Disembedded, are (war) art images too much to handle, or just poor PR?

Some food for thought.

To quote the author (Zoriah Miller): "... although I am able to bring images of war to the world in a form of art, what actually goes on here is horror". And to further clarify his view (should anyone question his motives): "My message is not that war yields great photography. My message is: War yields human misery and suffering".

Warning, the following links may contain 'graphical' (what an adjective, BTW) images:
http://www.pdn-pix.com/pdn/newswire/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003828935

Zoriah says he has been motivated over the past year by "dozens of e-mails from soldiers I've been embedded with and other soldiers from around the world, thanking me because they felt my images would help people understand what they went through."

Bart

Bart,

I also hate the stupid word "graphical"!

There are a number of important issues (beyond being careful to show pics after impacted families have been notified):

• Not seeing the pictures insulates us from the real price kids have to pay for decisions to go to war.
  
  
• Not seeing the pics turns "homicide bombings" to just expressions of anger and not the demonic consequences of devaluing human life.
  
  
• Not seeing the horrors allows us to be too comfortable while others are traumatized, burnt and broken by our participation in war (Iraq) or non intervention (Darfur).
  
  
• Lastly, seeing it every day might, I'm afraid, numb us to the evil of these conflicts and we may just get acclimatized to horror.
  

So we probably need to include all these imperatives and values in our daily discussions and view of political decisions and foreign policy. How we integrate this terrible imagery with out modern life, I don't know!

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

How we integrate this terrible imagery with out modern life, I don't know!

Click to expand...

Same here, overkill (how about a noun!) will have the adverse effect. All I know is that, leading up to the upcoming change (?) of US administration, one needs to seriously (!) (re-)consider one's position. Numbing to the evil of these conflicts, and getting acclimatized to horror may be part of the blind spot developed by several governments (does, e.g., the evil of water-boarding at Guantanamo Bay really justify the means, or does it lower all standards?)! Let the people be the judge, and they will in turn be judged by the educated majority of our planet.

Bart

Hi Bart,

Just a few other perspectives. Today the Arab foreign ministers were showing solidarity with the Sudanese in the wake of charges for genocide being brought against members of that government. At the same time we have news that the U.S. government has alllocated 40 billion US dollars this coming year for combatting HIV and T.B. in Africa (perhaps more than that).

I don't see such money coming from the super-rich Chinese (who support the Sudanese) or the neo-Soviet Russians who are also overflowing in petro dollars.

So it's not just the ease with which we start wars or ignore massacres but also whether we we give a damn about mass scourges like HIV and T.B.

So, in the broader sense, balancing the errors, foolishness, lack of foresight and more, the USA comes out very well in spite of missteps. I still cannot forgive anyone for not having stopped the senseless slaughter of 300,000 poor black Africans tribesmen in Darfur. 10,000 French or British marines would end this in 3 months.

Asher

Well, Horror is a genre of art and probably of Art as well. There's a change in attitude towards it. Bosch used real world experiences and transformed these into phantastical images, Blake went the other way round [as far as possible]. Creators having lived through the horrors of war tend to make their horrific images more real, see Hans Jakob Christoffel von Grimmelshausen or Bosch.

The advent of time with ever more people and ever closer relations between nations brought less wars but at a larger scale. Modern warfare started with the Napoleonic Wars, which took over all of Europe and several overseas places. The Crimean War was the first being documented by photographers. It is debatable how far the Crimean photos were propaganda, the same holds true for one of the most horrfic wars ever, the US Civil War.

With the First World War it became clear how potent photos are for war propaganda though the marketing experts debated what better to show, nice flag waving or the gruesome things the enemy does to our boys. During WW2 both sides, particularly the Germans and the US, used professional film makers and photographers to praise their own advances. Only in the very last weeks of the war did the Germans start to use the atrocities of Russians and Americans to generate 'Durchhaltewillen' ['the will to persevere'] - they did not mention that Russians merely retaliated or that the presumed unhuman behaviour of Americans was a complete phantasy.

Is it absolutely true that horror movies use more and more gruesome imagery because they have to top what was before them? Or is it not the case that the images get more horrible because we know more and more about the true horrors? Probably a bit of both.

When Mickey Spillane came back from WW2 he used much more graphic violence and sex in his books than seen before. His reasoning was that the soldiers had seen real violence [and longed for real sex] so they would not buy his novels with fake violence in them.

As for real world photography, people simply do not believe the words on the page. It is a very common misconception that words [automatically] create images in the heads of the reader, no they don't. That is one reason why clichés are necessary [and used a lot in advertising], we know them, we recognise them, we retrieve the images associated with clichés. We do not create new images or real ones unless we already know them. That, BTW, makes the dark so effective in horror movies, we have no clear image of what lies there but assume it is really, really bad.

Reading about rape, tearing limbs, exploding heads etc. lets us wrinkle our intellectual brow but it does not grab us emotionally. Thus we need to see what happens to not only condemn it [an intellectual endeavour, distancing oneself from emotions] but fight them [a deeply emotional phenomenon].

Hi Bart,

Thanks for sharing Zoriah Miller's important contribution here.

Two more that I personally also consider to be important contributors, there are many others of course.

Tom Stoddart: http://www.tomstoddart.com/

James Nachtwey: http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/jn/images/JN0011SUINGA

Hi Asher,

the allocation of funds to fight HIV was on Bush's very first speech once he was empowered, I remember that well. However, from allocation to reality is a long way to travel as we all know, and frankly I would not hold my breath on announcements concerning humanitarian engagement, from any government, G7 finance minsiters, take your pick.

So, in the broader sense, balancing the errors, foolishness, lack of foresight and more, the USA comes out very well in spite of missteps.

Click to expand...

LOL, don't know I would not sign that!

Let the people be the judge, and they will in turn be judged by the educated majority of our planet.

Bart

Click to expand...

An interesting concept isn't it? Take the Lisbon treaty and the irish NO vote as an example.

Now, as happened before, they go back to the irish and try to tell them " Look children, you really did not mean to vote NO, go back and vote again, and this time do the right thing!", but and that they underestimated heavily, people are pissed being treated like a bunch of idiots while burocrats with questionable attitudes increase their own influence.

Ask the people of Europe about the Lisbon treaty, in every country, and then lets see.

In fact, I would go as far and say that the referendum as an integer part of major decision making should be part of any european constitution.

But behold, Sarkozy comes here on Monday to "teach" us all in matters of propper and politically correct voting. LOLOLOL I am sure he will change a lot of people's mind....

...NOT! <megagrin>

Have a nice sunday Folks!

P.S.

A photographer who published pictures of dead U.S. Marines on his blog says his post led him to be ejected from his U.S. military embed in Iraq.

Click to expand...

"Mr. Miller was dis-embedded because the unit commander lost faith and confidence with Mr. Miller and his ability to remain within the ground rules. He is still credentialed to cover MNF-I [Multi-National Force - Iraq] operations," said an e-mail from press officer Maj. John C. Hall.

Click to expand...