1) Images of war become "official" when they are put forth by a credible source and are then widely circulated. When an image becomes part of the mainstream media's portrayal of a war, from any side of it, it has become official. Probably the majority of these official images promote the cause of the war through normal ideological communications. For instance, the world is littered with images that promote war by implying that it is a patriotic undertaking, or that we are attempting to help those who need it. These images are widespread, but it is rare that any of them stick with us generations later. Less widespread, though perhaps more powerful, are the official images that protest war. There are certainly a great many unofficial images that take an anti-war stance, though for such an image to become official despite its contentions against governmental agenda, it must be very powerful, the kind that remains in the national consciousness for generations. Images of rows upon rows of Civil War soldiers lying dead in an open field, of a girl crying over the dead body of a college student who had been shot by the National Guard for protesting, and of Vietnamese children running naked from the horrors of wall, all have and will remain with us.
The above image portrays the war effort as an attempt to help the people of Iraq. This is exactly the type of image we wish to portray. The government wants the military to be seen as a positive, liberating force. While it is a very positive image, there are many others like it, from this war and previous wars. Because it is fairly generic, it likely will not endure when history looks back on the controversy surrounding this war.
On the other hand, this photo from Abu Ghraib prison helped create an international scandal. Instead of liberators, we appear to be bullies. This image was widely circulated as soon as the scandal broke, and has continued to be ever since. It is likely that this symbol will endure into the future as a symbol of American transgressions.
2) It is difficult to take a position between the two opposing contentions that images themselves can have harmful consequences or that it is the events they portray, not the images themselves, that are harmful. In the case of Abu Ghraib, I would have to argue that latter is true. The taking of the photos certainly had consequences after the fact that hurt our national image; however, the photos themselves were consequences of the events that took place. While in today's visual culture, the images that we see are capable of profoundly affecting our behavior, this particular incident shows that the behavior was already there. It was not a commercial portrayal of behavior that its purveyors wished the audience to adapt. It was a behavior that other forces had already brought into existence. While an image may serve to perpetuate this ideology of abuse and degradation, it also set in motion a wave of indignation. In this particular case, it seems that the events in question are the harmful forces at work, though this does not dispute the power that images have in our culture in many other cases.
3) In a democratic society, images of war should not be kept from the public during wartime. Images often serve as simplified arguments that make a point implicitly through appeals to emotions. In most arguments, such appeals are weak. However, war is not an argument. War is a fight, into which a nation carries principles concerning humanity and justice. These principles are not facts, and we cannot pretend them to be such. We cannot see how they are being carried out by reading text. However, when we see images such as those from Abu Ghraib, we can decide for ourselves whether or not we feel that the principles we consider to be American are being upheld. Since the ultimate power of American government rests with the people, it is important that they have every grain of truth at their disposal so that they may make the most well-informed decisions in regards to the path that the nation shall take.
No comments:
Post a Comment