, or what their elected representatives are voting for. If the war has gone into stalemate, the “enemy” is being tortured for dubious reasons, and civilians are dying, then people must know so the war can be reconsidered with these factors in mind.

There is a difference between images of offensive and defensive conflicts. The offensive conflict is inherently an ethical issue, since a decision must be made to engage in violence or not. A defensive conflict presents no option – rise and fight, or be annihilated. If there is no justifiable reason to be engaged in offensive conflict, then the citizens of a nation have a right to make the decision to end it. Also, war should not be used as a common tool to force the compliance of smaller, less stable nations. War devastates everything, and supporters need to know the consequences of authorizing violent force. There should be no censorship whatsoever in this case.

In a defensive war, the nation’s very existence may be at stake. But if there is no threat of annihilation, then involvement should be minimal and not include “revenge” actions, such as the Iraq War today. Thus again, there should be no censorship of war images, so that the public does not seek out revenge, because of the pain it will inflict on the innocent. This only leads to the escalation of conflict anyway – as we further fight terrorists, we cause more of them to rise up against us than there were to begin with.

When the nation is indeed about to be toppled, as the Soviet Union nearly was in 1941 by Nazi Germany, then the government must do all it can to resist destruction. The injustices inflicted by the government on its own people will be nothing compared to the enemy’s wrath. Certainly censorship of war images to keep morale high would be acceptable as an alternative to rape and slaughter of the citizens, at the hands of some other force. But another alternative would be to use images of violence directed against the “good guys” in order to motivate the nation to stand strong and resist, because the images will remind them of their fate if the nation’s struggle fails.

The Abu Ghraib photographs should not have been withheld from the public. When they were eventually leaked, the negative reaction against the Army was much greater than it would have been if the offending soldiers and been summarily punished. The cover up was a form of tacit approval of the tactics carried out at Abu Ghraib. While I think that the public has a right to know about offensive wars it is engaged in, I do not think the photographs should have been exhibited at the International Center of Photography. Association with an artistic institution almost praises the photographs in a way, because they acknowledge something about the nature of war. But these photographs never should have existed in the first place, so they should not be associated with art. Also, these photographs were taken as trophies by the soldiers, in order to glorify their dominance over the prisoners and also to humiliate them. The victims’ rights should be taken into account, as they were forced to participate in the photographs, and then had them used in blackmail during interrogations. The fear of being seen in such impious poses (the homosexual poses in the context of Islam) by others made prisoners comply, but now thousands of people will see them, adding to the humiliation. The public has a right to know the war though images in the media, and the media will self-censor itself to a large degree, which would filter out the most degrading of the photographs. But putting them up on display is furthering the emotional damage done to the detainees.

Image Sources (From left to right):

http://www.dannyrudd.com/brokenmedia/images/statue.jpg

http://peacework.blogspot.com/uploaded_images/Abu%20Ghraib%20Torture-715244.jpg

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/photoessay/essay1/09.html

Ted Henderson Post 11

1.) It seems that, in today’s society, images of war, as well as those depicting/representing any significant cultural/political issue, are deemed “official” within American minds when they are given mass media display and commentary. Though one could certainly argue that any explicit photographic images of America’s most recent war with Iraq, such as those taken by American soldiers during their occupation of the Abu Ghraib war prison, are in some way “official” images of the war (being that they specifically depict the actual goings-on of the multinational conflict), these images were only given their “official” status after being widely exposed and explicated on national television and in national news writings. Much of the reason for media exposure being the main qualifier for war images being considered official is the simple fact that only through such exposure are the images able to be viewed by a significant enough amount of people so as to be associated with the particular war that they depict. Another possible explanation for why this method of exposure is a means by which images can gain “official” status is that, by being presented with “professional” commentary concerning the images and their connection to various wars, the viewer subconsciously assumes that such images must be official images of a war if they are given so much attention so as to be made note of by those men and women assumed to hold high places of political knowledge and power.

http://clubtroppo.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/whoops.jpg

The above image could certainly have been considered by the American public (following its being displayed on television screens across America) an official image depicting America’s proud “victory” over Iraq soon after the war between the two countries had began. Obviously, the intended purpose of such a specifically pre-planned image of the American President giving a victory speech while standing directly underneath a giant electronic banner displaying the phrase “Mission Accomplished” (superimposed over an American flag for added patriotic effect), was to send the message to the civilians of America that they needn’t worry about possible negative outcomes of the Bush administrations newfound war with Iraq, for in fact, the “mission” had been “accomplished”, and all was well (for Americans at least). Obviously, this declaration of

the mission having been “accomplished” came just a tad too soon, considering the fact that this image was taken in May of 2003, and that even now, on the very cusp of 2008, the American Military’s occupation and “liberation” of Iraq continues. An interesting side note is the fact that this very image is used for a decidedly opposite purpose by various comedians (i.e. The Daily Show’s John Stewart) today, that being satire regarding the Bush administration and its many follies and false foresights, most notably those concerning its dealings with Middle Eastern nations such as Iraq.

http://theredhunter.com/images/Saddam%20Statue%201-thumb.jpg

Above is an image of an Iraqi statue of Saddam Hussein being uprooted by American soldiers amidst an elated crowd of Iraqi citizens. This image and many others of the same scene were, shortly after their being created, proudly displayed in various forms of American news media. The purpose of the photographs of this scene being shown as “official” images of America’s war with Iraq could very well have been to send the message to Americans that, by invading Iraq, the American government was seeing to the overthrow of a tyrant, hated even by his own people (Iraqi citizens could be seen in video footage of the spectacle happily dragging the remains of the statue through Iraqi streets) and thus pursuing justice within another, less liberated nation.

2.) In regards to the difference of opinion between articles such as Libby’s “Culture/War” and Sontag’s “Regarding the Torture of Others” on whether or not images hold harmful ideological power over the viewer, I must admittedly place myself in a moderate position, with an err towards the views expressed in Libby’s article. I believe it is undoubtedly true that images, in the way by which they are intentionally constructed (by the photographer for instance), in the gaze that they assume, and in the limited amount of space/time that they represent, do depict reality with certain biases, and thus perhaps are not accurate references when searching for the absolute truth regarding any situation, such as that having occurred at the Abu Ghraib war prison. As stated by Libby, “…images are not transparent screens through which the viewer can see some truth beyond.” Thus, no matter how shocking or horrifically inhumane the actions depicted within a photograph may appear, one must consider the setting in which the image was created, the intentions of the photographer, as well as many other technical aspects that go into the immortalization of a moment via photography. Though, because of a certain amount of involuntary human emotional reaction, one is undoubtedly inclined to immediately assume sympathy for people being abused or victimized in images and to likewise assume a disgust for the abusers seen in the same images, it is nonetheless detrimental to the objective viewing/assessment of an image to lose sight of the simple fact that it is an image, and should not, again, be assumed as an absolutely unbiased depiction of an actual happening.

On the other hand, when photographs of inhumane torture such as those taken by American soldiers during their occupation of Abu Ghraib are publicly exposed, a certain number of assumptions concerning the images can and should be made. Being that these images depicting decidedly unnecessary and heartless abuse of war prisoners were taken with a seeming sense of pride by the very abusers seen within them, one can assume that such instances of torture were not staged, and were in fact deemed by a number of soldiers and military officials as acceptable and even humorously entertaining treatment of war prisoners. Thus, when the obvious fact is officially established that the images of the American Military’s treatment of Iraqi prisoners are relatively accurate depictions of what happened in reality, what is subsequently most important is how those seen within the images as committing such atrocities are dealt with, as opposed to close, meticulous philosophizing on the ideological nature of the images, and what that nature might imply. The fact of the matter is that these images were created by American Soldiers as a glorification of their incredibly hostile treatment of other unarmed, and thus defenseless human beings. The moment that images of this nature are presented to the American public, and perhaps most importantly, to American government/military officials, the most important issue on which to focus becomes a swift end to such abuse, and just punishment of those having taken part in it. To focus more intensively on the photographs as images rather than what actions they are evidence of can, in fact, be used as a way of avoiding actually addressing the obvious problem within America’s military system that can be clearly seen within the pictures. Susan Sontag reflects on this with the assertion that, “There was, first of all, the displacement of the reality on to the photographs themselves. The administration’s initial response was to say that the president was shocked and disgusted by the photographs – as if the fault or horror lay in the images, not in what they depict.”

3.) It is my strong opinion that war images such as the Abu Ghraib photographs, as well as countless others having been taken of many wars since the dawn of photography, should be made open to public viewing both during and after times of war. Though many might believe it unpatriotic to show any negative images/photographs of American soldiers and their discourse during a time of war with another nation, the result of not making such images open for public viewing is, in my humble opinion, far more detrimental to America as a nation. If American’s are, by their own government, prohibited to view available images of a current war, they are forced to be ignorant to an all-to-important, be it unfortunate as it may, issue concerning their homeland. Ignorance is one of the many tools utilized by dictatorships in order to elicit total trust and subsequent obedience from those masses over which they hold power. Whether or not a nation’s lawmakers/enforcers use the special circumstance that is wartime as an excuse for refusing citizens the right to view any less-than-positive images of their country’s military, such a prohibition is to assume that what is “best” for a national public can be decided without their consent, and even without their knowledge of the whole truth. To make such an assumption is to completely forget, and in fact go against everything that is Democracy, a political philosophy on which America was founded, and by which its Constitution was formed. Sontag, in “Regarding the Torture of Others”, claims that, “…as it was regarded by many as an implicit criticism of the war to show on television photographs of the American soldiers who have been killed in the course of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, it will increasingly be thought unpatriotic to disseminate the new photographs and further tarnish the image of America.” This belief that the public display via photography of the cold, harsh realities of a war is in some way unpatriotic or an “implicit criticism” of the war with Iraq is entirely false. Whatever gung-ho image certain Americans might like to associate with their nation’s attack of Iraq, the truth is, large numbers of American soldiers have died as a direct result of the current Iraq war, as many continue to die with each passing month. These soldiers deserve recognition for the ultimate sacrifice that they gave for their own homeland, whether or not the cause for their combat was just. They were real people, and their deaths were real – the real result of war. Likewise, the Iraqi war prisoners that were shown within publicized images of the Abu Ghraib prison are real men, and the abuse they endured on the part of American soldiers was very much a real and ugly thing. Whether or not an American super-patriot finds such images detrimental to the overall American morale is irrelevant. The goal of wartime photographers should be to display (via photography) the most accurate interpretation of the war that they are covering as is possible. Though it was certainly unbeknownst to them, the American soldiers who photographed their own abuse of Iraqi war prisoners in Abu Ghraib were quite accurately immortalizing, by way of their personal cameras, depictions of events occurring during America’s war with Iraq – events that, without being photographed by these soldiers, and perhaps even more importantly, without being publicized in different forms of media, would not have been brought to attention during discussions of the Iraq war. Americans, and members of any nation or society, deserve as objective a depiction as possible of any past or present war, most especially one in which their own country is immersed. This objective depiction is only possible through extensive display of all facts and actions having taken place on the part of both sides. Americans had and have a right to view the photographs taken at Abu Ghraib, and in fact, if their wish was/is to maintain an unbiased position on the very history-in-the-making that surrounded/surrounds them, viewing these images is vital.

Sources:

1.) Sontag, Susan, “Regarding the Torture of Others”, The New York Times, May 23, 2004

2.) Libby, Susan, “Culture/War”, The International Journal of the Arts in Society, Vol. 1, No. 5, 2007

3.) Gogan, Jessica; Sokolowski, Thomas, “Inconvenient Evidence: Iraqi Prison Photographs from Abu Ghraib”, at The Andy Warhol Museum, text by Hersh, Seymour M., September 11-November 28, 2004

Ruth D. Post 11

Ruth E. Day

1.

Images become “official” because they do something to further a certain cause. In the context of war imagery, official images tend to work to further the idea that the war is just and having positive affects. They tend to be patriotic and glorify the soldiers fighting on our side of the war as heroes. They also bay depict the soldiers fighting for the opposition as evil and sometimes terrorists. I have found two images that have achieved official status regarding the war on terror. The first is an image of a statue of Saddam Hussein being taken down by American soldiers in Baghdad amidst the cheers of Iraqi natives. This image has achieved official status because it furthers the idea that the war in Iraq has accomplished its goal. It has freed Iraq from the tyranny of an evil dictator and has caused much rejoicing among the Iraqi people who were subject to his rule. It leads people who see it to believe that the war has made the world a better place. The second image is a photograph of Sgt. 1^st Class Paul R. Smith as he is serving in the field during the war in Iraq. Sgt. Smith was the first soldier who has served in the war to be awarded the Medal of Honor. He was given this award for his role in the Battle of Baghdad Airport. This image has received official status because it glorifies the soldiers who serve in the military during times of war as heroes. The light around him gives him a sort of halo that makes him look angelic and he is looking at the camera as if he is about to do something important. The gruesome details of his job are not touched upon. He appears very clean despite his very dirty situation.

2.

I believe that images can be harmful, beneficial, or neither depending on who is looking and them and what is in them. For example, the image of the Saddam Hussein statue being toppled can be considered as both beneficial and harmful. It can be beneficial in that it elicits pride in being American and relief over the end of a horrible Iraqi regime. However, it can also be considered harmful in giving Americans a skewed idea of the Iraqi response to American soldiers’ occupation of Iraq. This image shows Iraqis who are happy about their presence but that may not be the case for all citizens. Some may resent the United States Occupation and may have even mourned the fall of Saddam Hussein. This image is could mislead citizens of the United States into believing that all Iraqis hated Saddam Hussein and that the war being fought over there is completely just and in agreement with all other Iraqis. The image of Sgt. Smith can also be beneficial. It honors a very brave man and could help garner support for our troops. Our troops definitely need and deserve support and respect and that is what this image helps spread. This image could also be harmful however because it glorifies the lives of soldiers who are on the front lines. It shows Sgt. Smith clean and about to fight a noble battle. It shows nothing of the gruesome reality of soldiers’ lives. This could lead those thinking about enlisting to believe that all soldiers live a glorious noble lives and some die noble deaths. It could lead them to believe that they are all always honored as Sgt. Smith was and give them a false idea of what to expect when enlisting themselves. Obviously, the purpose of both of these images is to further war ideology but their function is not always harmful. In “Regarding the Torture of Others” argues that we should ignore images as ideological and harmful and focus on the events depicted by them. I agree with this stance in some situations. Such a situation would be one in which images could serve as evidence that a certain event took place. The picture of the falling statue tells us that a statue was there and that it was taken down. That is the event behind the picture. However, in situations where images are not needed solely as evidence that a certain event took place; their ideological and possibly harmful possibilities should not be ignored. Images are powerful and that power should not be taken for granted by ignoring those components.

3.

I do not believe that images should be kept from public view during wartime. Images can both garner support for a war and reveal the harsh realities of it to the public. That is what the Abu Ghraib photographs did. They showed Arab prisoners being abused and even tortured by American soldiers. They opened peoples’ eyes that it isn’t only the terrorists who are capable of evil acts. American soldiers are as well. They show war as something that is not always glorious and noble but as something where people get hurt and abused and exploited. It leads normally good people to commit evil acts. I am a strong believer that situations such as war and tragedy bring out the best in some and the worst in others. It is important to have representations of both sides. Yes, war does cause some to do many heroic things, such as in the case of Sgt. Smith. However, it can lead others to do evil and to lose their sense of morality and their sympathy for other human beings. This is what happened to the American soldiers at Abu Ghraib. War caused their view of right and wrong to be blurred and to rationalize evil acts. This is why I believe that the Abu Ghraib photographs should have been exhibited at the International Center of Photography. If such images are not made public, those of us whose sense of right and wrong have not been skewed by the experience of war can see both sides of the picture: the side that produces people who we can admire by showing the best of the themselves in times of hardship and the side that produces people who, once they have seen the atrocities that human kind is capable of turn to committing those atrocities themselves.

Image sources:

Statue: http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/446366a

Medal of Honor: http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=7091

Kim Post 11

Kim Hambright

1. In times of war, countless images are captured via digital cameras, camcorders, cell phones, and other sorts of electronic devices. The images are sent back to the United States and shared with friends, family members, and often times millions of strangers through their placement on the World Wide Web. The more the images circulate, the more people see them, and the greater chance they have of becoming “official” war images. “Official” images, by social definition, are images that are well known to a large audience. In this case, “official” images of the Iraq war would be easily recognizable to a majority of the American public. Without captions or explanations, the images would be understood, and given meaning. Though the particular meanings of each image will vary person to person, an undeniable understanding of the patriotism, terror, and destruction of war is undeniable in the images.

In the first “official” image, a number of American soldiers form a line in anticipation of some sort of attack. The faces of the men are clearly visible, easily recognized as someone’s son or brother. The interest and intent of this picture, whether conceived purposefully or not, is to gain support for the war. Since the figures are personal, the viewer feels connected to the soldiers, sharing their anticipation, their worries, and their pain. One feels as thought the soldiers are innocent; with their gentle faces and almost timid appearances, these men in uniform can do no wrong. Even amidst what the public knows to be a cruel and harmful place, the viewer sympathizes with the soldiers of the Iraq war, remembering their ties to fellow Americans.

The second image depicts an Iraqi child and an American soldier. Clearly an anti-war image, the photograph contrasts the stark and barren ground with the chaos of war. The soldier standing on the left with the gun is not immersed in battle, nor can the viewer detect any immediate harm in his proximity. In spite of the current lack of necessity for the soldier to don any extreme means of protection, the photographer captures this American soldier with a gun. Several feet away from the soldier stands a young Iraqi child. He appears to be both enamored and afraid of the grandiose adult standing before him. The viewer cannot help but wonder what is taking place in this image, is the soldier threatening a young and innocent child? Or is the image just a cropped version of a larger scene? Whatever the case, the image appears to capture inappropriate behavior on the part of an American soldier. Anti-war activists would look and the image and be horrified; after all, what is an armed American soldier doing anywhere near children?

2. When answering the question, “Can images be harmful?” one must take into consideration the context of the word harmful. Who or what is one worried about harming? Surely the images of the American soldiers at Abu Ghraib were harmful to the reputations of the soldiers and their families, and likewise the images of the planes hitting the twin towers on September 11 are harmful to America’s overall opinion of Middle Easterners. Who though, does one wish to protect from harm?

I agree with some of the statements made by Libby, Gogan and Sokolowski that images can be harmful. Surely images of war and violence can be demoralizing and shocking to the public viewer, though I tend to agree more with Sontag. I feel that people are often too caught up with their immediate reactions and emotions when viewing a photograph that they often forget it actually happened. Ignoring the image mutation possibilities created by programs such as Photoshop, I feel that the raw truths of images are often forgotten or misunderstood when viewers focus on their own reactions to the photos. Whether one is afraid, excited, horrified or unsure of an image is irrelevant. In my opinion, artists of war photography rarely take photographs for the sole purpose of indulging the viewer’s emotions. Instead, photographers attempt to capture real life actions, telling genuine stories of the soldiers overseas and their lives. Though the images may be “harmful” or “offensive” to the masses, I feel that it is the duty of war photographers to capture and expose war as it factually happens. Photographs are meant to bring the truth of an event, regardless of how one feels about it.

3. Looking at war images as a whole, and understanding the power they hold, I still feel that the most important thing is education. Censorship in times of war may be necessary, especially when concealing graphic images of deceased American soldiers; however, I do not feel that it should be used to an extreme. The most important aspect of war photography is informing the public. Thousands of miles away from the action, it is nearly impossible for anyone in the United States to begin to comprehend what the war is like without media venues such as photography and television. It is the responsibility of the people involved with such venues to provide accurate and unbiased information on the events taking place overseas, whether or not said information reflects positively or negatively on the United States military. In order for everyday citizens to make informed decisions and opinions about the war, especially when Presidential elections and other voting situations roll around, it is necessary for them to be accurately informed. The images depicting torturous events taking place at the Abu Ghraib prison may or may not affect the way a particular individual feels about the war; though, it is his or her right to be informed about what his or her country’s military forces are doing overseas, with or without the government’s permission.

I feel that censorship is warranted when concealing situations that would undoubtedly evoke an uprising in the public. In these cases, censorship, controlled by the government, should not only be acceptable, but encouraged. Along with the responsibility to inform the public, comes the responsibility to protect the governmental structure. It is not this way in all cases though. For example, images of destroyed cities, distraught soldiers and unfair treatment of prisoners have no reason to be censored. Granted, I do not believe that images similar to the ones from the Abu Ghraib prison should be displayed in a museum gallery, I feel that is of the utmost importance that all people of America be informed as to the way the soldiers, supposedly fighting for their country, are acting.

Fatema, Post 11. The Last One!

Fatema Kermalli

1) Images become official when they serve the national interest during a war and are thus shown over and over again in order to solidify the country’s stance and reassure the people that they are in the right. As mentioned in the PowerPoint Presentation, four messages which are perpetrated by these “official” images are:

• War is a national endeavor
• War is an American Tradition
• War is manly
• Winning is everything

They all put a positive spin on war, depicting it as a courageous and patriotic act.

One image that fits into the category of “winning” is the toppling of Saddam’s statue in Firdos Square which helped perpetrate the false idea that the war was about to end. Showing such a “victory” scene helped to downplay the fact that battles were still raging throughout Baghdad during that same week… and even that same day. A dramatic decline in war imagery and war stories followed the appearance of victory (70% on Fox News and 26% on CNN), making it seem as though the situation was actually improving within the region (Aday). This was the interest that was served: the image helped to placate the American people by making it seem as though an end were in sight.

Another example of an “official” image relating to the Iraq war is that of President Bush in gear, an image which was usually accompanied by the words “Mission Accomplished”. The picture shown here of a TIME magazine cover doesn’t support the administrations actions at all. But, it does play off of the fact that that very image had been used before much in the same way that the image of Saddam’s statue toppling was used: to prove that everything was going well in the region and that the US was going to win (or already had won) the war.

This last image of another TIME cover shows “The American Soldier” as being the person of the year. Three soldiers are seen standing together in uniform, upright, unyielding, and proud of the work they do. This particular image fits into the category terming war as being “manly”; it also, especially with the help of the wording also present, makes the soldiers who represent the war a source of national pride because of the positive way in which they are represented. Such an image that brings soldiers into the pictures really helps to further the interest of the country because the military is one aspect of war that most everybody agrees about: nobody would want to say that they don’t support the military when the people in the military are losing their lives for the protection of others.

Overall, the images work towards gaining a national unity in favor of the war that is occurring. It is also important to note, however, that these pro-state images are not the only ones that make it to the front covers, even if they are the majority and the most likely to do so. Other images, sometimes precisely for the reason that they were first censored and thus caused an uproar, also make the covers (such as the image of a detainee with his head covered by a sack, or about to be “electrocuted” and even to an extent the flag-draped coffins). These, I suppose, are never really “official”, however, as they work to the detriment of those leading the charge.

Aday, Sean, John Cluverius and Steven Livingston. “As Goes the Statue, So Goes the War: The Emergence of the Victory Frame in Television Coverage of the Iraq War.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. 49 no. 3 (Sep 2005), 314-331.

2) I agree that images have a lot of power which, like all power, can be used for good or bad (depending on how you look at it). This notion goes all the way back to Plato’s use of images to further the state, as well as Hitler’s, and the differing ideas regarding modern art during times of fear and war.

But in the photography of real-life events – photography which was not even done with the idea of propaganda, such as was be the case with the other examples seen as either helping or harming “the state” – should we ignore the images (to an extent) and focus on the events?

First, let me quote Sontag herself and clarify her position: “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 does not appear to be arguing at all that we should ignore the images at all; rather, she ties the fact that the images were taken to the actions, and then focuses on the fact that these actions occurs. And I totally agree with her.

Torture was occurring even before these pictures “came out”… and there were people who knew about it (as proven in greater detail in part 3). This maltreatment, even if it wasn’t of the same type as the posing which was done for the images that we see today, still existed and was still deplorable. The actions themselves solicit the responses of disgust. The images main role was really in making the actions available to the view of the public… without which, people would not know what was going on in the prisons.

As Sontag said, fact that these people would actually smile at the camera behind the naked detainees and regard the whole event with humor worth saving in the form of a picture is indeed quite horrific; however, the acts themselves can stand alone as being horrific occurrences whilst the pictures are as disconcerting as they are because of the fact that the things depicted therein really happened. The response against the pictures is not one calling for the stop of photography in prisons as much as it is a call for the stop of torture itself. The torture is what is inhumane, and it remains so even if no picture is taken of it occurring.

3) Images of war definitely should not be kept from public view during wartime because doing so deliberately misleads the population into believing things are much better than they really are. People have a right to know what is going on, not only because they are the ones going or being sent off to war, but also because they have the responsibility, if it is wrong, to change it.

So should the Abu Ghraib photos have been exhibited? Unequivocally, yes. These images brought to light for many people some of the atrocities that were occurring within US prisons. It forced the administration/military to own up a bit more, to do something about what was going on. As Sontag states, the pictures were “…necessary to get our leaders to acknowledge that they had a problem on their hands. After all, the conclusions of reports… about the atrocious punishments inflicted on 'detainees' and 'suspected terrorists'… have been circulating for more than a year… Up to then, there had been only words, which are easier to cover up… so much easier to forget.”

This idea that the human rights violations were simply ignored before the pictures came out is mirrored in the report by an independent panel headed by Schlesinger, “…the first to assign responsibility for the abuse of prisoners… to senior Pentagon officials including Defense Secretary Rumsfeld.” In the Abu Ghraib Timeline presented in “Inconvenient Evidence”, it says: “The report states that officials were aware of the problems at the detention facilities and failed to address them.”

The purpose of showing these images is thus to raise awareness of the occurrences and help to wake the people up to the truth of this war and its costs… not just to us, but also to the rest of the world. And it seems that the administration is aware of the power of these images to force change… which is precisely why they are afraid of them. Sontag in her article says that Rumsfeld acknowledged the existence of many more photographs and videos, and said: “If these are released to the public, obviously, it’s going to make matters worse.” Presumably, as Sontag states, it would be worse “for the administration…not for those who are the actual – and potential? – victims of torture.”

Not only can exhibiting these pictures help bring justice in the present, it can also provide the force to stop even more injustice in the future.

So while I don’t know about everyone else, I’m most assuredly willing to trade a bit of dissent for the safeguarding of justice and human rights.

Christopher Post 11

Christopher McCauley

Question 1

Most everything has an image or multiple images associated with it. War especially has images associated with it because it is such a huge thing in today’s world. The War on Terror or the War in Iraq (or whatever they are calling it these days…), has been going on for several years now. It has had a huge impact on the globe. One reason that it has had a huge impact is the fact that we have images that can show us the horrors of war, rather than just a few words to describe it.

What does it mean to be an image of war? And just because an image may be of war, does that mean that it is “official”? An official image is one that has become “standard,” or incredibly recognizable. There are certain images that people think of when they think of the War on Terror. Several of these images are of the attacks on September 11, 2001, on the World Trade Center in New York City. If these attacks had never happened, there would not be a war going on right now, in my opinion. Therefore, such images are highly relevant in the history of the War on Terror in Iraq.

Sometimes we can also see parallels between two wars, and images associated with those wars can show this. A famous photograph from World War II shows a flag being raised by soldiers amidst the clutter and rubble of battle in Iwo Jima (a small island in the Pacific). There is an image from 9-11 depicting a flag being raised amongst the rubble of the attacks as well—there is an eerie similarity between the two photographs. Each are beautiful images, which are highly recognizable as photographs of war.

During this war, the Iraqi government has been reformed into a crude democracy. Within the past few years, the first elections have occurred in Iraq in its entire history. When Iraqi citizens voted, they were required to stick their finger in purple ink, to signify that they had voted. An image of this (shown below), has become official because of its widely recognizable symbolism of increasing freedom in Iraq. This photograph depicts what little triumph US involvement has triggered in Iraq, and may also symbolize future advancements.

Question 2

“Sontag argues that we should ignore the images as such and focus on the events depicted in them.” I would absolutely agree with this argument. Yes, content in images can be dangerous; however, sometimes it is important for these images to be seen to get messages, themes, and news across. “Photographs have laid down the tracks of how important conflicts are judged and remembered.” In the modern world, photographs have become an integral part of history, and are extremely important. Take for example, the photograph of Mary Ann Vecchio kneeling over the body of a dead student at Kent State in 1970. It is a horrible image, and beautiful image, and at the time (and even still today) a necessary image. This shows what horrible things war can do. Even in peaceful protests, a “war” erupted, and killed a human life. Someone in that picture died. The look of pain, sorrow, and despair on Vecchio’s face embodies this completely and beckons to the viewer, for help, and for answers. We are in a way, included in this photograph. Sontag even said, “Photographs are us.”

Question 3

I am not a proponent of censorship of war photography; therefore I do not think it is right to hide war images during wartime. If a war is going on, people need to know about it. They best way to know about it is to see it. Photography has given our society that advantage. Whether or not such photographs are damaging does not matter. Being able to view these images, such as the photographs from Abu Ghraib, is such an asset to our society. It helps us see what war can do to our people, and to humankind. It is an atrocity, and yes these pictures paint a group of American soldiers and beastly and barbaric, but these photographs serve a purpose of anti-war. These images may prevent war from occurring again, or help resistance to war spread.

http://www.wgerlach.com/archives/disasters/index.html

http://www.britannica.com/eb/art/print?id=71966&articleTypeId=0

http://teachpol.tcnj.edu/amer_pol_hist/thumbnail399.html

http://www.fairvote.org/blog/?p=20

http://www.worldsfamousphotos.com/kent-state-1970.html

Theresa C, Post 11

Theresa Chu

Part I

War images become “official” when they serve to represent the government’s interest on the war. The “official” images convey ideologies of patriotism and honor in order to garner support for the government’s agenda; therefore, we can see that many, if not all, of the “official” war images contain subjects along the lines of proud soldiers in uniform standing with the country’s flag billowing in the wind in the background or government officials giving a sweeping look of satisfaction over organized troops.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/2007-01-10_Mission_Accomplished.jpg

In this image, George W. Bush is seen holding a thumbs-up sign in front of a sign reading “Mission Accomplished.” A crowd including soldiers can be seen cheering for him. This image conveys how the goals of the war have been met as well as the amount of support the crowd is giving the president; furthermore, the troops are in support of a president who is sending them to war.

http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/AFP_Photo/2006/09/28/1159438877_9412.jpg

Soldiers can be seen bowing their heads in prayer in this image; thus, furthering the message that the Iraq War is a moral war that is being fought with honor and integrity and that God is on the side of the “good” guys.

http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/blog/Bush%20Marines%20Iraq%20%20jim%20watson%20afp%20getty%20images-thumb.jpg
George W. Bush can be seen speaking to a group of what appears to be hundreds of soldiers who appear to be listening intently and respectfully to everything the president is saying. By displaying this image, the government wants the American people to see that the troops who are giving their lives for their country support the president; therefore, those who are safe at home should also support the president. This image also shows that the commander-in-chief does care about those being sent off to war.

Part II

Images wield significant power and can thus be ideological and very harmful. Looking at the pictures in Inconvenient Evidence: Iraqi Prison Photographs from Abu Ghraib disgusted and shocked me more than reading the accompanying text. Inscribed in these images is the potential to completely ruin the efforts the government is trying to make in Iraq; furthermore, with each new “unofficial” image emerging from the war, the reputation of the United States becomes even more tainted.

Sontag argues that the viewer should be more focused on the event occurring in the photo rather than the photo itself; however, the photo IS the evidence of the event. Without the images, the viewer would not be able to associate as much with the event than if an image was available. The image also serves to bond those who view it together: “Vernacular photography also serves a bonding purpose in its ability to create a sense of community and group identity among participants in events and between the participants in events and between the participants and the viewers” (Libby 45). Knowing this, if Sontag wants the viewer to focus on the event, then it would be more efficient to have the viewer focus on an image of an event. By concentrating on the images from Abu Ghraib, for example, the viewer can then center better on the events being depicted in the images.

Part III

Although they may be graphic and disturbing, images of war should not be kept from public view during wartime. It is the right of the people to know everything that is occurring as a result of the choices made by the leaders they elect into office. Photos that portray the cruel and dishonorable side of war, such as the Abu Ghraib photos, should definitely have been exhibited. Citizens must be made aware of the events occurring outside the borders of their respective countries. Many people harbor ideas of superiority in comparing their country to others. To say the least, many Americans instill in themselves the belief that they are untouchable when it comes to morality, honor, integrity, courage, and every other good virtue; however, because of the Abu Ghraib photos, we, along with others around the world, can see that this is not the case. These photos bring the harsh realities of the brutality and heartlessness of war into view better than any form of text ever could.

Ally, Post 11

Ally Best
Post 11

1. The term “official” brings to mind boy band fan clubs and facebook groups. Why would groups want to use such a term? Most likely, they use the term “official” to add a certain validity to the group; to show that the club or group represents the best interests of the subject. Some war images are considered “official” for similar reasons. Most often images are considered official when they are somehow endorsed by the subject. In the case of the war in Iraq, the military and, ultimately, the government are being portrayed, so they are generally the ones who, through the media, determine which images are deemed “official” and ok to represent the war. Several magazine covers depict such images. One “Times” magazine shows a woman wearing a combat hat and gazing off into the distance. If this does not spark patriotic vibes in a person, I don’t know what will. This image portrays not simply an American soldier, but a woman. By picturing a female, the magazine has accomplished two goals. First of all, as the caption reads, and her gender seems to imply, she is a mother. She has a family. Her role as not simply a soldier but a family member draws attention to all of the sacrifices members of the American military have been forced to make. Viewers tend to rally behind individuals they can relate to and sympathize with. Once the public supports the soldiers, they begin to support the war itself, or at least that’s what the government hopes will happen. The government, while not directly telling the media what to produce, is able to influence them by promoting certain images and stories. Another example of an “official” image appears on yet another “Times” magazine cover. The title boldly advertises “The Sinister World of Saddam,” and, by the look of the image, “sinister” is the perfect word to describe the image. The photograph portrays a tile mural in Baghdad depicting Saddam. With his hat pulled low, dark sunglasses, thick moustache, and unsmiling face, he seems to exude a sense of evil. This representation helped viewers see Saddam exactly as the government wanted them to: a mysterious monster. By picturing Saddam, the media also succeeded in providing a face for the people’s hatred. Most people would have had trouble hating an entire country they knew very little about. However, when the media began showing pictures of Saddam, he became a symbol of terrorism and corruption. US citizens were able to unite behind their common hatred for him and give more support to the war in Iraq.

2. “Practices of Looking” discusses the effect mass media can have on public opinion. As the article argues, the results of certain images can be incredibly powerful. We see an image of five happy people sitting around a dinner table and suddenly we know what a family is “supposed” to be. We see advertisements of women dressed in tiny clothes and wearing loads of makeup being followed by attentive male stalkers and we know what a woman is “supposed” to look like. The danger with such images is that they cause us to forget that we are “supposed” to be individuals, not clones of the images we see. The world is made up of many different people with many different beliefs and views. This diversity adds beauty to the world and makes it a better place to live by pulling on the strengths of a wide variety of people. Imagine how utterly meaningless life would seem if you walked out of your house one day to see that every woman had turned into Paris Hilton and every man had become Patrick Dempsey. Yet, so many people attempt to emulate the images they see that portray the “ideal” ways of life. Images tell us a lot of things about life that we are better off discovering ourselves. The visual has the ability to ignite emotions that the literal can barely touch. However, while images can have very powerful consequences, the real power is a result of the event or theme to which they refer. As the “Culture/War” article explains, image controversies “erupt along existing fault lines dividing highly polarized positions on social and political issues.” In other words, the “wars” that center around images are not “created” by the images themselves, but rather by some other issue already present in society. Sontag refers with frustration to peoples’ tendency to act “as if the fault or horror lay in the images, not in what they depict” (“Regarding the Torture of Others”). She is entirely right. Images are like telescopes. Their power is in allowing us to view certain phenomena, but they themselves are really quite unremarkable. In other words, images are powerful not because of what they are, but because of what they allow us to see.

3. “These pictures will not go away” (Sontag, “Regarding the Torture of Others”). These are perhaps the most powerful words in Sontag’s essay. Referring to the Abu Ghraib photos, Sontag is discussing the inability of the influence of the photos to be silenced. Once released, they had such an immediate, appalling, and memorable effect on the American public that there was no way to simply recall them and forget about them. They were already burned into the brains of millions of people across the globe. Some people argue that such images should be kept from the public, especially in times of war. They argue that the images will only create anger. They are entirely right: the images will create anger. In a war against terrorism, “some of our own” are terrorizing “the enemy.” This event SHOULD create anger. People SHOULD get mad. By exhibiting the photos in the International Center of Photography, people got angry; they grew passionate, as they should have. Nearly every great change in American history is the result of people with passion. When there are injustices in the world, people have a duty to stand up for humankind. If that means people have to see images that they are not “comfortable” with, then so be it.

Amy I post 11

Amy Iarrobino

Post 11

1.

March 31, 2003
Marines from TF Tarawa hand out needed food and supplies to Iraqi citizens near An Nasariyah, Iraq, while in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, March 31, 2003. (U.S. Marine Corps Photo by Lance Cpl. Nealy)

March 30, 2003
On March 30, 2003, in Umm Qasr, Iraq, a group of Iraqi people wave at the passing coalition forces who are in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. (U.S. Marine Corps Photo by Lance Cpl. Matthew R. Jones)

April 8, 2003
An Iraqi boy holds a humanitarian food ration given to him by U.S. Army soldiers during an effort to distribute food and water to Iraqi citizens in need. (U.S. Navy photo by Photographer's Mate 1st Class Arlo K. Abrahamson)

President George W. Bush and President Jalal Talabani of Iraq, shake hands Tuesday, Oct. 2, 2007, as they meet in the Oval Office. White House photo by Eric Draper

The four photographs are clearly official as they are taken and sponsored by the U.S. government. Despite the fact that the Abu Ghraib pictures were also taken by military personnel, the above official photographs were meant to be published and used to depict a positive image of the Iraq War in favor of the government. In the first three pictures all of the images indicate that the United States troops are having a positive impact on the Iraqi people. Official simply means endorsed by the government.

The first image has no reference to actual warfare involving deaths and fighting. Rather, the image makes it seem that the U.S. troops are in Iraq simply on humanitarian mission. In direct contrast to the unofficial images of coffins, torture and road-side bombs, these photographs focus on peace and the altruistic motives of the United States.

The second image indicates Iraqi men waving in joy to the American soldiers. Once again the image indicates that the Iraqi men see U.S. soldiers as helpful. Their exuberance indicates the soldiers to even be rescuers. The way that they are waving is similar to the cliché visual of castaways signaling for helpwaving in joy to the American soldiers. Once again the image indicates that the Iraqi men see U.S. soldiers as helpful. Their exuberance indicates the soldiers to even be rescuers. The way that they are waving is similar to the cliché visual of castaways signaling for help in desperation. Iraq is thus depicted as a depraved and war-ridden land from which the people need to be saved.

The third image is the quintessential heart-jerking pro-Iraq War image. The main focus is the little child, representing innocence and dependence. Notably, in this official image the child is holding a food package clearly marked in English: “Food Gift From the People of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Humanitarian Daily.” The positioning of the child and clear visibility of the source of the humanitarian aid indicates that this photograph was taken purposefully. The words are in English indicating that the target viewing audience is the American people.

The final image is the first image to appear on the screen when clicking on the Iraq topic link on the whitehouse.gov website. Thus, this is the official image that the government wishes to portray as the face of the Iraq war: cooperation. The image is of the leaders of the United States and Iraq presumably finishing a discussion and making an agreement in a cooperative manner, as indicated by the hearty handshake depicted in the image.

The White House website includes several photo galleries of official Iraq War images: http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/photoessay/essay1/01.html.

2.

Images can be ideological and harmful because they are subjective. Subjectivity affects the interpretation and creation of the image on the part of the viewer and the photographer/artist respectively. For example, Libby stresses the importance of the social relations in which an image exists (Libby, 44) and its “external relations with spectators and with the world” (Libby, 45). These relations determine interpretation and effect of an image on the viewer through various gazes. For example, the several gazes studied in this course and discussed in “Practices of Looking”: male gaze, feminist gaze, political gaze and numerous others. The perspective or mindset of the viewer thereby determines whether the image is ideological and harmful. Each gaze may assign a different ideology to the image. The potential for an image to have a harmful effect is based on this ideology. If the image challenges a firmly held ideology it may be harmful to the believer and solidarity of a group. Also, as indicated by the Bobo experiments in psychology mentioned in a previous blog, images can induce violence. Children who watched an actress on screen behaving violently with a stuffed doll they were more likely to behave in a similar fashion when presented with the doll.

The subjectivity when creating the image attests to both the ideological nature of images as well as the importance of focusing on the image rather than the actual event. The subjective and interpretive nature of image-making presents problems when determining the reliability of images as depicting true events. Libby directly negates Sontag’s argument in focusing on the events and ignoring the image as Libby states, “With all due respect to Sontag, I propose that much of the fault and horror [of the Abu Ghraib photographs] does in fact lie in the images, precisely because images are not transparent screens through which the viewer can see some truth beyond” (Libby, 44). Photographs are not transparent screens depicting all of the realities of that moment as pictures can manipulate “looking relations and line of sight among the pictured subjects and between the pictured subjects and the camera/viewer” (Libby, 46). Thus, framing is a major factor in the message an image sends to the viewer. For example, “the photographer chooses what to photograph, the vantage point, the proximity to or distance from the objects in the photograph and” what not to include in the picture (Libby, 46).

However, although I disagree that the only focus should be the events depicted in the image, I do agree that there is some truth in the photographs. The fact that the photographs were even able to be taken and at times posed is extremely disturbing. The fact that a smile appeared on a soldiers face as he looked at a person being tortures is undeniable.

3.

Images of war should be shown to the public. Limiting such freedom is a violation of freedom of expression and should thus be unlawful to limit if it does not reveal military intelligence that would endanger troops. Also, if Americans are to make informed decisions they must be presented with as much evidence as possible so that they can know the consequences of their decisions. The more information decision makers have the more likely the plan of action is to be successful. However, when referring to information, this includes images that equally represent all areas of war: the fighting, the death, the humanitarian aspect and accomplished missions. Knowing both sides of an argument ensures that the best analysis is undertaken and an educated decision is made.

Abu Ghraib photographs can acceptably be displayed in the International Center of Photography as long as the positive aspects of the war are also properly represented. One-sided arguments are dangerous to the public due to the psychological availability heuristic “in which we use the ease with which we can recall instances of an event in memory to help us estimate the frequency of the event” (Pastorino & Doyle-Portillo, 313). Thus, if the media is flooded by only negative images of the Iraq War, when a viewer is asked about the war a negative outlook will be most easily available and thus adopted. The negative portrayals are so frequent that they are easily recalled from memory. The availability heuristic explains the reason why opinion of the Iraq War declined after the mass distribution and media frenzy of the Abu Ghraib images. Due to the availability of these images of torture, viewers most likely determined that such torture was frequent in Iraq. In order to minimize the bias that results from the availability heuristic, images must be equally represented from all angles of the Iraq War.

Pastorino, Ellen, and Susann Doyle-Portillo. What is Psychology. Belmont: Wadsworth, 2006

Hoffman Post 11

1) It is very tempting to say of images that they become official when they achieve a sort of universally accepted status. However, nothing so high minded or egalitarian need be true of “official” images. Instead, we can consider that anything has attained a position of official-ness as soon as it is sanctioned by whatever the relevant office is. In this case, images become official when they are the ones accepted and promoted by the office or authority in a given area. When the area in question is war, the office in charge of governing the area is clearly the government. Hence, images of war become official when they are the ones being supported and promoted by the government.

Given that the government does not have complete control of all images or the media, however, there are always images that surface that contradict and disagree with the official ones. When these opposition images gain enough support and credibility, they can gain a certain kind of official-ness as well. While they are not sanctioned by the government, they can be sanctioned by the media “office,” or the dominant forces in the media world. While in some senses our view of photographs is such that we consider all pictures to be authoritative, there are countless pictures being taken all the time, and considering them all to be the official images seems to run counter to the definition of official.

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

This image has been fairly widely circulated since the invasion of Iraq. While the actual context of the picture is unknown, the image appears to depict a tank or other armor motor vehicle driving up a deserted highway. The road sign, clearly visible in the picture, reads “Baghdad.” This image sends a very clear message: the United States military, moving in on Baghdad, without even the slightest opposition before it. The image symbolically represents the message the President and the government wished to spread about the invasion. We came, we saw, and we conquered with little to no difficulty.

http://www.sar.org/ohssar/WarOnTerror.jpg

While this image does not necessarily relate to the Iraq war directly, it is clearly a product of 9/11 and the war on terror. This was an image that appeared in many different places in the months following the attacks on 9/11. It is clearly meant to inspire patriotic feelings of sympathy for the victims of 9/11. By constantly reinforcing the reality of the situation to the general populace and by stressing the point that we had been attacked, the government was capable of creating a kind of unify force. This patriotic unity was then available to be used as support for the invasion of Afghanistan (and eventually Iraq). It should be clear what the government had to gain from sanctioning this as an official image.

http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/blog/Bush%20Marines%20Iraq%20%20jim%20watson%20afp%20getty%20images.jpgv

This is another image that sends very clear messages about the military. This time around, however, the focus is primarily upon the President and his relationship with the military. Bush is seen addressing soldiers, surrounded by them on all sides. Visually, the image makes a strong argument for the strength of Bush’s relationship with the soldier and their loyalty toward him. No one is seen questioning the war or arguing with the President. Instead, he is one of them, and they are, quite literally, standing with and behind him.

http://www.rubyan.com/politics/missionacccoffx.jpg

Unlike the previous three examples, this is perhaps not an official image. Pictures of this sort have been conspicuous in their absence from the current conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. While pictures of the coffins coming home were present during previous wars and while it is clear that American soldiers are dying in the Middle East, we have seen surprisingly few images of this sort. The vested interest that the government has in keeping such images from becoming official should be immediately apparent. A picture such as this reminds us of the toll of the war and makes us question whether or not it is worth fighting; these are just the sorts of questions that undermine the power of the government and therefore just the sorts of questions that it benefits the government to have us not asking.

2) When it comes to an issue of images being ideological and/or possibly harmful, the philosopher in me has a certain immediate reaction. Whether the image itself carries with it any meaning or if it is merely the events depicted in the image that matter is something of a question of realism versus idealism. Sontag’s arguments are ultimately ineffective because they rely upon the existence of the “subject matter of the picture,” when in reality we have no reason to actually believe that any such subject matter exists. We can attempt to analyze the ideological value of the picture itself, for that we have, but we cannot evaluate the speculative world in itself, for we do not have it. From a Kantian perspective, we can never know anything about this world. So too can we know nothing about the actual events depicted about the Abu Ghraid pictures or other images from looking at photographs. All we can know about is the photographs themselves.

That being said, what can we say about the ideological nature of images? It seems fairly clear to me that images can and do carry with them certain ideological commitments. To argue the opposite is to do the impossible; one would need to establish that images of all kinds say absolutely nothing. This is blatantly absurd. Images must have connected ideological messages for us to see them as anything other than formal expressions of abstract structure and composition.

So if images are ideological, can they be harmful? This is where it becomes difficult to make blanket statements. For some people who are operating under certain paradigms, no image is truly offensive or destructive. For others (whom I would feel safe saying are the majority), at least some images can be considered harmful. This eventually boils down to a matter of perspective. If only one person claims that images are harmful to them, how could we possibly refute them? We would be forced to concede that images can, in fact, be harmful under certain circumstances or to certain people.

3) In cases where a given picture could undermine national security or put lives at risk, then yes, those images ought to be censored. We should not go around publishing pictures of sensitive intelligence information. That being said, I doubt these are the sorts of issues to which the question is referring. The images from Abu Ghraib, for instance, do not directly undermine national security or place our soldiers (or anyone else, for that matter) in greater harm. They make us look bad and give the Iraqis another reason to hate or distrust us, but they are not directly dangerous images.

If the images are not directly dangerous, then they ought not be censored. As a country that is, at least nominally, run by the people, we should be informed about what exactly is going on during the war that we are helping to support. We should know as much about the war as we can without placing those fighting the war in danger. This becomes only more important when instances like Abu Ghraid highlight just how capable of depravity our own side can be.

Still, there can be many troubling or disturbing images that arise out of war, and people should not have such things forced upon them. Ideally we would be able to make the images available to the public in such a way as to allow those who so wished to view the images while allowing those who so wished to avoid them. Some might say that we should not allow anyone to continue living in ignorance and that we ought to show the realities of war to everyone, regardless of their own wishes or inclinations. This brings us back to the point in part two, however; what right does anyone have to decide how others should view images? If someone is offended by a given image, who are we to say that ought not be? Those in favor of total viewing would be offended if the other side made their choice for them, so why should it not go both ways? Failure to see things from other points of view or respect other choices than our own is what gets us into the mess of war in the first place.