1.Images become official images of war when they are captured or obtained by the mass media and dispersed to the public audience to be interpreted as a form of propaganda. They tend to provide the audience with the opportunity to choose whether or not they support the war. Concerning war, images impact the public so much more than words. One could hear that 1,000 soldiers died, or 5,000, or 50,000, and still it might not register to the reader exactly how catastrophic the conflict is. If there were an image featured that depicted that number of people lying dead in the street or on barren land, most people would immediately become disgusted with the violence of war. Official war images exist to exploit what is occurring during wars. They also exist to either persuade the viewer to become pro-war or anti-war. All images during wartime are used as propaganda by the media and the government.
2. I agree with the "Culture/War" article when it states that "images can be ideological and even harmful" because images are so persuasive. War images can contribute to the loss of support of a war that might better both countries' economies and social dispositions. It is a fact that people in wars die. Innocent people, soldiers, and "evil" people in wars are all killed at one point or another. By capturing that image on a camera, the photographer is exposing a gruesome image to the public and therefore often aiding an anti-war sentiment. This is harmful and dangerous when wars should or must be fought for a moral or obligated purpose. No one wants to see bloody children, but they are a fact of war. Likewise, people don't want to support a war if they see images of children dying gruesome and pitiful deaths. This isn't good for a country or a country's campaign for war if people are persuaded by the affectation of an image. If the image speaks to a person's emotions they are unable to take a rational side concerning the war. People are persuaded by their emotions to become anti-war because these images are pushed into their faces. If a country is making the world a better place by participating in that war, then the depreciating support by its people because of images portrayed by the media does not expedite the war process.Also, images are easy to manipulate in order to convey the message that the photographer is attempting to send. It is more difficult for an individual to affect another individual through articles or news broadcasts because its easy for the reader or listener to keep in mind that it is the writer/broadcaster's opinion. With images, people tend to take them as solid fact. What they often forget is that photographers tamper with images until they appear just as they want them to. There isn't as much truth in images as people might believe.
Sontag suggests that we should "ignore the images as such and focus ont he events depicted in them." The predicament with this theory first arises when we question whether or not the image is a mimesis of an event or a photograph that has been tampered with in order to incite a certain emotion in the viewer. Images cannot be trusted to depict the events that they capture. They are just like words -- easy for the artists to manipulate only more deviously affective.
3. Images of war should not be hidden from the public during war time. One of the most valued things concerning the United States is its media coverage. Our media might not be unbiased, but it is open and free compared to that of Russia, China, and North Korea. United States citizens have a right to know what is going on in the war regardless whether or not the images depict the exact truth or if they persuade an individual against supporting the war. The Abu Ghraid photos most certainly should have been shown to the public so that the citizens of the United States might learn that they aren't as holy as they think they are. Some people who are United States citizens are just as evil as those Iraqis guilty of oppressing their country's people. We need to know that if there are people in the military who are abusing their position, they are being held responsible for their actions and being punished for them. They also need to serve as an example for any other wrongdoers in Iraq who are "interrogating" their prisoners illegally. Those individuals must learn from those who were caught. That type of behavior must not be tolerated by the American government and both the public and the military must hear, see, and accept that.
Still, the pictures should not be celebrated. As an American, I am ashamed to believe that those so-called heroes fighting in Iraq might be committing human rights violations in line with those of Saddam Hussein. If they are depicted in an exhibit, they should not be shown as art, but rather as evidence of those members of the 320th Battalion who committed such acts not only against the Iraqi prisoners but also against all the Americans supporting them from home.
1 comment:
I did not think of addressing the issue but Kelly made a good point when she indicates that we can read about the number of deaths going on. For all we know, thirty thousand people could have been victims of the Iraq war this past year but we do not register it. It takes one powerful image such as the Vietnamese woman mourning on top of the body bag which is presumably her husband’s to put things in perspective and reevaluate our role in this life. It is the impact of images and individuality that appeal to the viewer but I never saw it as propaganda—it may well be because the image will transmit a message either in support of or against the war. There is very little gray area when it comes down to this.
Although there are certain factions within the government that for the mere purpose of maintaining the status quo and not breed any opposition to the war might not want certain war images published, the United States is to be lauded in its tolerance of this sort of behavior. Why haven’t other countries suffered the ‘PR disasters’ the US suffered in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, etc.? Images of the torturing of Buddhist monks in China are not ever released, the disappearance of political prisoners in the Middle East never reaches the discussion table, and even Europeans who claim to lead the world in free press—the monarch’s excesses are never shown to the public—who still has to sustain their lavish lifestyles in palaces and royalty. Although to some extent I do understand why the Abu Ghraib photos should not be celebrated, what is commendable is the fact that images such as these surface in America.
Post a Comment