Tawny N post 11

Tawny Najjar

Patriotism is a pernicious, psychopathic form of idiocy.” – George Bernard Shaw

In America, the country is ruled by the government, but the government is ruled by the people and the ideas that they have. Throughout the semester, we have learned how images can have a lasting impact on the ideologies of the public, and on the way they view current events. The Nazis controlled what images were in used in the media and museums to support their cause and beliefs. Riefenstahl’s documentary was used as a form of Nazi propaganda, while art that went against the Nazi ideals was considered degenerate and unacceptable. Images were used by the government to progress and win support from the people. Plato believed that the power of the arts should be marshaled and used for the good of the state, to empower the state and lead it on a prosperous path, toward glory and unification rather than toward disharmony and conflict. The images’ power to depict reality or create a new one has had tremendous influence in society throughout the years. The current images of the war in Iraq, the “War on Terror,” have shown that power.

During wartime, numerous images are displayed in the media, depicting scenes that support the war, or depicting scenes that clearly berate it. In America, the government has attempted to display images that show the war in a positive light, images that speak of patriotism and protecting one’s country. They feed off people’s craving for nationalism and togetherness, offering images that appeal to those desires. Pictures with the American flag blowing in the wind, large numbers of troops marching in line, and aerial shots of buildings of power (the White House, the Pentagon, etc) are commonly used in magazines, newspapers, and television, inviting United States citizens to join in and support the cause. War is supposed to appear to be honorable and noble, an attack on the immorality and unjust ways of others.

The government supports the circulation of positive images, but discourages images that go against American beliefs. Images, if used for those purposes, can be viewed as too ideological and even harmful in certain circumstances. The United States government saw the Abu Ghraib photos as harmful and derogatory to the “war on terrorism” effort. Yes, the content of the photos does depict some American soldiers in a negative light, but even more disturbing is the fact that these photos were taken and passed from soldier to soldier, as if they were some kind of joke. These pictures, which completely degraded the prisoners in them, served no constructive purpose other than to be used as a form of torture, embarrassment, and more importantly, to provide humor. They were meant to be circulated and seen by numerous people; it was all in good fun. This thinking highlights one of the growing problems in America: from realistic video games to television and movies, the fantasies and practices of violence are seen as good entertainment, as fun (Sontag 4). Images have an impact on the viewer. They can represent a reality, or they can create a new one. In this age of technology, photos can be manipulated to depict whatever the photographer wants to present to the viewer. Unlike paintings or drawings, this manipulation can have a bigger impact on the viewer. Photos have the sense of reality, an element that is missing in brush strokes and pencil lines. Viewers react stronger to actual depictions of emotions, rather than emotions that are obviously drawn-on by the artist to fit the theme of the painting.

As Libby says in Culture/War, “images, as least realist ones, tend to be regarded as natural signs that passively provide visual records of what is recognizable in the image. This is especially true with photographs, which, even in this digital age, are commonly understood neutrally to represent the events as they occur” (Libby 43). Cameras are used on a daily basis to record everyday events. They are used as a recording system, a way for people to forever remember their precious moments. This has become so common that people do not think about the dangerous power that photos can have. If something seems valid enough and appeals to people’s emotions, most they will tend to accept it, even if it is far from the actual truth. There are so many ways to twist reality in a photograph: the lighting, camera angle, position of the subject, and additional props used in the scene. They can vividly convey emotions, taking advantage of the viewer’s sentiments. Photos have the capacity to have one meaning to one viewer, and a completely different meaning to another viewer. As Stuart Hall said, “representation is an essential part of the process by which meaning is produced and exchanged between members of a culture” (Libby 45).

The Abu Ghraib photos caused a great upheaval in America, but this anger was not necessarily caused by the actual content of the photos. Many were more upset that these photos were publicized for thousands of people to see. The publication of the photos caught the US government off-guard, and the President and his advisors immediately tried to dissociate themselves from the incidents. When asked about the torture pictures, President Bush said, “Their treatment does not reflect the nature of the American people…I didn’t like it one bit” (Wallis 2). He later gave a speech concerning the Abu Ghraib photos, saying that he was “sorry for the humiliation suffered by the Iraqi prisoners and the humiliation suffered by their families,” but then continued to say that he was “equally sorry that people seeing these pictures didn’t understand the true nature and heart of America” (Sontag 2). As Sontag later said, these images were “representative of the fundamental corruptions of any foreign occupation together with the Bush administration’s distinctive policies” (Sontag 2). Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield testified that these photographs damaged “the reputation of the honorable men and women of the armed forces who are courageously and responsibly and professionally defending our freedom across the globe,” instigating that the government was more worried about the damage to its reputation, image, and success, rather than the actual events going on (Sontag 7). Rumsfield later said that the pictures never should have been published and banned the use of cameras by the U.S. military in Iraq (Wallis 2). This illustrates their belief that it was the “the media’s” fault, which was provoking further violence. However, Malcolm X was once quoted as saying, "You're not supposed to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face the reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who says it."

However, American investigate reporter Seymour Hersh saw the photos to be a way in which the illegal and immoral practices could be brought to light for public knowledge. By giving them this role, he placed all of the blame on the subjects in the photos, the soldiers inflicting the torture. In his opinion, the photos were neutral records of the occurrences (Libby 44). Contrary to this belief, photos do not merely play a neutral role in society. As Libby stated, “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 in which they are a part” (Libby 44). The reactions to the photos proved that they were not merely a form of neutral representation, but were instead a means meant to provoke and instigate some form of action. Many interpretations of the actions committed in the photos looked beyond the surface and revealed innate beliefs and attitudes about gender, race, and nation. W. J. T. Mitchell wrote, “If we want to understand the power of images, we need to look at their internal relations of domination and resistance, as well as their external relations with spectators and with the world” (Libby 45). These beliefs of dominance over the prisoners are clearly seen in photographs that depict naked prisoners being forced to commit sexual acts, prisoners cowering away from guard dogs, and most especially, the photograph that shows a hooded prisoner standing on a box with electrodes connected to his hands. "Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious" (Oscar Wilde).

Both the content of the photos and the fact that they were exploited are reasons for concern. However, the most important issue of these photos is the thinking behind them. The prisoners were tortured, embarrassed, and degraded, while American soldiers posed next to them with smiles on their faces and hands forming the thumbs-up sign at the camera. From the looks of glee on their faces, these soldiers believed that they had done nothing wrong. It is this mindset that should be examined. America has prospered on ideals of patriotism and national unity. However, this mindset has lead to the idea that this country is superior to others. Sontag wrote, “Looking at these photographs, you ask yourself, ‘How can someone grin at the sufferings and humiliation of another human being?’…And you feel naïve for asking, since the answer is, self-evidently, people do these things to other people…Americans too have done them and do them when they are told, or made to feel, that those over whom they have absolute power deserve to be humiliated, tormented. They do them when they are led to believe that the people they are torturing belong to an inferior race or religion. For the meaning of these pictures is not just that these acts were performed, but that their perpetrators apparently had no sense that there was anything wrong in what the pictures show” (Sontag 4). When asked why the soldiers took the photographs, Lynddie England replied, “We thought it looked funny, so pictures were taken” (Libby 47).

Despite these disturbing pictures and their implications, war images should not be kept from public view during wartime. The government has attempted to censor what pictures are available for mass viewing by putting emphasis on pictures that display ideas of patriotism, nationality, and unity. However, war is not always glorious and clean. Images that contain negative war scenes bring evidence of the documented events into the public sphere and call for action in response to the events they record (Libby 44). They invoke a desire to uncover the real truth, the real problem. When both positive and negative images of war are displayed, people are able to come to their own conclusions and develop their own views on the war. This was the original purpose of a democracy (Power Point). Butler stated, “The task at hand is to establish modes of public seeing and hearing that might well respond to the cry of the human within the sphere of appearances…We might consider this as one of the implications of war, because politics – and power – work in part through regulating what can appear, what can be heard” (Libby 48). The public needs to know what war is truly about. The negative images give them the opportunity to see the other side of the spectrum. As Stuart Hall said, “Representation is an essential part of the process by which meaning is produced and exchanged between members of a culture” (Libby 45).

On the subject of the Abu Ghraib photos, though it was despicable that they were passed along as humorous material, they did alert the public to the idea that war is not clear-cut; during a war, the line between right and wrong, between black and white, is blurred and often crossed. These photos contradicted the “studied heroics of twentieth-century war photography that has been updated to the current conflict. 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 very different picture; war is systematic cruelty enforced at the level of everyday torture” (Wallis 2). They opened people’s eyes to the reality that they were facing: people were suffering at the hands of American soldiers. This contradicted everything that the government has been telling the public. However, most importantly, the images forced the public to think about what they believed in, and made them choose for themselves what to support or be against. The pictures also showed the repercussions of ideas of dominance and superiority. Many of the photos were similar to American lynching photos. The soldiers in them looked very happy and pleased with themselves (Sontag 2). However, appreciation of the severity of one’s actions can prevent a repeat of those occurrences. When people see what effect the war and ideas of national superiority have on people, they can choose to either support or not support the continuation of the war. Moreover, the photos also forced the government to acknowledge that the war that America was waging was not pure and simple. As Sontag wrote, “It was the photographs that made all of this ‘real’ to Bush and his associates. Up to then, there had been only words, which are easier to cover up in our age of infinite digital self-reproduction and self-dissemination, and so much easier to forget” (Sontag 5).

It has been said that a picture is worth a thousand words; in this case, the pictures from Abu Ghraib made others say those words. The government could not hide behind their ideas of patriotism and “good versus evil” and had to instead acknowledge that war is not always positive and beneficial. The photos also displayed the power that images have on the public – on their actions, thoughts, and ideologies.

Ashley C. Post 11

Ashley Cannaday

1) War images do not become official by someone declaring them so. Unlike Hitler’s regime in pre-war Germany, America does not have a department of the government that constantly tells us what good art is and what is bad, what is endorsed and what is disregarded. Rather, the process is more subtle. Images become “official” by their prevalence in the mass media. “Official” war images appear everywhere from television, newspapers, and magazines. Most of these images are very emotional and have a certain shock value. We also believe that these “official” images are one hundred percent authentic, and in no way staged or doctored. These images that are termed as official become a form of propaganda. Most could be classified as pro-war, depicting America in general in a positive light. They show the good guys (America) triumphing over the bad (a recent example would be Saddam Hussein). These images have an immense persuasive power, usually promoting the idea that war is in the national interest. They have become symbolic of the war, almost synonymous. The images above from the Iraq War are examples of those that would be classified as “official”.

Source

The first photograph depicts Iraqi children reaching after a U.S. soldier who is on top of a convoy. It depicts the children longing after to soldier, almost begging them not to leave. The message being conveyed is that the Iraqi children look up to the soldier, and therefore look up to America. It makes the viewer believe that war is the right because it is helping these poor, defenseless children. It is creating a better world for them to live in.

Source

The second image is of the fallen Saddam Hussein statue in Iraq. Iraqi Men have crowded around it and are destroying it with sledgehammers. The look on their faces is of total disgust and hatred. This photograph attempts to convince the viewer of the Iraqi people’s dislike of their tyrant ruler, Hussein. It makes us believe that the Iraqis want the Americans in their country to help them, that they are on our side and more than willing to cooperate.

Source

The third image is of three firefighters during 9/11 raising a flag on Ground Zero. This image serves the interest that war is a national endeavor. This photograph from the attack of the Twin Towers by terrorists, along with many like it, became the fuel for uniting America under a single cause. Images like this convinced Americans that the “War Against Terror” was the right path.

Source

The last image is a still frame from the leaked video of Saddam Hussein’s hanging. This image represents a huge step for an American victory in Iraq. We brought a tyrant down, and are that much closer to creating a democracy because of it. This image serves the interest that winning is everything.

2) I agree with the “Culture/War” article in that images can be ideological and harmful. I do not believe, as Sontag does, that you should ignore the actual image and only focus your attention on what they depict. Libby states that “much of the fault and horror does in fact lie in the images,” and I tend to agree (Libby 44). Yes, the events being depicted are horrendous crimes against humanity, no one can deny that (even though the Bush Administration may try to). But a good portion of disguist comes from the fact that someone actually took a photograph of these events. Someone decided that they wanted to remember these moments, and wanted them to be shown to others. The actual act of taking the pictures also seems inhuman. They way these pictures were taken seems inhuman. In her article, Libby references “images’ enormous power” (Libby 44). While the actual events are fleeting moments in time, ones that can only be seen again in one’s mind as memories that slowly fade, a photograph is tangible, and it is forever. It never goes away, and therein lies the horror. You cannot escape it. Another characteristic of the images themselves, and not the events, that is harmful and completely horrific is the fact that the soldiers are posing for the camera. They are smiling, pointing, and giving thumbs up, knowing full well that they are being watching, being recorded, and that the whole world knows what they’re up to.

3)

It is very difficult to decide whether images of war should be censored during wartime. On one hand, images of war can cause great dissent in a country that needs unity more than ever during wartime. Plato would agree that in order to preserve a nation, certain harmful images need to be repressed. Wartime images can convince citizens that the war they are fighting is wrong, immoral, and not worth all the dead bodies and the torture that is being inflicted. How can soldiers overseas not be discouraged when they know that a large portion of the country they are fighting for does not believe in their cause? If images were censored during war, our nation would be more cohesive, increasing morale. On the other hand, I do not believe that images of war should be kept from the public during wartime. I believe that the American people should know what their country is doing. They have the right to be informed. I think this right outweighs Plato’s belief that a nation must be preserved by any means necessary, including censorship. As citizens of a democratic nation, we have the right to not be kept in the dark about our nation’s foreign affairs. We have the right to know what kind of decisions our government and our president is making so that we can decide if this is effective or not. Come election time, we need to know how our government is conducting themselves so that we know whether to keep them in power, or usher in a new party with new political ideas. We cannot be an effective democracy if our people are uninformed, and in order to make sure that these atrocities are never repeated, they must first be known about.

However, I do not agree with the decision to exhibit the Abu Ghraib photographs. By exhibiting the images, you are in a sense calling them art, and to some degree glorifying them. I cannot see the rationale behind displaying them in a gallery. One might argue that the purpose behind this is to inform the public of the atrocities of war, to expose them to the dark side of it all so that they can be educated citizens. I do not believe that this is a good justification. The Abu Ghraib images were circulated very quickly across all forms of mass media. Americans had plenty of exposure to what was going on, whether it be through the newspaper, magazines, or various forms of television news programs. The photographs were in no way being pushed under the rug. By putting them on display, you are only raising the photographs to a level that they do not deserve. By nature, images in museums and galleries are those that have some artistic value and credentials. I think most people can agree that there is nothing artistic about the Abu Ghraib photographs.

Aaron Post 11

Aaron Childree

There is an old proverb that says, “All is fair in love and war.” While there are laws such as those set out in the Geneva Conventions that are supposed to set regulations in theory, this statement is for the most part still true today. War is a time when killing other human beings is somehow justifiable and moral boundaries are crossed on an everyday basis. In war the decision lies not in choosing between good and evil but in choosing the lesser of two evils. Soldiers are greatly affected by being in such a harsh situation in which almost nothing is black and white. In order to kill your enemy and not consider the guilt and remorse that killing makes you feel, you must dehumanize your enemy. If the thing that you are shooting at is not a human, then maybe you can sleep at night.

Not to absolve the soldiers who took the disturbing pictures at Abu Ghraib of blame, because everyone should be held responsible for their actions no matter what the circumstance, but the reason that these photos were taken is because of the nature of war as described above. The photos are more evidence of what war does to the human mind than anything else. The pictures are a record of an actual event, but they are also a commentary on human nature and how it is affected by war and violence.

Part 1

The issue of what is an “official” image has become increasingly complicated with all the advances in technology that have taken place over the past few decades. There used to not be any photographs taken during a war that weren’t official because the only way that photos could be seen was through the “official” media (such as television, magazines, newspapers). Another reason for this was that photography used to be much more time consuming and expensive. But with the rise of the internet and the affordability and ease of use of digital cameras, photos can be taken by anyone and distributed over the internet with virtually no restrictions and regulations. The government is no longer able to censor what people see. This can have a huge affect on how people view an overseas conflict. While in the past the government could censor images in order to put a positive spin on everything, and because the war was far away, people wouldn’t know that they were being fooled. Now that anyone can take pictures and post them on the internet, you can see what the war is really like, for better or for worse. The way war is covered and photographed today, there is really no difference between official photos distributed by the government and personal photos distributed over the internet.

The first image is from proggiemuslima.files.wordpress.com

The second image is from informedvoters.wordpress.com

The first image above takes an official image and then puts a twist on it. The image shows George W. Bush suited up in some sort of fighter pilot’s outfit with the words “mission accomplished” above him. This image was used by the government to show that the President was a part of the war and understood what the soldiers were going through, and also to show that our mission in Iraq was accomplished. The interesting twist in this image is that the background shows the coffins of soldiers that died in Iraq. This change of background completely alters the meaning of the photograph. While still showing the familiar “mission accomplished” photo, this image is clearly against the war and the deaths that it caused.

The second image is of soldiers in Iraq in the midst of a battle. It is meant to show the daily struggles the soldiers must go through. This is much different from the photos seen from the Civil War in which photos of the aftermath of battles were all that was available. Photography is now much quicker and more efficient and pictures of actual battles can be taken. This has a great effect on how people view war because now they can see what actually goes on during a battle.

Part 2

I think that images can be ideological. There are two basic levels to any image. There is the literal level, which is what you actually see, and then there is the figurative level, which includes the message that the picture is trying to get across. Every image has both of these levels. Even if the photographer was not trying to make an ideological statement with the picture, his subconscious thoughts and ideas will still inevitably be visible in his art. I am not saying that the literal aspect of a photograph isn’t important, we still must realize that the photo is depicting (or is often assumed to be depicting) an actual event, but the ideological statement that the photo makes is often more powerful. Sontag warns against the adverse effects of only considering photographs on an ideological level. She criticizes the Bush administration for this mistake: “The Bush administration and its defenders have chiefly sought to limit a public-relations disaster- the dissemination of the photographs- rather than deal with the complex crimes of leadership and of policy revealed by the pictures” (Sontag, p.1). Images, especially photographs, are very powerful and we must be careful to examine them at both the literal and ideological levels.

Part 3

While Plato would surely disagree, I would say that war-time images should not be kept from the public, no matter what the adverse effects may be. While Plato’s ideas on censorship only allow for the public to view things that would strengthen their trust in the state, I would argue that the public has a right to know what is going on. I just don’t think that knowledge of any kind should be purposefully held back from anyone. It is better to know the truth then to live in ignorance, even if the truth is not what you want to hear. Even though the photos that were taken at Abu Ghraib are very disturbing, the public has a right to know what is going on in the war that is being funded by their taxes. Even though the photos may “produce disgust and fear in the viewer”(Libby,p.47) they still have the right to see them. The government shouldn’t focus on censoring things that they think are inappropriate from the public, they should be worried about preventing inappropriate behavior in the first place. The shock doesn’t come from the fact that these photographs were being hidden from us, it comes from the fact that the scenes depicted in the photos are things that no human being should ever be put through and we are appalled at the actions we see in the photographs. In this sense it is not the photographs themselves that are disturbing but the idea that they depict something that really happened.

I will leave you with a very disturbing quote from Lynddie England, one of the soldiers involved in the taking of the Abu Ghraib photographs. England was asked why the photos were taken and replied, “We thought it looked funny, so pictures were taken” (Libby, p.47).

Joe Post 11

Joe Kelly

1) Images of war become "official" when they are put forth by a credible source and are then widely circulated. When an image becomes part of the mainstream media's portrayal of a war, from any side of it, it has become official. Probably the majority of these official images promote the cause of the war through normal ideological communications. For instance, the world is littered with images that promote war by implying that it is a patriotic undertaking, or that we are attempting to help those who need it. These images are widespread, but it is rare that any of them stick with us generations later. Less widespread, though perhaps more powerful, are the official images that protest war. There are certainly a great many unofficial images that take an anti-war stance, though for such an image to become official despite its contentions against governmental agenda, it must be very powerful, the kind that remains in the national consciousness for generations. Images of rows upon rows of Civil War soldiers lying dead in an open field, of a girl crying over the dead body of a college student who had been shot by the National Guard for protesting, and of Vietnamese children running naked from the horrors of wall, all have and will remain with us.


The above image portrays the war effort as an attempt to help the people of Iraq. This is exactly the type of image we wish to portray. The government wants the military to be seen as a positive, liberating force. While it is a very positive image, there are many others like it, from this war and previous wars. Because it is fairly generic, it likely will not endure when history looks back on the controversy surrounding this war.



On the other hand, this photo from Abu Ghraib prison helped create an international scandal. Instead of liberators, we appear to be bullies. This image was widely circulated as soon as the scandal broke, and has continued to be ever since. It is likely that this symbol will endure into the future as a symbol of American transgressions.

2) It is difficult to take a position between the two opposing contentions that images themselves can have harmful consequences or that it is the events they portray, not the images themselves, that are harmful. In the case of Abu Ghraib, I would have to argue that latter is true. The taking of the photos certainly had consequences after the fact that hurt our national image; however, the photos themselves were consequences of the events that took place. While in today's visual culture, the images that we see are capable of profoundly affecting our behavior, this particular incident shows that the behavior was already there. It was not a commercial portrayal of behavior that its purveyors wished the audience to adapt. It was a behavior that other forces had already brought into existence. While an image may serve to perpetuate this ideology of abuse and degradation, it also set in motion a wave of indignation. In this particular case, it seems that the events in question are the harmful forces at work, though this does not dispute the power that images have in our culture in many other cases.

3) In a democratic society, images of war should not be kept from the public during wartime. Images often serve as simplified arguments that make a point implicitly through appeals to emotions. In most arguments, such appeals are weak. However, war is not an argument. War is a fight, into which a nation carries principles concerning humanity and justice. These principles are not facts, and we cannot pretend them to be such. We cannot see how they are being carried out by reading text. However, when we see images such as those from Abu Ghraib, we can decide for ourselves whether or not we feel that the principles we consider to be American are being upheld. Since the ultimate power of American government rests with the people, it is important that they have every grain of truth at their disposal so that they may make the most well-informed decisions in regards to the path that the nation shall take.

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.