Part I
War images become “official” when they serve to represent the government’s interest on the war. The “official” images convey ideologies of patriotism and honor in order to garner support for the government’s agenda; therefore, we can see that many, if not all, of the “official” war images contain subjects along the lines of proud soldiers in uniform standing with the country’s flag billowing in the wind in the background or government officials giving a sweeping look of satisfaction over organized troops.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/2007-01-10_Mission_Accomplished.jpgIn this image, George W. Bush is seen holding a thumbs-up sign in front of a sign reading “Mission Accomplished.” A crowd including soldiers can be seen cheering for him. This image conveys how the goals of the war have been met as well as the amount of support the crowd is giving the president; furthermore, the troops are in support of a president who is sending them to war.
Soldiers can be seen bowing their heads in prayer in this image; thus, furthering the message that the Iraq War is a moral war that is being fought with honor and integrity and that God is on the side of the “good” guys.
George W. Bush can be seen speaking to a group of what appears to be hundreds of soldiers who appear to be listening intently and respectfully to everything the president is saying. By displaying this image, the government wants the American people to see that the troops who are giving their lives for their country support the president; therefore, those who are safe at home should also support the president. This image also shows that the commander-in-chief does care about those being sent off to war.
Part II
Images wield significant power and can thus be ideological and very harmful. Looking at the pictures in Inconvenient Evidence: Iraqi Prison Photographs from Abu Ghraib disgusted and shocked me more than reading the accompanying text. Inscribed in these images is the potential to completely ruin the efforts the government is trying to make in Iraq; furthermore, with each new “unofficial” image emerging from the war, the reputation of the United States becomes even more tainted.
Sontag argues that the viewer should be more focused on the event occurring in the photo rather than the photo itself; however, the photo IS the evidence of the event. Without the images, the viewer would not be able to associate as much with the event than if an image was available. The image also serves to bond those who view it together: “Vernacular photography also serves a bonding purpose in its ability to create a sense of community and group identity among participants in events and between the participants in events and between the participants and the viewers” (Libby 45). Knowing this, if Sontag wants the viewer to focus on the event, then it would be more efficient to have the viewer focus on an image of an event. By concentrating on the images from Abu Ghraib, for example, the viewer can then center better on the events being depicted in the images.
Part III
Although they may be graphic and disturbing, images of war should not be kept from public view during wartime. It is the right of the people to know everything that is occurring as a result of the choices made by the leaders they elect into office. Photos that portray the cruel and dishonorable side of war, such as the Abu Ghraib photos, should definitely have been exhibited. Citizens must be made aware of the events occurring outside the borders of their respective countries. Many people harbor ideas of superiority in comparing their country to others. To say the least, many Americans instill in themselves the belief that they are untouchable when it comes to morality, honor, integrity, courage, and every other good virtue; however, because of the Abu Ghraib photos, we, along with others around the world, can see that this is not the case. These photos bring the harsh realities of the brutality and heartlessness of war into view better than any form of text ever could.
6 comments:
In part I you made an interesting point about the image of the praying soldiers. "God is on the side of the 'good' guys." With that photo, we see not only the element of faith in war, but also in our government and our country. Although we have a separation of church and state in America, God and prayer is still a big part of our system as is evident in the photo. I found it interesting that this image sent a message not only of our "moral," God-fearing miliatry, but also about our government and our people. The idea that the soldiers pray brings a sense of solace to many Americans, which is why, I imagine, this photo was taken and circulated.
I also agree with the fact that images have not only the power incite resistance, but also the power to humble people. Many who saw the photos of the torture of the P.O.W.s felt a sense of humility, because perhaps we are not as universally moral as we thought we were.
Theresa made an interesting point when she said that the Abu Ghraib photos contradict the American way of thinking. In this country, we have come to believe that we are unstoppable and almost above the law with regards to "morality, honor, integrity, courage, and every other good virtue." These photos show that there are repercussions to our actions, and our thoughtlessness can have a negative impact on others.
Ironically, the image of Bush giving a thumbs-up (and the rest of the photos from the 'mission accomplished' set) have ended up being the butt of many jokes. Our mission in Iraq was far from "accomplished" and Bush really jumped the gun on that call. The pictures of him giving thumbs-up, standing in front of a large "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banner have been the targets of comedians nation-wide (notably Jon Stewart). It's interesting that a picture meant to advocate a cause can so easily be turned against that cause with just a simple change in interpretation and the right choice of words.
I agree very much with David's comment. Although these image's of George Bush were meant to show support from our president, and make him look good, and show him with a positive attitude, they have turned him into a joke. Quite frankly, he looks like a dork. I think this is propaganda gone wrong. Bush thinks that things like this will make people actually like him, but he is wrong. What more can you expect from a male college cheerleader with a C average?
I think the issue of exhibiting the Abu Ghraib photographs raises the issue of desensitizing the public. How much can the photos be shown before they lose their effectiveness and become counterproductive because the public gets tired of these pictures getting "forced" upon them? The same argument could be examined for your photo of President Bush on the aircraft carrier. Essentially, I found your post really raised the question of "How much (good or bad) is too much?" when it comes to war imagery.
I chose to "Mission Accomplished" image of George Bush too because of its perseverance as an official image over the years. In 2003 when this message was delivered, the photo took on a theme of patriotism and triumph . We would look at it and smile thinking "way to go us!". Now, we still look at it and smile but it is a different kind of smile altogether. This image is now a sarcastic icon which refers to the insufficient quality of leadership provided by our presidential administration. It is interesting to compare the status of images from year to year and try to make predictions about how their perceptions will change in the future.
I have just realized that David's comment says almost exactly the same thing. Darn.
Post a Comment