Brynne Piotrowski
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
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.
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.
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 ChildrenThis 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
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
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.
1 comment:
Brynne made an interesting point when she talked about whether the focus should be on the the scenes depicted in photos, or on the actual power of the photos. She quoted Libby, saying, "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." Images can be twisted to serve some party's agenda, which can sway the public to view an event with bias. Photos also carry a lot of power in themselves, because people use photography on a daily basis to record important events in their lives. The public has come to view photos as a representation of reality, because that is their purpose, capturing moments like birthdays and other special events. People are more likely to be swayed by a photo than by a painting or a newspaper article.
Post a Comment