Post 11
1.
March 31, 2003
Marines from TF Tarawa hand out needed food and supplies to Iraqi citizens near An Nasariyah,
March 30, 2003
On March 30, 2003, in Umm Qasr,
April 8, 2003
An Iraqi boy holds a humanitarian food ration given to him by U.S. Army soldiers during an effort to distribute food and water to Iraqi citizens in need. (U.S. Navy photo by Photographer's Mate 1st Class Arlo K. Abrahamson)
President George W. Bush and President Jalal Talabani of
The four photographs are clearly official as they are taken and sponsored by the
The first image has no reference to actual warfare involving deaths and fighting. Rather, the image makes it seem that the
The second image indicates Iraqi men waving in joy to the American soldiers. Once again the image indicates that the Iraqi men see
The third image is the quintessential heart-jerking pro-Iraq War image. The main focus is the little child, representing innocence and dependence. Notably, in this official image the child is holding a food package clearly marked in English: “Food Gift From the People of the
The final image is the first image to appear on the screen when clicking on the
The White House website includes several photo galleries of official Iraq War images: http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/photoessay/essay1/01.html.
2.
Images can be ideological and harmful because they are subjective. Subjectivity affects the interpretation and creation of the image on the part of the viewer and the photographer/artist respectively. For example, Libby stresses the importance of the social relations in which an image exists (Libby, 44) and its “external relations with spectators and with the world” (Libby, 45). These relations determine interpretation and effect of an image on the viewer through various gazes. For example, the several gazes studied in this course and discussed in “Practices of Looking”: male gaze, feminist gaze, political gaze and numerous others. The perspective or mindset of the viewer thereby determines whether the image is ideological and harmful. Each gaze may assign a different ideology to the image. The potential for an image to have a harmful effect is based on this ideology. If the image challenges a firmly held ideology it may be harmful to the believer and solidarity of a group. Also, as indicated by the Bobo experiments in psychology mentioned in a previous blog, images can induce violence. Children who watched an actress on screen behaving violently with a stuffed doll they were more likely to behave in a similar fashion when presented with the doll.
The subjectivity when creating the image attests to both the ideological nature of images as well as the importance of focusing on the image rather than the actual event. The subjective and interpretive nature of image-making presents problems when determining the reliability of images as depicting true events. Libby directly negates Sontag’s argument in focusing on the events and ignoring the image as Libby states, “With all due respect to Sontag, I propose that much of the fault and horror [of the Abu Ghraib photographs] does in fact lie in the images, precisely because images are not transparent screens through which the viewer can see some truth beyond” (Libby, 44). Photographs are not transparent screens depicting all of the realities of that moment as pictures can manipulate “looking relations and line of sight among the pictured subjects and between the pictured subjects and the camera/viewer” (Libby, 46). Thus, framing is a major factor in the message an image sends to the viewer. For example, “the photographer chooses what to photograph, the vantage point, the proximity to or distance from the objects in the photograph and” what not to include in the picture (Libby, 46).
However, although I disagree that the only focus should be the events depicted in the image, I do agree that there is some truth in the photographs. The fact that the photographs were even able to be taken and at times posed is extremely disturbing. The fact that a smile appeared on a soldiers face as he looked at a person being tortures is undeniable.
3.
Images of war should be shown to the public. Limiting such freedom is a violation of freedom of expression and should thus be unlawful to limit if it does not reveal military intelligence that would endanger troops. Also, if Americans are to make informed decisions they must be presented with as much evidence as possible so that they can know the consequences of their decisions. The more information decision makers have the more likely the plan of action is to be successful. However, when referring to information, this includes images that equally represent all areas of war: the fighting, the death, the humanitarian aspect and accomplished missions. Knowing both sides of an argument ensures that the best analysis is undertaken and an educated decision is made.
Abu Ghraib photographs can acceptably be displayed in the International Center of Photography as long as the positive aspects of the war are also properly represented. One-sided arguments are dangerous to the public due to the psychological availability heuristic “in which we use the ease with which we can recall instances of an event in memory to help us estimate the frequency of the event” (Pastorino & Doyle-Portillo, 313). Thus, if the media is flooded by only negative images of the Iraq War, when a viewer is asked about the war a negative outlook will be most easily available and thus adopted. The negative portrayals are so frequent that they are easily recalled from memory. The availability heuristic explains the reason why opinion of the Iraq War declined after the mass distribution and media frenzy of the Abu Ghraib images. Due to the availability of these images of torture, viewers most likely determined that such torture was frequent in
No comments:
Post a Comment