Maxine R. Post 11

Maxine Rivera

Part I

War images become "official" through repeated exposure. When an image becomes something that we instantly associate with a particular war, or war in general, it begins to officially represent war. The repeated exposure occurs through the media, television, magazines, newspapers, billboards, etc. will show the same image to the public over and over until the public cannot help but call a specific image to mind when they hear the word "war." Depending on the image used, the people may have positive, supportive notions about the war, or negative, dissenting feelings. This is perhaps why politicians and people in power work so hard to control what images become official images of war. It would be desirable that the official images be images that champion the cause, that put our side in the best possible light, and make us look not only victorious, but righteous. In controlling what images become official, these influential people must also carefully censor what images must not become official, images that show the gruesome, inhumane, and dangerous side of war are not desired to be in the public eye, such images would not rally support of the masses.

http://www.tiger-tail.org/images/statue1.jpg

This is one image from our current war that has become official. One way of knowing that an image is official is that just about everyone (from a given audience, for instance, a country involved in the war) can identify the image; they have seen it before and they know what is going on. This particular image is of a statue of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein. There is a crowd of Iraqis around the base of the statue. This image is considered a point of pride, it is symbolically and literally knocking/ pulling Saddam Hussein off his pedestal with the support of the people. America is shown as (a) successful, (b) loved by the natives and (c) doer of good, bringer of democracy and stability. There was later controversy over the picture, apparently the crowd is just what is seen in the photograph, not a huge crowd as the audience would assume. Either way it serves the purposes of the government by putting America in a positive light, we are efficiently achieving our goals with the support of Iraqi people; job well done. It also serves to soothe Americans who might have felt doubtful about our presence in Iraq, it answers questions like "are we doing the right thing... are we accomplishing anything at all... do the people even want us there..." with a resounding yes.

This next image has also become an official image of the Iraq War. It is an image of President Bush in uniform on a visit to the troops. Again, the image is official due to its notoriety, it has been displayed on every television channel, in many magazines and newspapers, it can easily be found anywhere on the internet, and if you were to say to an American "that picture of President Bush in the flight suit" they would know exactly what you were talking about. The image once again serves the purposes of the government, the commander-in-chief is hands on. He addresses the troops in person, and is clearly involved in the war, not just sitting on a cushy chair in the Oval Office giving orders. He is smiling and waving, giving the impression that everything is fine. He is dresses as "one of the boys" to show the people that he is just that, the photo is very effective propaganda. The leader of the nation is involved and supportive, his calm manner relates a sense of control to the viewers telling them that everything is fine, going according to plan. This is the type of image that politicians would want to become official. Yet again there was controversy surrounding this image, several people took offense tot he attire of the president.
http://homepage.mac.com/brianflemming/iblog/images/bush_flight_suit325x385.jpg
These two images exemplify some of the "photojournalistic flourishes designed to make war palatable" such as the freeing of oppressed, miserable people, and the fully invested leader. (Gogan & Sokolowski, Inconvenient Evidence 3)

Part II
Photographs have amazing power in our society today, with great power comes the capacity for great danger. The often feel that photographs have the power to tell us the truth, something we value as absolute, above all else, "the distinction between photograph and reality... can easily evaporate." (Sontag, "Regarding the Torture of Others" 8) With the public trusting that photographs are "neutral signs that passively provide visual records of what is recognizable in the image" and the current ability to easily alter images, I definitely believe that images can be not only ideological but also harmful. (Libby, Culture/ War: The Visual Politics of Representation in the Abu GhraibPhotographs, 43) "Words add, words alter, words subtract." (Sontag 1) Today's technology also makes this true of photographs, with simple photoshop one can crop a picture, therefore subtracting, superimpose other images or bits of other images, adding, and change colors (for example, deepening the blue of the sky can make a day time picture appear to have been taken at night) and distort faces, sizes, etc., altering. Not to mention the power held by the photographer, he/she "chooses what to photograph, the vantage point, the proximity to or distance from the objects on the photograph, and therefore also chooses what is not int he picture... thus controlling our knowledge." (Libby 46) However, we still place an immense amount of trust in photography, for this reason I agree with Sontag's opinion that we should ignore images and focus on the events depicted in them. Yet, with this new distrust of images, and our already in place distrust of words, it becomes very difficult to understand the events and what actually took place unless you were a witness.

Part III

I believe some images of war should be kept from the public during wartime. I know that this position sounds tremendously undemocratic, but my reason behind my opinion is more personal that political. We discussed in class that photographs were extremely powerful because the figures in them are real, recognizable, people. "Photographs are us." (Sontag 2) But not only are they us, they are our brothers, our cousins, our husbands and wives, daughters and sons, nieces and nephews. Coming from a family with four cousins, and two uncles in the military, all of whom have been to (or are currently in) Iraq, pictures of mangled bodies, and bloodied soldiers disturb and frighten me, the effect they have on my mother and aunts is far worse. Luckily for my family, none of the photographs have been of our boys, but I do not think that any mother or father, sister or brother, or little cousin should have to find out about the fate of their loved one through something as impersonal as a photograph on the nightly news. Out of respect for the families of soldiers, I think some images should be at the very least censored (not allowed on magazine covers or the news, perhaps restricted to websites that one visits by choice.)

The guards at the Abu Ghraib prison, used this super personal aspect of photography as a black mail of sorts. The claimed that the pictures of the abhorrent acts were going to be used to keep the imprisoned individuals in check once they were released, that the men would follow American orders to keep the pictures from being circulated. (Gogan & Sokolowski 6)

I do not think that the Abu Ghraib photos should have been exhibited at the International Center of Photography. These photographs were under no circumstance art, nor were they intended to be, they were simply vulgar and I do not think vulgarity is proper justification for displaying something in a prominent public place. I also feel that displaying such photos to all Americans and the world opens up an opportunity not only for American dissent but for loss of support among other nations. Under no circumstances do I feel that the actions taken by the guards were alright, nor should they be covered up and ignored, but I think that circulating them and forcing them on the global community over and over only serves to hurt our nation, like the war or not we are involved, and destroying what support we have left is only going to jeopardize the safety of our soldiers, the ones who are not psychotically deranged and are just doing their job and serving their country.

Brynne post 11

Brynne Piotrowski

1. War images become “official” through sanction and recognition. In the strictest sense of the word, only those images specifically taken and/or released by the party at war (i.e. the military or government of a nation) can be considered “official.” This is the method by which war images achieve “official” status by means of sanction. However, some of the most memorable photographs from conflicts do not fit this definition of authorized war images yet are still worthy to be characterized as “official.”

The images that are iconic of war in general or a specific war have become “official” without being explicitly designated so by an overseeing body through recognition, generally public recognition. Sometimes these images garner praise and sometimes they are condemned. Another possibility in the case of “official by recognition” pictures is that they will be also recognized and upheld by the government as great examples of war imagery. However, equally possible is denunciation of government, military, etc., sometimes with a criticism of not being “official” because they were not specifically sanctioned as such.

As for the interests serves by “official” images, they can vary. Government and military interests are obviously served by the “official” images that these bodies sanction as authorized representations of war. Both of these institutions have an understandable interest in preserving a healthy image of the war effort and the American soldier through pictures. However, sometimes the “official” images serve the interests of dissenters because they have become popular pictures that do not depict war in a favorable (or at least honorable) light. Just from personal recollection of seeing images of war, I would argue that the former instance (images that serve government/military interests) is more common than the latter. This is not a wholly good or completely bad occurrence, just a note of which case tends to predominate in reality.

“Official Images”

Soldier Hands Out Candy to Children
This image serves the interests of those for the war effort and support the image of American soldiers as caring and concerned.
http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/week_2004_10_17.html

Fall of Saddam Hussein Statue
This is a good example of “official” imagery that serves government interests. Although I am not certain about this particular image, I know that pictures of the statue of Saddam Hussein falling were released by the government and thereby “official” by sanction.
http://theredhunter.com/images/Saddam%20Statue%201-thumb.jpg

Flag-draped coffins of fallen soldiers returning from Iraq.

This image is an interesting juxtaposition of two supported interests. On one hand, it could support the argument of dissenters who bemoan the cost of war. Alternatively, it could serve the interest of the government/military by evoking sympathy (aptly) for the soldiers who have fallen in the line of duty.
http://drinkingliberally.org/blogs/louisville/archives/flag_draped_coffins_2.jpg

2. Libby and Sontag both raise excellent points in regards to the Abu Ghraib images. I was especially impressed with Sontag’s discussion of the proliferation of images and how this trend is both a liability and unlikely to reverse course. (She notes how our world is a “digital hall of mirrors, [and] the pictures aren’t going to go away.”) However, I believe that “Culture/War” and “Mass Media and the Public Sphere” have the stronger position because the fact remains that the controversy arising from the Abu Ghraib images would not exist to the extent that it does had it not been for the actual, physical photographs.

Sontag is very justified in her concerns about the actual events depicted in the images: “the horror of what is shown in the photographs cannot be separated from the horror that the photographs were taken...” (Part II). Yet, perhaps the whole issue would be nonexistent had the images not been taken by the soldiers. Even if there were rumors of these events, they would not have such force without images to support them. Libby states that, “photographs tell us what and who can be looked at and by whom. This by itself is an exercise of power; power relations are visible in the mechanisms by which the pictures visually map systems of dominance and subjugation through the controlling and structuring function of the gaze” (Culture/War 46). This is precisely why “Culture/War” makes the stronger argument—the pictures exist and hold the power; without them, Sontag might not even have a basis for her condemnation other than rumors or whispers. Therefore, I agree with Libby that, “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” (Culture/War 44).

3. The question of keeping images from the public during wartime is one of the sharpest of double-edged swords. Ultimately, the answer is no, with caveats. American citizens deserve to see what happen in war—they are entitled to see both the good and the bad. As a whole, we need to be an informed public who understands that truly “war is hell,” it can invoke terrible costs upon our country, and at the same time it may be genuinely necessary. I argue that this is an acceptable position as long as the following two caveats remain true: First, seeing images of war—both good and bad—does not always have the ability to promote or condemn war in the eyes of the public. For example, most Americans understood that WWII was necessary and the effort must continue even after they saw pictures of the casualties on Omaha Beach from D-Day. There will always be individuals who decry war even when it is depicted in a favorable light, and there will always be those who support it after seeing negative imagery. The second stipulation is that images that compromise “mission-critical” information (i.e. images that show covert troop build-ups for an offensive drive) could be subject to censure, at least temporarily.

On the subject of the Abu Ghraib photographs in particular, I do not think exhibiting them was an especially wise or necessary decision. Americans should be able to view the good, bad and ugly of war, but public exhibition in a manner similar to artwork seems to go a step too far. It is detrimental to those seeking to raise awareness of the issues that arise from the photographs because some of the potential viewing public becomes disillusioned and gets tired of what they perceive as forcible overexposure. Honestly, I cannot see a reason why an exhibition was necessary, seeing as the photographs received plenty of press through various media outlets.

Jenn Post 11

Jenn Shea

Everyday, the American public is exposed to countless photographs portraying the latest in Iraq through television, major newspapers, and major magazines. In these portrayals, we can see the difference in the intent of the media versus the intent of the government. By showing both negative and positive images of the war in Iraq, the media, despite its intent to mostly attract an audience, at least portrays both sides to the events in Iraq. Although the public is exposed to more negative news about the events in Iraq via the news and publications, the photographs that are repeatedly presented as official or iconic are those showing the positive nature of war efforts, including photos of President Bush shaking hands with soldiers and soldiers working together as “An Army of One” in US Army ads. Photographs should be looked at as critical representations that increase a viewer’s awareness of certain events that have taken place. In this sense, the photographs of Abu Ghraib not only serve to portray the atrocities that occur during wartime, but what it means to take a photograph and the effects of its circulation when it portrays a message contrary to what a viewer is used to seeing.

Question One

War images become official when they are published in magazines and newspapers as general representations of a war. These images show collectively a central message as to the purpose and effects of war, and oftentimes, as in the 20^th century, such images portray a uniting theme that makes war seem, like any national or international crisis, something that brings people together and something that can be understood and recognized universally. These images positively depict war efforts. Even if devastation of some area in Iraq is shown, a positive spin is added in saying that at least progress (what some consider it to be) is being made. As Brian Wallis notes in “Remember Abu Ghraib,” “Aside from the atrocities they depict, as photographs, the images from Abu Ghraib contradict the studied heroics of the twentieth-century war photography that have been updated to the current conflict.” Wallis notes that the Abu Ghraib photos stray 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—” (Inconvenient Evidence 4). These types of images that serve only to promote the purpose of war can be identified as forms of political and war-time propaganda. This propaganda serves to unite individuals in the efforts and goals of the war by bringing in the general public to the sphere of the war with war scenes framed to help a viewer identify with what is going on without actually participating. As Susan Libby notes in “Culture/War,” “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 and the viewers. Sometimes these bonds cohere in depictions of power relations wherein the group with which the viewer identifies dominates or harms another group” (45). Thus, these images allow a sense of unity and increase the authority and power of the participants in the war, which can then be shared by viewers. Because of the idea of official war images serving to idealize and promote war efforts, many that do not encourage such unity and support are often not as publicized or are withheld through the efforts of an administration. Sontag, in discussing the discrepancy between the Bush administration’s reaction to the Abu Ghraib photos and the actual events, quotes Rumsfeld addressing the danger of the photographs: “ ‘There are a lot more photographs and videos that exist,’ Rumsfeld acknowledged in his testimony. ‘If these are released to the public, obviously, it’s going to make matters worse.’ Worse for the administration and its programs, presumably, not for those who are the actual—and potential?—victims of torture.” In addition, the Abu Ghraib photographs would not be considered official because they contradict the common representation of members of the U.S. army as a strong unit that serves honorably on behalf of the country.

informedvoters.wordpress.com/2007/04/13/
This image portrays soldiers in the line of duty in Iraq. This is considered an official war photograph in that it portrays a sense of strength and courage in the American soldiers in fighting for the American cause-to establish peace and democracy in Iraq. In portraying these soldiers supposedly actually in action, there is a uniting factor in the war. This photograph invokes a sense of pride by showing soldiers performing their duties. Unlike photographs portraying soldiers lying dead on the ground or mourning the loss of their comrades, this photograph shows soldiers working together and shows the struggle they are going through for the sake of the United States and its goals abroad. This is a photo for which the American public would feel a sense of pride in seeing the services and sacrifices of the American soldiers.

thinkprogress.org/iraq-timeline
This statue toppling was staged by the Army, which may have been for safety measures but is also coincidentally beneficial for a poignant snapshot. This image is an official war image because it attempts to evoke a sense of accomplishment and pride amongst the American people. It suggests a form of progress by portraying the removal of Saddam from power. The gathering of people in the foreground of the photo also shows a sense of unity as it appears they had come to support the fall of the dictator.

Question Two

While I agree with Sontag in “Regarding the Torture of Others” that images are not nearly as important as the events they portray, I do not believe that images should be wholly disregarded in the role that they play in raising awareness about occurrences in war. In addition, as discussed in the previous topic about abortion, images can at times have much stronger impact on an individual, as an individual is given everything at once in an image and upon seeing it once is forced to recognize its message. In simply portraying issues through words, individuals are more likely to stop listening when they disagree. With an image, there is much less opportunity to do this. An image disturbing or moving enough is likely to leave a lasting impression. While some images used as propaganda may only serve as forms of ideological promotion and thus may seem dangerous, the presentation of the Abu Ghraib photographs proves that eventually, the American public will see through the heroics of war and the hidden atrocities will be unveiled as long as censorship does not occur.

Sontag also addresses the fact that the administration, mainly Bush and Rumsfeld, were quicker to address and apologize for the photographs than for the actions they represented that took place at Abu Ghraib. Sontag notes, “The administration’s initial response was to say that the president was shocked and disgusted by the photographs—as if the fault of horror lay in the images, not in what they depict” (Sontag). Although I agree that the photographs are crucial to the depiction of the atrocities that took place, I must agree with Sontag with this point that the fact that the atrocities occurred and that they were photographs holds much more weight in the issue and says a great deal more about the war as a whole and the human rights violations involved than simple representations of the reality. The motives of the Bush administration also come into question, as Sontag notes, because it was not until the photographs were released that the issue of the atrocities was recognized. None of the reports compiled by the International Committee of the Red Cross and by other journalists and humanitarian organizations were ever recognized. In this Sontag does recognize the importance of the photographs, but in doing so also addresses how unfortunate it is that they were the only medium that could attract the administration’s attention even after human rights violations were previously reported in writing: “The pictures will not go away. That is the nature of the digital world in which we live. Indeed, it seems they were necessary to get our leaders to acknowledge that they had a problem on their hands…it was photographs that made this all ‘real’ to Bush and his associates” (Sontag). Sontag additionally notes that the horrors portrayed in the photograph are equally if not less shameful than the act of taking the photographs: “…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.”

In the sense that the photographs portray not only the horror of the events but the horror behind the idea that the photographs were taken at all with soldiers posing with the dead bodies and proudly displaying the atrocious acts they forced upon the prisoners, I feel as though Sontag and Libby reach common ground. In “Culture/War,” Libby notes, “…I propose that 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” (44). In this, Libby is conceding that while images are quite powerful themselves, they also hold power in that they are a social construct, not simply something that exists. Someone must have created the images, and in doing so, there must have existed some intention in portraying events that occurred. Thus I agree with both views. I do not believe that photographs should be disregarded; I feel that they have an important role in uncovering what is kept from public sight especially in times of war. However, I also feel that the emphasis placed upon the photographs sometimes distracts from the events they portray and delays necessary actions to prevent the events from reoccurring, especially since the Bush administration seems so intent on covering them up.

Question Three

Images of war, whether positive or not, should not be kept from the viewing public. By limiting what Americans can see, a government only serves to make the masses more ignorant of the goings on of war. If this is the intention of a government, one can see a sense of Nazi and generally totalitarian censorship. If photographs portraying actual events, no matter how disturbing, are kept from the public eye, a government is keeping the truth from its people and is also revoking the photographer’s right to free speech. Although, as noted by Sontag, the Abu Ghraib images were meant to be circulated and thus seem to connote a perverse course of action and promote the abuse of prisoners as a sense of fun, this is all the more reason to allow the public access to them. These photographs raise awareness to the realities of war and reveal to the public that even those we think are serving a noble purpose can do things that are inhuman and monstrous in aspect. As Libby notes in “Culture/War,” “The investigative reporter Seymour M. Hersh, for example, sees the photographs in terms of their role in exposing of inhuman and illegal practices that needed to be made public and punished. This view presupposes the neutral capacity to record actual events, but not, as with other commentators, to use images’ supposed neutrality to stand in for a social problem, but rather to bring evidence of the documented events into the public sphere and to call for action in response to the events they record” (44). This view of images focuses on the idea of the ability for photographs to call into question the actions of those in the Abu Ghraib photographs and those who took them and to call for action against such abuses that are unacceptable regardless of whether we are discussing times of war or peace and behaviors of Americans or the enemy. Finally, what is unacceptable is the denial of public display of photographs for the purpose of protecting the actions and decisions of the government. This kind of censorship is outlawed by the first amendment. Sedition against the government should be encouraged in a democratic society so long as there is evidence of the wrongdoings of a government. As noted by Wallis, “…the often-banal JPEGs from Iraq proffer a very different picture: war is systematic cruelty enforced at the level of everyday torture. In this regard, the Abu Ghraib images undercut both of the Bush administration’s high-minded visual strategies in selling the Iraqi War: on the one hand, to suppress all unpleasant or unplanned images…and, on the other hand, to promulgate highly theatrical and carefully scripted photographs of good news…” In order for the public to be well-informed about the actions its government takes, the positive and negative must be equally available. If the freedom to see the truth, regardless of whether or not it supports the government’s decisions, is surrendered, the United States mine as well be run under a totalitarian regime, which would be quite ironic in the context of the supposed intentions to promote democracy in Iraq.

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.

Jessica D., Post 11

"Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime." -Ernest Hemingway

The war images that ultimately receive “official” status are those that help serve national and/or governmental interests in relation to war. They are chosen because they propagate a certain belief or incite a particular emotion(s) from the public concerning war. They are utilized to help to persuade and influence the public’s opinion and ultimately conform it to match the views of that nation’s government concerning war and their involvement (or avoidance) in it. War images that are distributed throughout the media and are allowed to be viewed by the public are normally those which the government has sanctioned and approved for public consumption. They are the images the public sees repeatedly on TV, in the newspapers, and in magazines; these are the images that ultimately become permanently ingrained into the public’s mind. The images that were first circulated at the beginning of the war in Iraq were extremely censored, strategically sanitized, and carefully chosen to be very patriotic. The first picture I chose was one of the many depicting the events of the 9/11 attacks. September 11, 2001 was a day that will forever be ingrained in the hearts and minds of all Americans. That fateful day when terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda hijacked four commercial passenger airliners and crashed two of them directly into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City the safety and freedom of all Americans was violently breeched and violated and their lives turned upside down. Following the attacks, the Bush administration declared an official War on Terrorism. The plan was to capture Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, prevent future terrorist attacks, and stop the insurgence of other terrorist networks. This image graphically captures the chaotic disaster of the 9/11 attacks. The violent explosions and smoke streaming out of the Twin Towers will forever be an image associated with that fateful day. In the case of the image above, it powerfully incites a strong sense of patriotism and unity for Americans and became an image that “silently” proposed that the war in Iraq was truly a unified American endeavor and a justifiable cause. This graphic image touched and continues to touch the raw nerves of Americans whose freedom and safety had been so viciously violated and taken away from them on American soil. It instilled in Americans a belief that whoever committed these inhumanely disastrous attacks must be stopped at all costs; even if they were not exactly sure who or where the “bad guys” were. It was this image and many others depicting the catastrophic events of 9/11 that were constantly on the news and papers for months following 9/11. It was impossible to turn on the TV or read a paper without seeing one of these images. This image (and others depicting the attacks of 9/11) became propaganda for America’s invasion of Iraq; a visual justification for the War on Terrorism. Many of the “unofficial” images (aka images that the Bush administration did not approve of) of the war in Iraq like the Abu Ghraib photographs and the images of the coffins of dead soldiers that had fought in Iraq were censored and concealed from public view because they had the power to make people question the Bush administration, America's involvement in the war, and would ultimately allow people to see the cruel reality, immorality, and inhumanity of war; in essence they were inconvenient evidence.

The photograph to the left is of Iraqis in Baghdad, assisted by U.S. Marines, toppling down a statue of Iraq President, Saddam Hussein, on April 9, 2003. This photo has become one of the most pervasive images presented to the American public by the media depicting the Iraq war. This image helped Americans feel justified in fighting the war in Iraq because they were successfully preserving the freedom and justice not only of American citizens, but also of people all over the world. It helped calm people’s uncertainty about the war and shed a positive light on American war efforts. We had “successfully” ended a tyrant’s rule, liberated oppressed people, and were winning the fight against terrorism; this image was able to capture the spirit of the moment. It glorified American military achievements and helped to unite America through a common cause; the worldwide preservation of freedom and justice. This image would ultimately come to represent the unspoken propositions that war was a national endeavor, it was American, it was manly, and it was all about winning. Both the images of the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers and the Hussein image are images that I believe Plato would approve of because they inspire patriotism and help to bring a nation towards unity. These images (and many others) were utilized by the Bush administration to increase and encourage the public’s support of the war.

Images are means through which ideologies can be produced and onto which ideologies can be projected (Practices of Looking 21). They can be utilized and even exploited in order to instill and affirm beliefs in their target audience. They are powerful “tools of mass persuasion” that help to forge and maintain a mass ideology (Practices of Looking 164). Their powerful capability to influence and even change the views and beliefs of individuals is mainly the reason they have the potential at times to be harmful. Leni Riefenstahl’s infamous film, Triumph of the Will, a film that documents the 1934 Nuremberg Rally, is a prime example of how images can be saturated with ideologies and utilized to produce a national ideology. This impressive visual spectacle was utilized by the Nazi Party to convert and instill the Nazi ideology into the German masses and is considered to be the best Nazi propaganda ever created. In the article, “Regarding the Torture of Others”, Sontag argues that the inhumane and horrific treatment that Iraqi prisoners received while under American custody was underscored by the Bush administration’s extreme preoccupation with the effects these images would have on America’s reputation (Sontag 2). She relates how the Bush administration mainly focused on trying to prevent and limit the dissemination of the photographs rather than addressing “the complex crimes of leadership and of policy revealed by the pictures”; in essence ignoring the real issues at hand (Sontag 1). After the photos surfaced, they were openly criticized, blamed, and condemned “as if the fault or horror lay in the images, not in what they depict”; the fact that the photos existed became a distraction from the real issues in question (Libby 44). These images are just factual “representatives of the fundamental corruptions of any foreign occupation together with Bush administration’s distinctive policies” (Sontag 2). These were horrific images of prisoners that had been tortured, dehumanized, and stripped of the “rights accorded by international law and the laws of all civilized countries” by American soldiers; images that had the power to visually “assault” viewers (Sontag 3). Sontag argues that it is critical to stay focused on the events that are depicted in these photos not on the photos themselves in order for any justice to be served and the individuals responsible for these horrific crimes made to pay (Sontag 1). In the case of the Abu Ghraib photos, I also believe that it is crucial to “bring evidence of the documented evidence into the public sphere and to call for action in response to the events they record” instead of blaming and condemning the photos themselves; in essence focusing on, addressing, and correcting the real social, political, and/or cultural problems that are depicted by the images (Libby 44).

Just as the images of napalmed children and horrifically slaughtered innocent civilians in Vietnam played a critical role in transforming American public opinion about the Vietnam War; the disturbing images of Abu Ghraib had an immense impact on the way Americans viewed the war in Iraq and our involvement in it. The Bush administration had so long tried to paint a rosy picture that despite a few minor setbacks; things were going well in Iraq and the War on Terrorism was going strong. However, it was not till the Abu Ghraib photos surfaced and were circulated throughout the media that “the magnitude of the abuses and their international ramifications started to become clear” and the Bush administration found themselves in hot water (Gogan and Sokolowski 3). These disturbing photos made it difficult for the administration to continue to claim that everything in Iraq was going according to plan; horrific images of beaten, bruised, and abused Iraqi prisoners at the hands of American soldiers are not exactly easy images to have to explain to the American public. These images ultimately had a huge global impact on the public's opinion of the war in Iraq that words could never come close to. I believe that Plato would view the photos of the Abu Ghraib prison as harmful and condemn them because they have the power to evoke a passionate emotional response instead of a rational response in their audience. Also, they do not glorify or function to bring a nation towards unity and harmony, but instead blatantly reveal “inconvenient evidence” and have the power to incite people to actively question the actions of their government

Governments all over the world have always been concerned with the public’s political opinion concerning war and have actively pursued to suppress images that contradict their own interests. During World War I, the U.S. Army would execute any soldier who took a photograph; fearing that any photograph taken might contain some “unofficial evidence” that might negatively sway public opinion about the war. The surfacing of the scandalous photos of the Abu Ghraib prison incited quite a response from the Bush Administration who had fiercely tried to suppress and conceal this “inconvenient evidence” (Gogan and Sokolowski 7). Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld stated that the pictures “never should have been published” and quickly banned the use of all cameras by the U.S. military in Iraq and President Bush stated, “their treatment does not reflect the nature of the American people…I didn’t like it one bit.” (Gogan and Sokolowski 4). The Bush administration had utilized images to sell the war in Iraq to the American public by showcasing images that justified the war in Iraq (such as the images of the 9/11 attacks) and concealing images of Iraqi civilian deaths and flag draped coffins; images that would evoke an emotional response from the American public against the war in Iraq; emotions that would ultimately be evoked by the Abu Ghraib photos (Gogan and Sokolowski 4). These horrific images did not help to make war more palatable or even justifiable as had the images of the 9/11 attacks, firefighters, Saddam Hussein, or terrorists. They did not promote the message that war is universal and a normal part of life, but instead painted the harsh reality of war. They were visual evidence of the brutality, inhumanity, and immorality of war; images that were in essence a clear violation of the Geneva conventions (Gogan and Sokolowski 7). They crudely exposed to the whole world the cruel and evil nature that war brings out in humans.

Sadly, war is often romanticized in order to be made more palatable to people. It is more often than not showcased as being a glorious, honorable, and justifiable event; a normal part of everyday life. However, in portraying war in this positive light another part of the multifaceted reality of war is overlooked and concealed; the images that depict the horrific reality of war and highlight the imminent danger that the “winning is everything” mentality can have on humanity. Many feared (mainly the Bush administration) that the iconic images coming out of the war in Iraq were not gloriously patriotic photos that promoted the war, but instead amateur photographs of Iraqi prisoners tortured at the hands of American soldiers; images of war that the public normally was not allowed to see (Sontag 1). They also believed that it was “unfair” that the American effort in Iraq would come to be summed up by these horrific images (Sontag 2). The Abu Ghraib photographs depict dehumanizing “interrogation practices” that were supposedly utilized to create an “army of informants”, but ultimately were “intended to assert cultural dominance locally and to restore racial and political hierarchies globally” (Gogan and Sokolowski 4). Not only did these posed photographs graphically depict the inhumane atrocities that were done to the prisoners by American soldiers; they also served to further humiliate, degrade, and dehumanize the prisoners (Gogan and Sokolowski 7). I do not believe that images of war should be concealed and/or censored from public view during wartime. Living in a democratic nation, I believe that all Americans should be given the respect that they deserve and allowed to see any type of war image they so choose to; even if this means that public support and/or approval of the war will decrease. What does the American government have to hide from the American public that they are not allowed to see what is going on in Iraq? As American citizens, we have the right to know what our government is doing especially in times of war. People should not only be allowed to be shown images of war that highlight its necessity and benefits (like the images of the 9/11 attacks or the image of Saddam Hussein), but also be allowed to view the inhumane and horrific aspects of war and then form an educated opinion based on the variety of information they have been presented with. It was feared that these images would have the power to taint America’s reputation, image, and success as the lone superpower, and turn the tide against the war (Sontag 2). However, the real issue at hand is the horrific events and crimes these images depict that yearn for justice to be served; not the effects they will have on tainting “America’s claim to moral superiority” (Sontag 2). It is important to remember that these images act as a mirror to the horrific events that occurred in the Abu Ghraib prison and “the only thing worse than the photos themselves would be if they never came to public light" and justice could not be served (Marks 1).

The fact that the disturbing photographs of American soldiers torturing and abusing Iraqi prisoners at the infamous Abu Ghraib prison were exhibited at the International Center of Photography and the Andy Warhol museum attracted much controversy. The propriety of displaying these horrific images was heatedly debated. The exhibit titled "Inconvenient Evidence: Iraqi Prison Photographs from Abu Ghraib.", allowed viewers to see the amateur digital photographs that had the power to negatively influence the public's opinion of the war in Iraq, and be exposed to the human rights that had been violently and horrifically violated by American soldiers. I am not sure whether or not the photos should or should not have been exhibited as they were. There are many questions that need to be answered in order for me to be able to form an educated opinion whether or not these photos should have been exhibited. Firstly, who owns these images? How did the International center of Photography obtain these images? Did they receive permission to exhibit them? Are they really art? Are they still art if they were not originally created to be “artistic”? On the other hand, it could be argued that though the images lack “artistic” qualities they still function as art because they serve to be a social/political commentary on the war in Iraq and horrific events that occurred in the Abu Ghraib prison. The issues as to whether or not these images should have been exhibited are as controversial and complicated as the images themselves.

Sources:

Marks , Alexandra. "How the Images of Prison Abuse Shape Perceptions of the War." 11 May 2004. Poynter On The Record. 14 Nov 2007 .

http://z.about.com/d/atheism/1/7/B/2/3/Geneva-Conventions-e.jpg
http://www.september11news.com/AttackImages.htm
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZxQEiiHP8Y0R4SP8TAh78Sof-HPAruMUR_-yahWJ9TaDqLV7d96Wv0m7ljP5aCvHCR3VjfvGQhkDXefRNkgGV1aWRivHF2w85ht3kZEEykaKvkEEL-0vYzy9M9q_jiqw5LbvvCkJKFGhz/s1600-h/db_SaddamHusseinStatue61.jpg