Shea post 11

Images become official by repetition. Usually, when an image matches a political climate, thereby eliciting positive viewer responses, it will continue to turn up in the various forms of mainstream media. The frequent use of a single image often has to do with profit or popularity. A news broadcasting station, for example, will repeatedly show the same footage of a soldier returning home to see his young son in an effort to appeal to its viewers’ emotions and heighten its ratings. It does not hurt that “official” images usually side with supposedly national aims and, in doing so, maintain government approval.

President Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” speech suits these conditions by portraying triumph and general optimism. The president looks composed and pleased in his well dressed position behind the podium. The camera’s slightly upward looking angle allows us to focus both on the presidential seal and the patriotic banner mounted behind him which lend a level of legitimacy to the scene. He is telling an implied crowd of cheering onlookers exactly what they want to hear in a language they can understand: red, white, blue, and thumbs up. The image depicts the U.S. government as powerful and deserving of the control that it exercises over other countries.

In this 2003 edition of Time Magazine, all U.S. soldiers are named person of the year. The MEN appear brave, prepared and resolved. Regardless of what the article on American soldiers has to say, the cover speaks to their courage and selflessness for the protection of U.S. citizens. We, as viewers, are meant to gaze at these MEN with admiration and gratitude for all that they do in the name of our “freedom”. It is a unifying image because it endorses the American military without specifically taking the side of the Iraq war.

The claims made by professor Libby’s “Culture/War” article and those made by Susan Sontag’s “Regarding the Torture of Others” are not mutually exclusive. The conflict between the two seems to be over the meaning of photographs like those from Abu Ghraib and how that meaning ought to be deciphered and managed rather than what ought to tangibly done with the photos. The authors address this issue by placing emphasis on different components of the images’ power but without coming to contradictory ends.

“Culture/War” argues that the picture does not have the final word. It offers only a portion of some bigger picture and is simultaneously subject to the influence of outside forces. There is no guarantee of conclusive truth, especially considering the popularity of image manipulation programs like Photoshop. Even despite digital photography’s compromised validity, it is a medium that is not exempt from visual interpretation. The way that an image functions is culturally determined. Individuals and entire societies alike employ the tools provided to them by their environment when approaching an image and so aesthetic analysis is worthwhile so that we might understand why the photos were taken and why we react the way we do.

“The ‘reality effect’ produced by the medium of photography can ironically deflect our attention from the visual structuring that can reveal as much as the content.” (Libby, 47) This visual structuring, she argues, takes place even within informal photography like that of the Abu Ghraib soldiers. The soldiers’ choice to gaze directly at the camera or to focus on humiliated prisoners, with the assistance of guiding lines like pointing arms or leashes, is said to set up an “exclusive relationship” between themselves and the viewers “creating and legitimizing a shared dominance over the prisoners, most of whom are objects” (Libby, 46).

Aspects of composition like these are enhanced by the violation of social constructs. Many “employ gender as a weapon of torture.” (Libby, 44) The forcing of prisoners into sexual positions most stereotypically associated with females plays off of the societal gender distinctions that often favor masculine over feminine. This “category error” is meant to humiliate the prisoners by making them to feel womanly, but further serves towards the viewers’ repulsion at seeing such a breach in what is considered to be socially acceptable. There is also a violation of setting that works to unsettle the viewer which combines the familiarity of quick and casual digital photography with acts of conscious brutality. We are subsequently made to identify with the culprits. This contributes to the images’ over all horror, because the distance that we seek to establish between such seemingly inhuman soldiers and ourselves is shortened by the “exclusive relationship” and the shared method of photography.

I do not think that “Culture/War” means to say that the horror depicted by the Abu Ghraib photographs lies solely within the images. It seeks instead to attest to the importance of self evaluation and understanding when it comes to our own responses to images of the like. I agree that this understanding is crucial to the recognition of why images like this are created and why they wield such power over viewers. I do not think, however, that this evaluation ought to take precedence over the investigation of the action that these images portray.

Susan Sontag’s primary complaint has to do with misplaced attention on the circulation and effect of the Abu Ghraib photos. Political figures seem to value morale over humane behavior as they focus on the negativity that these images will inspire at home and abroad rather than the rectifying of an appalling allowance. This apparent disregard is apparent in President Bush’s statement that he was “sorry for the humiliation suffered by the Iraqi prisoners and their the humiliation suffered by their families.” But “equally sorry that people seeing these pictures didn’t understand the true nature and heart of America.” (Sontag, 2) She employs factual information on the suspicion of torture and the likely innocence of Abu Ghraib prisoners to attest to the power of images. No recognition was given to this violent misconduct until photographs were made available. Sontag’s article does not reject photography as a medium worthy of interpretation, but calls for a priority to be placed, in this case, on what is being done rather than how it is being portrayed.

Ultimately I agree with both arguments. Certainly the methods by which images gain their power over us should be identified and analyzed so that our reactions might be intelligent and composed, but in events of emergency this analysis ought to be set aside in favor of preventative action.

In both cases, it is crucial that the Abu Ghraib photographs are made available to viewers. My agreement extends to this aspect as well. In the words of Professor Libby, “avoiding or censoring [photographs] in the public sphere would prevent us from recognizing and choosing ethically to act on their many implications for our society both as records and representations.” (Libby, 48) At the risk of indulgent sensationalism, wartime photographs are important for a realistic perspective. They will never be 100% reliable but the same dubious quality applies to information gathered from the textual media and from political figures themselves. There is never a foolproof guarantee, but photographs can act as an alternate source of information that will help to build a thorough perception of the situation as it really is.