1.) War images become “official” through repetition and their power to symbolize ideologies. The image achieves this “official” status from government and media support. It is backed by the government’s effort to keep it in circulation, and the media prints it in magazines and newspapers, plasters it on billboards, and floods the televisions. War becomes a single moment, whether in a real photograph or a cartoon-drawn image, and ideas are represented within this moment. The reason these ideas are supported by the government and by the people (either of their own accord or as a result of the government-supported media portrayal) is that they confirm specific identities of the nation that are desirable in a time of war. These identities are based on patriotism and concepts the nation considers itself to hold valuable, such as human rights and environmental welfare. The “official” image depicts exactly what mass society wants to believe about its government and the role it plays in the war. It embodies the very reasons we justify our fighting, as well as the reasons we believe our cause is worth soldiers’ lives. We want to believe that our part in the war is for the better of the world, and so the “official” image strokes our ego and confirms this for us. Inevitably the image possesses a political agenda, but it is one we want to uphold as a nation. “Official” war images serve exactly the purpose Plato describes in The Republic, one of empowering the nation toward unification and progress.
The following images satisfy their position of being “official” through similar portrayals of American ideology. The first displays an American soldier helping a small Iraqi child. Not only does this show the generosity and compassion of Americans in bringing medicine to those less fortunate, but the happy mother in the background shows us approval and gratitude for our actions from the Iraqis. The second image shows Muslims and Christians working together to reopen St. Jude’s. This image becomes a sign that
2.) In “Regarding the Torture of Others” Susan Sontag may present the argument that images should be ignored as ideological and that we should focus rather on the events depicted by the photo. But this she addresses as a factor in the corruption of American leadership. Sontag herself does not deny the capacity of photographs to hold ideological values. She recognizes that they are causing an issue not just because of “what the photographs reveal to have happened,” but also as a result of more implicit meanings the images possess. Sontag addresses that a further problem is that the pictures were used as “trophies” and the “perpetrators apparently had no sense that there was anything wrong in what the pictures show.” She hardly wants us to ignore the images as separate from ideologies when she makes the claim that they illustrate the “culture of shamelessness (and) the reigning admiration for unapologetic brutality” that has increasingly become accepted as entertainment in
An analysis of the pictures and not necessarily of their depictions, however, reveals even further portrayals of ideologies. As Susan Libby explains in her “Culture/War” article, elements of the picture itself such as camera angle, character of being an “everyday picture,” gaze of the people present, and even the fact that someone controlled the camera as the picture was taken all play a part in a picture’s ideological implications. These specific aspects when applied to the Abu Ghraib photographs reveal principles of domination, control, and inequality (Libby). They become dangerous as they are circulated to the public, and these ideologies are presented to society through the visual representations.
What is depicted in the Abu Ghraib photos directly reflects many of the same ideologies that can be found in the analysis of the pictures as vernacular photography. This can actually lessen the degree of harmful potential because those who do not accept the explicit are likely to not accept the implicit either. Thus in this case viewers of the public can reject the violence they see being depicted simultaneously with the latent ideas of domination and control. As Libby points out, visual representation is about “controlling our knowledge,” something that is utilized heavily in the political world. The real dangers arise when ideologies are imbedded within a picture that people accept. The best example of this concept is a picture that actually depicts something agreeable with the viewer, but is imbedded as an image with ideological ideas possessing harmful values. An image previously discussed in this course, Roses for Stalin by Vladimirski shows an agreeable photo of children giving roses to Joseph Stalin. Some underlying messages here that can be delivered furtively through the positive exterior are of communism, dictatorship, and male domination. This idea of the public more readily identifying accepting the explicit part of the image and consequently accepting the implicit is discussed in “Mass Media and the Public Sphere” as the “hypodermic effect” effect of mass media. This refers to “an increased passivity in viewers ‘drugged’ by media texts with less explicitly political messages.” When performed, it can become a “means of domination” on the masses of people by “‘selling’ them ideas through the media” (Sturken). Photos can have the same effect even if they have parallel meanings, but that are used to represent something that is not congruent with the two. Take the example of when only pictures that project a positive image of our efforts in a war are shown. The actual depiction may be something positive just as the ideologies represent (see photos from question #1), but they do not offer the full scope of the situation. The negative aspects are not represented. As to what is harmful ideology is to a degree up to discretion, but when the minds of the masses can be controlled by hidden or completely absent ideologies, there is great danger in the corruption of societies.
The separation of the photos from ideologies does make for successful politics, though. Those in the Bush Administration can then claim to be shocked and appalled at the photos, since they do not represent the “‘true nature and heart of America’” (Sontag). This separation, though, is like putting on a neck brace—they can cover up the problem and prevent further damage, but they are not actually going in and reconstructing and fixing the framework. And yet do we blame them so readily without any ideas of alternative methods? Analyzing ideologies and working to change them requires the removal of longstanding accepted ideas. Not only does it require the deconstruction of present ideologies, but new ones must be ready to successfully establish in their absence. This takes a great amount of time and effort, and the people of a country need immediate attention as well as perseverance through time. And we cannot forget that new ideologies can most certainly not be accepted or instilled by authorities who the masses do not trust.
2.) With all of this in mind it is important not only for those in control of the dissemination of images to be conscious of the vulnerable public they are providing for, but it is important for us as viewers to be critical of the information we are presented. Censorship has many fine lines, and there should be differences between what can be shown in an elementary school classroom and what an adult citizen can view by choice. Images of war may be kept from the view of younger audiences, but should not be kept from the public at large, especially the public of the country actually in the war. The exhibition of photographs is just as important during war as during a time of peace. Just because something is already in progress does not constitute the need for its continuation, and photos that question the movement of the war thus become very important in its path. The Abu Ghraib photos provide a perfect demonstration of the horrors of war that we are often sheltered from. Without exhibition, actions may not be accounted for, and the terrible things people are capable of can be allowed to proceed. By excusing accountability we often excuse responsibility, and not only can actions continue, but the dangers can escalate if those performing them have no one watching and thereby no one holding them accountable. Alas it is evident that even the exposition of these horrors does not always lead to their demise, but we cannot expect anything to change if the images remain hidden from the public eye.
