Maxine R. Post 11

Maxine Rivera

Part I

War images become "official" through repeated exposure. When an image becomes something that we instantly associate with a particular war, or war in general, it begins to officially represent war. The repeated exposure occurs through the media, television, magazines, newspapers, billboards, etc. will show the same image to the public over and over until the public cannot help but call a specific image to mind when they hear the word "war." Depending on the image used, the people may have positive, supportive notions about the war, or negative, dissenting feelings. This is perhaps why politicians and people in power work so hard to control what images become official images of war. It would be desirable that the official images be images that champion the cause, that put our side in the best possible light, and make us look not only victorious, but righteous. In controlling what images become official, these influential people must also carefully censor what images must not become official, images that show the gruesome, inhumane, and dangerous side of war are not desired to be in the public eye, such images would not rally support of the masses.

http://www.tiger-tail.org/images/statue1.jpg

This is one image from our current war that has become official. One way of knowing that an image is official is that just about everyone (from a given audience, for instance, a country involved in the war) can identify the image; they have seen it before and they know what is going on. This particular image is of a statue of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein. There is a crowd of Iraqis around the base of the statue. This image is considered a point of pride, it is symbolically and literally knocking/ pulling Saddam Hussein off his pedestal with the support of the people. America is shown as (a) successful, (b) loved by the natives and (c) doer of good, bringer of democracy and stability. There was later controversy over the picture, apparently the crowd is just what is seen in the photograph, not a huge crowd as the audience would assume. Either way it serves the purposes of the government by putting America in a positive light, we are efficiently achieving our goals with the support of Iraqi people; job well done. It also serves to soothe Americans who might have felt doubtful about our presence in Iraq, it answers questions like "are we doing the right thing... are we accomplishing anything at all... do the people even want us there..." with a resounding yes.

This next image has also become an official image of the Iraq War. It is an image of President Bush in uniform on a visit to the troops. Again, the image is official due to its notoriety, it has been displayed on every television channel, in many magazines and newspapers, it can easily be found anywhere on the internet, and if you were to say to an American "that picture of President Bush in the flight suit" they would know exactly what you were talking about. The image once again serves the purposes of the government, the commander-in-chief is hands on. He addresses the troops in person, and is clearly involved in the war, not just sitting on a cushy chair in the Oval Office giving orders. He is smiling and waving, giving the impression that everything is fine. He is dresses as "one of the boys" to show the people that he is just that, the photo is very effective propaganda. The leader of the nation is involved and supportive, his calm manner relates a sense of control to the viewers telling them that everything is fine, going according to plan. This is the type of image that politicians would want to become official. Yet again there was controversy surrounding this image, several people took offense tot he attire of the president.
http://homepage.mac.com/brianflemming/iblog/images/bush_flight_suit325x385.jpg
These two images exemplify some of the "photojournalistic flourishes designed to make war palatable" such as the freeing of oppressed, miserable people, and the fully invested leader. (Gogan & Sokolowski, Inconvenient Evidence 3)

Part II
Photographs have amazing power in our society today, with great power comes the capacity for great danger. The often feel that photographs have the power to tell us the truth, something we value as absolute, above all else, "the distinction between photograph and reality... can easily evaporate." (Sontag, "Regarding the Torture of Others" 8) With the public trusting that photographs are "neutral signs that passively provide visual records of what is recognizable in the image" and the current ability to easily alter images, I definitely believe that images can be not only ideological but also harmful. (Libby, Culture/ War: The Visual Politics of Representation in the Abu GhraibPhotographs, 43) "Words add, words alter, words subtract." (Sontag 1) Today's technology also makes this true of photographs, with simple photoshop one can crop a picture, therefore subtracting, superimpose other images or bits of other images, adding, and change colors (for example, deepening the blue of the sky can make a day time picture appear to have been taken at night) and distort faces, sizes, etc., altering. Not to mention the power held by the photographer, he/she "chooses what to photograph, the vantage point, the proximity to or distance from the objects on the photograph, and therefore also chooses what is not int he picture... thus controlling our knowledge." (Libby 46) However, we still place an immense amount of trust in photography, for this reason I agree with Sontag's opinion that we should ignore images and focus on the events depicted in them. Yet, with this new distrust of images, and our already in place distrust of words, it becomes very difficult to understand the events and what actually took place unless you were a witness.

Part III

I believe some images of war should be kept from the public during wartime. I know that this position sounds tremendously undemocratic, but my reason behind my opinion is more personal that political. We discussed in class that photographs were extremely powerful because the figures in them are real, recognizable, people. "Photographs are us." (Sontag 2) But not only are they us, they are our brothers, our cousins, our husbands and wives, daughters and sons, nieces and nephews. Coming from a family with four cousins, and two uncles in the military, all of whom have been to (or are currently in) Iraq, pictures of mangled bodies, and bloodied soldiers disturb and frighten me, the effect they have on my mother and aunts is far worse. Luckily for my family, none of the photographs have been of our boys, but I do not think that any mother or father, sister or brother, or little cousin should have to find out about the fate of their loved one through something as impersonal as a photograph on the nightly news. Out of respect for the families of soldiers, I think some images should be at the very least censored (not allowed on magazine covers or the news, perhaps restricted to websites that one visits by choice.)

The guards at the Abu Ghraib prison, used this super personal aspect of photography as a black mail of sorts. The claimed that the pictures of the abhorrent acts were going to be used to keep the imprisoned individuals in check once they were released, that the men would follow American orders to keep the pictures from being circulated. (Gogan & Sokolowski 6)

I do not think that the Abu Ghraib photos should have been exhibited at the International Center of Photography. These photographs were under no circumstance art, nor were they intended to be, they were simply vulgar and I do not think vulgarity is proper justification for displaying something in a prominent public place. I also feel that displaying such photos to all Americans and the world opens up an opportunity not only for American dissent but for loss of support among other nations. Under no circumstances do I feel that the actions taken by the guards were alright, nor should they be covered up and ignored, but I think that circulating them and forcing them on the global community over and over only serves to hurt our nation, like the war or not we are involved, and destroying what support we have left is only going to jeopardize the safety of our soldiers, the ones who are not psychotically deranged and are just doing their job and serving their country.