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.