Erica Tibbetts
1. War images become “official” the same way any element of culture becomes imbedded in the popular consciousness, through repetition, acceptance, interest, consumption and/or a support for some accepted value. A picture of Michael Jordan slam-dunking, or a space shuttle taking off, or of Marilyn Monroe having her dress blown up; all are iconic and instantly recognizable to the American public. They have been viewed repeatedly; they support the American ideals of hard work, beauty, advancement, domination; they are all aesthetically pleasing to an extent. We accept them as a culture because they do not challenge us or our beliefs.
There is, of course, a whole different set of images that have been ingrained in the American psyche due to their abrasive subject matter. Images from the depression, pictures of 9/11, of bombings or other events that have shocked the American public still become part of the accepted culture, even if they do not represent an ideal.
In the case of war photos, both reasons for acceptance can be drawn upon. War is a great economic stimulator, a great unifier, a means of glorifying a people and nation, a way of building patriotism, a means of gaining power and respect, but also a gory, often vilified, act that never occurs without controversy, death, and suffering. Yet, the images created from war still enter and become a part of the pubic consciousness.
From the war in
a) the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s statue http://www.cbc.ca/news/photogalleries/saddam_timeline/pages/13.html
b) soldiers in camouflage outside a building in
http://www.iraqi-dinar-exchange.com/news/older-iraqi-dinar/1559.html
c) tanks on the way to
http://middleeast2.blogs.bftf.org/files/2007/07/iraq_war_topix2.jpg
d) President Bush on an aircraft carrier
http://www.defendamerica.mil/images/photos/may2003/index/ii050103j.jpg
There are two main purposes served by these images. The first is the purpose of unification, patriotism, and strength. This applies to the picture of the toppling of Saddam Hussein, and to the picture of Bush on an aircraft carrier. The former shows the downfall of a dictator, a man thought to be evil and representative of everything the
The picture of Bush on an aircraft carrier is symbolic of the President as leader, as the first line of defense, as the most powerful man in the world. He is ready to fight for his country, to take up arms with the “common soldier”. This image is meant to show that the President cares, that he is not above or removed from the struggles of the soldiers.
The other two images are slightly more ambiguous in their purpose. The soldiers on a city street, with civilians in the background could be read negatively. They are intruding upon a foreign setting, and imposing themselves upon people who may or may not need their help. They could be seen as a liberating force, who are there to help the onlookers. They could be seen as a disruptive, destructive force. They could also be indifferent. The soldiers and the people behind them are from two totally different worlds and probably have opposing outlooks on life. This type of image shows the invasive nature of war.
So, in a sense it can serve two different purposes. It could unite, but it could also divide.
The picture of the tanks is also ambiguous in nature. It shows force, power, technology and progress. However, it also shows the violent, invasive nature of war. The picture could serve to rally people to the cause, to feel patriotic, to be unified. However, again it could also serve to show the problems created by war. It depends a lot on the context in which the image is displayed, and the viewer. The viewer’s beliefs will probably change how he or she views this image.
2. I do agree that images can be ideological, yet I think the word “harmful” is too loaded to be applied universally and without any other sort of tweaking. In her article, Dr. Libby sets out to prove that “the Abu Ghraib pictures (and by extension any photographs) can be theorized as examples of visual culture and positioned in relation to culture wars fought over images” (Libby). Essentially, images can create a powerful argument and an opinion of the world that is not inherent in the actual thing captured, but in the way the subject matter is captured.
Libby points out, “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, but constructed cultural objects whose intelligibility is made possible only within a larger matrix of other signifying practices and the social relations of which they are a part” (Libby). We are a visual culture, especially the current generation. We watch television, play games, surf the internet on computers and cell phones, see billboards, and even demand that our music be set to video in order to visualize the lyrics. We think through images in a way that no previous generation has. So, when we see pictures of Abu Ghraib we see more than just a prisoner tied up, or performing a sex act, or being “punished”. We see a commentary on the American spirit, on the American desire to be in control, on the American desire to have “fun”. Libby describes how the act of taking pictures implies the quotidian and enjoyable, “[there is a] jovial nonchalance with which the pictures depict such horrific acts and the ways in which the viewer’s memory simultaneously draws on the production and circulation of our own everyday pictures” (Libby). Americans take pictures at family gatherings, at sporting events, in places and during activities that are fun, wholesome, memorable. When the soldiers in these pictures smile, or give a thumbs up, they are extending this enjoyment to the activites in which they are partaking. The viewer identifies with this, whether consciously or not. The image is relate to enjoyment, and at this point the viewer can either be repulsed by what he or she sees, and denounce the American military, the war, and the spirit behind it. Or, he or she can look at this image and embrace the retribution that is being dealt to so called “terrorists”. Either way, the image is not merely an image, it makes the viewer take a stand, it shows the flaws in the American approach to enjoyment, power, and gender or is reveals in the viewer an indignant sense of hatred towards the unknown and the “other”.
In relation to the problem of gender and power, Libby says, “the pictures and the acts they depict employ gender as a weapon of torture and how this strategy is effective only within belief systems that construct binaries of “masculine” and “feminine” in terms, respectively, of “strong” and ‘‘weak,” valorizing the masculine over the feminine” (Libby). The only reason the soldiers use this form of “torture”- that of subjugating a man’s will and power to a woman’s, is because they believe that any man will be ashamed of this, thus creating a preconception that the man is and should always be more powerful. The image is not merely capturing the act, but showing a belief system, creating a support for a male dominated culture.
In the “Inconvenient Evidence” article, the following accusation is made, “The photographing of prisoners, both in Afghanistan and in Iraq, seems to have been not random but, rather, part of the dehumanizing interrogation process” (Hersh). In this sense, then, the photograph itself is almost not as important as the act of taking it. The constant flashing, the knowledge that one is being examined and recorded is almost as terrifying (to someone in a compromised position/situation) as actually seeing the physical product.
The same article discusses the actual product, the photograph itself, and the mixed implications this product can have, 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 ver y different picture: war is systematic cruelty enforced at the level of everyday torture” (Wallis). The photographs show the cruelty, the overarching problems with war, the underlying cruelty of the American desire to control and command. They cease to be just images of what happened, and instead become accusations.
Susan Sontag, in her article about the events that took place ace at the Abu Ghraib prison has a slightly different take. She says, “So, then, is the real issue not the photographs themselves but what the photographs reveal to have happened to ''suspects'' in American custody? No: the horror of what is shown in the photographs cannot be separated from the horror that the photographs were taken -- with the perpetrators posing, gloating, over their helpless captives” (Sontag). She makes no effort to separate the method, the act, the context of the picture from the actual event it is capturing. The only horror of the scene is what is actually taking place, not what the picture stands for. I have trouble believeing this, because any image needs some sort of framework. NO image can be read purely for what it is, without some understanding of something that is not inherent in the picture itself. A viewer must know where the different people are from, why they are where they are, what is occurring, under what circumstances these people were brought together, etc. Without this information, the picture cannot be read. With this information, the picture cannot be viewed solely on what it depicts.
Later, Sontag says something along the same lines as Libby, in that pictures are no longer just the physical object: “The pictures taken by American soldiers in Abu Ghraib, however, reflect a shift in the use made of pictures -- less objects to be saved than messages to be disseminated, circulated” (SOntag).
Pictures are not just records of an event, they are ideas, they are art, they are an ideological weapon. Pictures can change the way people think about an event, about a person, about themselves. Images are so important in this culture that we cannot escape the supreme power of any permanent, or semi-permanent imagery.
3. People have the right to know what they are a part of. The American public has a right to know what their tax dollar is supporting, what their name, their country, their fellow citizen is being involved with. However, no depiction of events is ever unbiased. There is always some sort of political spin involved when an image of war, or prison, or soldiers, or detainees is displayed. So, the public can never receive the truth they deserve. In this case it is hard to say whether or not images should be censored. I don’t believe in censorship. I believe images have the power to show people the evil or the beneficence of their actions, or the actions they are supporting or protesting. I think that images have the ability to form ideology, but I believe a viewer should be allowed to make these choices for him or herself. And, with the way images are produced and disseminated, I don’t think this will ever be possible.
So, while I disagree with censorship, I don’t know how I feel about images of war being spun to an all too gullible audience. Viewer’s can be manipulated too easily to understand what an image actually does or does not mean, and in the case fo the Abu Ghraib pictures, a viewer could probably be convinced either that the “torture” being dished out was worthy of the crimes committed, or that it was totally unwarranted.
So, I guess in reality I don’t want censorship or a lack thereof, I want an unbiased media and an educated public… good luck with that.
No comments:
Post a Comment