Hoffman Post 11

1) It is very tempting to say of images that they become official when they achieve a sort of universally accepted status. However, nothing so high minded or egalitarian need be true of “official” images. Instead, we can consider that anything has attained a position of official-ness as soon as it is sanctioned by whatever the relevant office is. In this case, images become official when they are the ones accepted and promoted by the office or authority in a given area. When the area in question is war, the office in charge of governing the area is clearly the government. Hence, images of war become official when they are the ones being supported and promoted by the government.

Given that the government does not have complete control of all images or the media, however, there are always images that surface that contradict and disagree with the official ones. When these opposition images gain enough support and credibility, they can gain a certain kind of official-ness as well. While they are not sanctioned by the government, they can be sanctioned by the media “office,” or the dominant forces in the media world. While in some senses our view of photographs is such that we consider all pictures to be authoritative, there are countless pictures being taken all the time, and considering them all to be the official images seems to run counter to the definition of official.

http://middleeast2.blogs.bftf.org/files/2007/07/iraq_war_topix2.jpg

This image has been fairly widely circulated since the invasion of Iraq. While the actual context of the picture is unknown, the image appears to depict a tank or other armor motor vehicle driving up a deserted highway. The road sign, clearly visible in the picture, reads “Baghdad.” This image sends a very clear message: the United States military, moving in on Baghdad, without even the slightest opposition before it. The image symbolically represents the message the President and the government wished to spread about the invasion. We came, we saw, and we conquered with little to no difficulty.

http://www.sar.org/ohssar/WarOnTerror.jpg

While this image does not necessarily relate to the Iraq war directly, it is clearly a product of 9/11 and the war on terror. This was an image that appeared in many different places in the months following the attacks on 9/11. It is clearly meant to inspire patriotic feelings of sympathy for the victims of 9/11. By constantly reinforcing the reality of the situation to the general populace and by stressing the point that we had been attacked, the government was capable of creating a kind of unify force. This patriotic unity was then available to be used as support for the invasion of Afghanistan (and eventually Iraq). It should be clear what the government had to gain from sanctioning this as an official image.

http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/blog/Bush%20Marines%20Iraq%20%20jim%20watson%20afp%20getty%20images.jpgv

This is another image that sends very clear messages about the military. This time around, however, the focus is primarily upon the President and his relationship with the military. Bush is seen addressing soldiers, surrounded by them on all sides. Visually, the image makes a strong argument for the strength of Bush’s relationship with the soldier and their loyalty toward him. No one is seen questioning the war or arguing with the President. Instead, he is one of them, and they are, quite literally, standing with and behind him.

http://www.rubyan.com/politics/missionacccoffx.jpg

Unlike the previous three examples, this is perhaps not an official image. Pictures of this sort have been conspicuous in their absence from the current conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. While pictures of the coffins coming home were present during previous wars and while it is clear that American soldiers are dying in the Middle East, we have seen surprisingly few images of this sort. The vested interest that the government has in keeping such images from becoming official should be immediately apparent. A picture such as this reminds us of the toll of the war and makes us question whether or not it is worth fighting; these are just the sorts of questions that undermine the power of the government and therefore just the sorts of questions that it benefits the government to have us not asking.

2) When it comes to an issue of images being ideological and/or possibly harmful, the philosopher in me has a certain immediate reaction. Whether the image itself carries with it any meaning or if it is merely the events depicted in the image that matter is something of a question of realism versus idealism. Sontag’s arguments are ultimately ineffective because they rely upon the existence of the “subject matter of the picture,” when in reality we have no reason to actually believe that any such subject matter exists. We can attempt to analyze the ideological value of the picture itself, for that we have, but we cannot evaluate the speculative world in itself, for we do not have it. From a Kantian perspective, we can never know anything about this world. So too can we know nothing about the actual events depicted about the Abu Ghraid pictures or other images from looking at photographs. All we can know about is the photographs themselves.

That being said, what can we say about the ideological nature of images? It seems fairly clear to me that images can and do carry with them certain ideological commitments. To argue the opposite is to do the impossible; one would need to establish that images of all kinds say absolutely nothing. This is blatantly absurd. Images must have connected ideological messages for us to see them as anything other than formal expressions of abstract structure and composition.

So if images are ideological, can they be harmful? This is where it becomes difficult to make blanket statements. For some people who are operating under certain paradigms, no image is truly offensive or destructive. For others (whom I would feel safe saying are the majority), at least some images can be considered harmful. This eventually boils down to a matter of perspective. If only one person claims that images are harmful to them, how could we possibly refute them? We would be forced to concede that images can, in fact, be harmful under certain circumstances or to certain people.

3) In cases where a given picture could undermine national security or put lives at risk, then yes, those images ought to be censored. We should not go around publishing pictures of sensitive intelligence information. That being said, I doubt these are the sorts of issues to which the question is referring. The images from Abu Ghraib, for instance, do not directly undermine national security or place our soldiers (or anyone else, for that matter) in greater harm. They make us look bad and give the Iraqis another reason to hate or distrust us, but they are not directly dangerous images.

If the images are not directly dangerous, then they ought not be censored. As a country that is, at least nominally, run by the people, we should be informed about what exactly is going on during the war that we are helping to support. We should know as much about the war as we can without placing those fighting the war in danger. This becomes only more important when instances like Abu Ghraid highlight just how capable of depravity our own side can be.

Still, there can be many troubling or disturbing images that arise out of war, and people should not have such things forced upon them. Ideally we would be able to make the images available to the public in such a way as to allow those who so wished to view the images while allowing those who so wished to avoid them. Some might say that we should not allow anyone to continue living in ignorance and that we ought to show the realities of war to everyone, regardless of their own wishes or inclinations. This brings us back to the point in part two, however; what right does anyone have to decide how others should view images? If someone is offended by a given image, who are we to say that ought not be? Those in favor of total viewing would be offended if the other side made their choice for them, so why should it not go both ways? Failure to see things from other points of view or respect other choices than our own is what gets us into the mess of war in the first place.