Hoffman Post 11

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shea post 11

Images become official by repetition. Usually, when an image matches a political climate, thereby eliciting positive viewer responses, it will continue to turn up in the various forms of mainstream media. The frequent use of a single image often has to do with profit or popularity. A news broadcasting station, for example, will repeatedly show the same footage of a soldier returning home to see his young son in an effort to appeal to its viewers’ emotions and heighten its ratings. It does not hurt that “official” images usually side with supposedly national aims and, in doing so, maintain government approval.

President Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” speech suits these conditions by portraying triumph and general optimism. The president looks composed and pleased in his well dressed position behind the podium. The camera’s slightly upward looking angle allows us to focus both on the presidential seal and the patriotic banner mounted behind him which lend a level of legitimacy to the scene. He is telling an implied crowd of cheering onlookers exactly what they want to hear in a language they can understand: red, white, blue, and thumbs up. The image depicts the U.S. government as powerful and deserving of the control that it exercises over other countries.

In this 2003 edition of Time Magazine, all U.S. soldiers are named person of the year. The MEN appear brave, prepared and resolved. Regardless of what the article on American soldiers has to say, the cover speaks to their courage and selflessness for the protection of U.S. citizens. We, as viewers, are meant to gaze at these MEN with admiration and gratitude for all that they do in the name of our “freedom”. It is a unifying image because it endorses the American military without specifically taking the side of the Iraq war.

The claims made by professor Libby’s “Culture/War” article and those made by Susan Sontag’s “Regarding the Torture of Others” are not mutually exclusive. The conflict between the two seems to be over the meaning of photographs like those from Abu Ghraib and how that meaning ought to be deciphered and managed rather than what ought to tangibly done with the photos. The authors address this issue by placing emphasis on different components of the images’ power but without coming to contradictory ends.

“Culture/War” argues that the picture does not have the final word. It offers only a portion of some bigger picture and is simultaneously subject to the influence of outside forces. There is no guarantee of conclusive truth, especially considering the popularity of image manipulation programs like Photoshop. Even despite digital photography’s compromised validity, it is a medium that is not exempt from visual interpretation. The way that an image functions is culturally determined. Individuals and entire societies alike employ the tools provided to them by their environment when approaching an image and so aesthetic analysis is worthwhile so that we might understand why the photos were taken and why we react the way we do.

“The ‘reality effect’ produced by the medium of photography can ironically deflect our attention from the visual structuring that can reveal as much as the content.” (Libby, 47) This visual structuring, she argues, takes place even within informal photography like that of the Abu Ghraib soldiers. The soldiers’ choice to gaze directly at the camera or to focus on humiliated prisoners, with the assistance of guiding lines like pointing arms or leashes, is said to set up an “exclusive relationship” between themselves and the viewers “creating and legitimizing a shared dominance over the prisoners, most of whom are objects” (Libby, 46).

Aspects of composition like these are enhanced by the violation of social constructs. Many “employ gender as a weapon of torture.” (Libby, 44) The forcing of prisoners into sexual positions most stereotypically associated with females plays off of the societal gender distinctions that often favor masculine over feminine. This “category error” is meant to humiliate the prisoners by making them to feel womanly, but further serves towards the viewers’ repulsion at seeing such a breach in what is considered to be socially acceptable. There is also a violation of setting that works to unsettle the viewer which combines the familiarity of quick and casual digital photography with acts of conscious brutality. We are subsequently made to identify with the culprits. This contributes to the images’ over all horror, because the distance that we seek to establish between such seemingly inhuman soldiers and ourselves is shortened by the “exclusive relationship” and the shared method of photography.

I do not think that “Culture/War” means to say that the horror depicted by the Abu Ghraib photographs lies solely within the images. It seeks instead to attest to the importance of self evaluation and understanding when it comes to our own responses to images of the like. I agree that this understanding is crucial to the recognition of why images like this are created and why they wield such power over viewers. I do not think, however, that this evaluation ought to take precedence over the investigation of the action that these images portray.

Susan Sontag’s primary complaint has to do with misplaced attention on the circulation and effect of the Abu Ghraib photos. Political figures seem to value morale over humane behavior as they focus on the negativity that these images will inspire at home and abroad rather than the rectifying of an appalling allowance. This apparent disregard is apparent in President Bush’s statement that he was “sorry for the humiliation suffered by the Iraqi prisoners and their the humiliation suffered by their families.” But “equally sorry that people seeing these pictures didn’t understand the true nature and heart of America.” (Sontag, 2) She employs factual information on the suspicion of torture and the likely innocence of Abu Ghraib prisoners to attest to the power of images. No recognition was given to this violent misconduct until photographs were made available. Sontag’s article does not reject photography as a medium worthy of interpretation, but calls for a priority to be placed, in this case, on what is being done rather than how it is being portrayed.

Ultimately I agree with both arguments. Certainly the methods by which images gain their power over us should be identified and analyzed so that our reactions might be intelligent and composed, but in events of emergency this analysis ought to be set aside in favor of preventative action.

In both cases, it is crucial that the Abu Ghraib photographs are made available to viewers. My agreement extends to this aspect as well. In the words of Professor Libby, “avoiding or censoring [photographs] in the public sphere would prevent us from recognizing and choosing ethically to act on their many implications for our society both as records and representations.” (Libby, 48) At the risk of indulgent sensationalism, wartime photographs are important for a realistic perspective. They will never be 100% reliable but the same dubious quality applies to information gathered from the textual media and from political figures themselves. There is never a foolproof guarantee, but photographs can act as an alternate source of information that will help to build a thorough perception of the situation as it really is.

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.