Question 1
Most everything has an image or multiple images associated with it. War especially has images associated with it because it is such a huge thing in today’s world. The War on Terror or the War in
What does it mean to be an image of war? And just because an image may be of war, does that mean that it is “official”? An official image is one that has become “standard,” or incredibly recognizable. There are certain images that people think of when they think of the War on Terror. Several of these images are of the attacks on September 11, 2001, on the
Sometimes we can also see parallels between two wars, and images associated with those wars can show this. A famous photograph from World War II shows a flag being raised by soldiers amidst the clutter and rubble of battle in
During this war, the Iraqi government has been reformed into a crude democracy. Within the past few years, the first elections have occurred in
Question 2
“Sontag argues that we should ignore the images as such and focus on the events depicted in them.” I would absolutely agree with this argument. Yes, content in images can be dangerous; however, sometimes it is important for these images to be seen to get messages, themes, and news across. “Photographs have laid down the tracks of how important conflicts are judged and remembered.” In the modern world, photographs have become an integral part of history, and are extremely important. Take for example, the photograph of Mary Ann Vecchio kneeling over the body of a dead student at
Question 3
I am not a proponent of censorship of war photography; therefore I do not think it is right to hide war images during wartime. If a war is going on, people need to know about it. They best way to know about it is to see it. Photography has given our society that advantage. Whether or not such photographs are damaging does not matter. Being able to view these images, such as the photographs from Abu Ghraib, is such an asset to our society. It helps us see what war can do to our people, and to humankind. It is an atrocity, and yes these pictures paint a group of American soldiers and beastly and barbaric, but these photographs serve a purpose of anti-war. These images may prevent war from occurring again, or help resistance to war spread.
http://www.wgerlach.com/archives/disasters/index.html
http://www.britannica.com/eb/art/print?id=71966&articleTypeId=0
http://teachpol.tcnj.edu/amer_pol_hist/thumbnail399.html
http://www.fairvote.org/blog/?p=20
2 comments:
Christopher made a good point when he quoted Sontag as saying, "Photographs are us." This is a valid point, because in most occasions, photos depict the reality of life. The pictures from Abu Ghraib are horrible to view, but more horrible is the ideology behind them, the thought that these actions are permissible and allowable. Instead of merely critiquing the impact that photos may have, people should be focusing on what makes people take these pictures, and why many people found these photos to be humorous.
I do agree with you, Christopher, that, were it not for the September 11th terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center towers, the Bush administration's declaration of war on Iraq never would have been given a "thumbs up" by the rest of congress, nor the American public. Images of these terrorist attacks, such as that which you chose as an example for your post, further senses both of national patriotism and international fear within American minds. This heightened national pride among American citizens allowed President Bush a good amount of leeway in his pursuit of conflict with Iraq, while in reality, Saddam Hussein had very little at all to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks. This is all a testament not only to how powerful and emotionally stimulating images can be, but to how leaders and decision makers can use such qualities of images to their advantage, be there cause as flawed as it may.
Post a Comment