Feb 14. A Soldiers Life.

In my opinion our class is really starting to come together with this weeks reading and radio shows. We've talked in class about how to view a picture, what responsibility that photographer has/doesn't have and who has the write to view these photos of people in distress. We had multiple reading to do for tomorrow's class, all of which get at extremely different yet similar points. Now is when I think the classes thoughts are going to takes some individuals turns.
I'll start with that radio podcast because it stood out to me because you were able to listen to it, hear it coming out of other people instead of reading it yourself. It was very eye opening to say the least. the first part was a segment of a movie entitled "will they know me back home?". It was about three soldiers coming back from war and the small segment that was played was talking about whether going home would be the same. The older man said they were nervous out of the service, that honestly hit me pretty hard. I then began to think, I can't even begin to comprehend the adjustment that these men and women make to fight in a war, but then later to come back home; if they are lucky enough. How do you turn that switch on and off? That question came up at perfect timing because then the radio show started to give actual account of people that went to war and what it was like to make those traditions from normal life to war and vice-versa. The letters from husband to wife were difficult to hear, you could hear in the letter their connection drifting apart. In war the see stress as an injury and will dismiss you but as a medical case. It's rough to hear these soldiers tell their stories and say that they had suicidal thoughts. What I took from this podcast was what does a war really do to a person? It changes you inside how?
Moving on to the Phillips' book chapter ones starts off bringing up some really wonderful questions. What does the uniform of a soldier mean? Why is their first priority to change clothing? We heard the same thing in the second half of the podcast. First thing these soldiers did when getting off the plane was change into normal civilian clothes. Why? Does not being seen as a soldier change what and who they are viewed as? Does it make them feel more at home? It goes on with this very heart touched story about this man named Adam Gray. He was an energetic full of life kid who went to war that way but came back a totally different man. That's where the question arises for me if you go to war are you being tortured yourself? In this book it mentions the post-traumatic stress disorders and how they are on a steady incline. Is fighting a war an automatic torture for both sides?
In my opinion trying to answer some of these question, one can never honestly know what it feels like to experience these things. I look at a soldier and I think wow that person is risking their lives to fight for our countries freedom. One thing I never really thought of, is the only way you can realize a person is in the service is by their clothing. Maybe that's the reason they want to get rid of their clothing as soon as they can, to be able to blend in without drawing attention. I have nothing for respect for them, but I never really have had to think about what it is that they are risking. Phillips almost go as so far as to say that it's not just that individuals life that is at stake, but all the people who are close the them and love them; parents, spouses, children, friends.

Sontag/Phillips/Brody

In think Phillips brought up some important questions in the opening pages of his book. Thus far, we have focused largely on photographs and their efficacy, or possible lack thereof, in preventing violence.  As Sontag concludes and as we discussed on Thursday, such excessive analysis of photographs creates distance and can be problematic in that people begin to obsess over the photographs themselves instead of acknowledging the actual content of the photographs, a far more challenging task. Photographs serve a function in so far as they can make things “real,” as Sontag discusses regarding the Bush administration and the photos of Abu Ghraib.  However, once photographs have brought such issues to light it is critical that we shift our focus from the photographs to the actual content they depict in order to make any sort of progress in understanding and preventing violence. 

Phillips asks the important question of why American soldiers turned to torture. Moreover, what causes soldiers to deem torture acceptable in the context of war?  In his introduction, Phillips briefly outlines various psychological studies that suggest that perfectly normal, moral human beings will engage in violent and abusive behavior under certain conditions.  This is exemplified in Phillips book and the This American Life episode, both of which elucidate the transformative effects of war on soldiers.  I also saw evidence of this in the Brody article when he discusses the labeling of Afghan prisoners as “enemy combatants” as opposed to soldiers, which one U.S. soldier expressed made him more comfortable with abusing detainees.  When I read this I couldn’t help but wonder why this distinction made a difference. What circumstances led this soldier to reason that torturing soldiers was morally wrong, but torturing enemy combatants was justified?  Phillips also briefly questions why torture is still permitted when most Americans oppose it and scientific evidence suggests that torture is a relatively ineffective means of obtaining information.  Thus, it seems that lower level soldiers turn to torture more as the result of psychological turmoil than as an attempt to advance a political agenda.

When looking to understand torture from a political perspective, as Brody argues, it is critical to acknowledge the structural causes that have led to the acceptance of the use of torture.  Criticizing the lower level individuals who actually carry out torture is relatively useless when we recognize this as a psychological phenomenon.  As Phillips suggests, many individuals can be moved to abusive and cruel actions under unimaginably stressful circumstances.  The real issue, then, is why individuals in higher positions of authority have approved such tactics.  This is particularly critical to question, as Sontag points out, when our entire justification for using torture in the first place is the prevention of similar acts being taken against the U.S.  It is difficult to declare to want to liberate Iraqis from oppressive situations when we ourselves our oppressing them.  In other words, how can we possibly expect other countries to take seriously our claims that we want to liberate them by establishing governance rooted in virtues that we clearly lack ourselves?

What Falls in the Frame: Torture Images

I think that the four assignments we had this week – the three readings and radio show – interact in very interesting ways. Due to our class discussion and focus on photography, gazes and framing in the past couple of weeks, it is impossible not to approach the topic of torture without our established “viewing” framework in mind.

Though none of the texts lay this out explicitly except maybe the Sontag article, torture is a form of objectification and the creation/performance of symbolism (as photography inevitably is as well) beyond the mere means to an end. Sontag went in depth into comparisons that highlight this fact, for example the thematic crossover between torture images and pornography. Although the example both she and Brody use, Abu Grahib, was captured on film, I think it is important to understand the symbolism and humiliation that would have been present even without a camera there to snap the picture.

I would take issue with one of the claims Sontag makes in her article in particular: she suggests that whereas photographs used to be collected as “trophies” to be stored, now they are “less objects to be saved than messages to be disseminated, circulated.” I think that though she may be right about the difference in the impact of photographs, that “in our digital hall of mirrors, the pictures aren’t going to go away,” these images were still taken as trophies. And it is the very fact that such actions were considered by soldiers on the ground to be trophy-worthy that suggests the structural realities of the military (discussed in Phillips) that would lead soldiers to conduct and defend such practices.

Phillips’ argument leads us to understand that our lens of analysis is too narrow when attempting to understand the experiences and actions of American soldiers on the ground. He even mentions Abu Grahib in his introduction, saying that we hone in on this isolated incident and on the level of the individual soldier without adequately scrutinizing the system. This tendency, literally and figuratively, takes the government structure and the military higher-ups out of the chain of blame – it takes them out of our frame of analysis, shielding them as the eye of the camera and the public turns us elsewhere. Brody argues a similar claim, saying that “true accountability requires that those at higher levels who approved or tolerated crimes against detainees also be brought to justice.”

I think that our tendency to focus on the individual rather than the system is not one that emerged with photography, just as the collection of obscene trophies did not stop or start due to advancements in photography and the idea of justice in war cannot end with a “war on terror.” These ideas are all longer-standing, more permanent, but are molded in the present day based on the media we have access to. Perhaps this does nothing concrete to further my claim, but I found it fascinating how drawn inI was to the first chapter of Phillips and to “This American Life.” I found them interesting because they were the stories of individuals, they were relatable but distant from my being. Structures, systems and hierarchies, on the other hand, work largely invisibly but affect us all daily. This is a harder place to look, where the lens never falls. I’m just wondering, is there a way to get at this bigger picture through a lens pointed at the individual?

James Nachtwey Receives Dresden International Peace Prize

Hey everyone! This happened just happened yesterday and I thought it merited sharing:

http://now.dartmouth.edu/2012/02/photographer-james-nachtwey-70-awarded-the-dresden-international-peace-prize/

Lutz/Collins & Berger

The Lutz and Collins article does something very interesting by introducing this idea of an ‘intersection of gazes’ ultimately becoming the “root of a photo’s ambiguity, each gaze potentially suggesting a different way of viewing the scene” (105). We’ve been discussing how different interpretations/understandings can come from a photo but I don’t think we’ve explored how these different views interact with one another, either supporting or even negating ideologies within society. They state, “the power of the pictorial representation is that it can ease that anxiety (the realization of the gap between our ideal identity and the real)… photos of the ethnic other can help relieve the anxiety provoked by the ideal of the other’s gaze and estimation of us” (92-3). I feel that photography can create a bridge to the other while simultaneously creating a barrier of protection from considering the gaze that Other has upon us. It provides accessibility to the Other while maintaining a distance from them. 

These authors discuss the idea of the position of the spectator stating that this, in combination with the multiplicity of intersecting views, “allow viewers to negotiate a number of different identities for both themselves and those pictures” (91). With this comes an inherit position of power of the viewer, as they have the freedom of not only changing interpretation but also identities in contrast to that being photographed (or the Other), who is identified and understood not by their own identity but that imposed by the viewer. They speak on this notion of the mirror, but more specifically the camera, as “tools of self-reflection”(101). The camera provides the one being photographed to not only become self-aware or solidify self-identity and how others see them but also allows the individual to see his or her own self as the Other. I think it’s important to be conscious that the identity of the photographer and how they photograph an individual can help create and mold which facet of this self-identity is being captured and then perpetuated.

Berger’s article explores something a little different. When the author states, “how a woman appears to a man can determine how she will be treated”(46) and then continues to explain how the actions of either gender are perceived and then labeled brought up a great point. I think this notion can be related back to this idea of identity, specifically the formation of the Other (one being viewed). Any thought or perception of who the women, or rather the Other, is based on what the viewer associates with them. Berger says “men act and women appear”(47) so again, applying it to a larger dynamic, the viewer (Westerner) acts and the Other appears. But I think this raises another point, that many times assume that the Other is not conscious that they are being watched and in some sense this solidifies the power dynamic between the photograph and the one being photographed. In the case we do acknowledge that they are aware they are being watched, the photograph provides this distance from owning up to what we're doing, viewing.

Although I understand the ideas and viewpoints of all these readers I still wonder, are reading too deeply into the photographer-person being photographed-viewer dynamic? Are the analytical tools of dissecting and understanding the power and purpose of the photo in fact adding to the confusion and apathy we tend to have towards images?

Power and the Gaze

    In the two text we had to read, one of the themes I saw emerge were that photographs have the potential to other. They often other those not in power, or not “like” the intended viewer. In “The Photograph as an Intersection of Gazes,” the authors explain how brown bodies, especially non-American bodies are constantly objectified, while, Berger focuses on the ways that women are subject to the same gaze and objectification. In addition to distancing “ourselves” from an “other,” photographs have the potential to show us how the other sees us, however Catherine Lutz and Jane Collins posit that the gaze of the other is often “manipulated... [to allow] us to see ourselves reflected in their eyes in ways that are comfortable, familiar and pleasurable” (p. 92). 

     This keeps us from critical reflection and evaluation of ourselves. However, photographs have the power to cause us to reconsider things that we have previously accepted. Catherine Lutz and Jane Collins sate that the “mirror and camera are tools of self-reflection and surveillance. Each creates a double of the self, a second figure who can be examined more closely than the original - a double that can also be alienated from the self - taken away, as a photograph can be, to another place” (p. 100). I found this statement especially interesting, but it made me wonder how often do we see ourselves in this way; when do we view things from a new perspective and step outside ourselves? How often do we see photographs that ask us to do so? Too often we remain in our comfort zone looking at pictures that reinforce our preconceived notions and don't challenge us, that are “comfortable, familiar and pleasurable.” Both of these articles seem to come back to the question of power dynamics, and how taking a picture allows the photographer to compose and aestheticize the picture in a way that influences the viewer’s perception. It seems that too often the subject of the photograph is left voiceless; their face and body appropriated to convey someone else's message. This results in a multitude of smiling faces looking out at you from national geographic covers that Lutz and described.

Surveyed and Surveyor

            For this Tuesday’s class, we engaged in two readings to further our understanding of photography (and the notion of looking or seeing).  These two readings have many overlapping points of view, as they discuss the multiple dynamics of a painting and/or photograph. 

            Lutz and Collins, in “The Photograph as an Intersection of Gazes”, focus on seven specific types of “looking”, of which they refer to as “gazes”, which vary depending on who is viewing the photograph.  Although each one of these “gazes” represents something different, similar questions can be raised after reading the descriptions for each “gaze”.  For example, do we look at photographs of others simply because we “desire to control or denigrate”?  Do we look at photographs of others because we want to distance ourselves from the subject in the photograph?  Or, do we look at a photograph to draw comparisons between the subject and ourselves (whether it makes us feel better or worse about ourselves and our current situation)?  In other words, are we always looking at a photograph to draw comparisons between the subject and ourselves?

            Lutz and Collins also suggest that history has allowed some people to look at photographs because they are “supposed to”, whereas others look “illicitly”.  I find this point fascinating, as it seems to follow history over time.  These authors might suggest that the Colonial white male has always been expected to look and gaze.  On the other hand, minorities such as women or people of color have been the subjects of the photographs.  If they intend to look, they must do so illicitly.  In summation, Lutz and Collins seem to suggest that photographs maintain power relations and reflect the hierarchy that exists during the time of the photograph.  Do you agree with this understanding?  Do you believe that photographs maintain or perpetuate a cycle of repression?

            John Berger, in his piece titled “Ways of Seeing”, depicts the possibilities of how one sees nude women throughout decades of art.  He constructs the idea that the social presence of a woman is quite different from that of a man, and therefore a photograph of a nude man suggests power and what he’s capable of, whereas a photograph of a nude woman suggests weakness and the acceptance of what can and cannot be done to her.  For a nude woman, this is portrayed in her facial expression, the pose of her body, or props incorporated into the photograph (such as a mirror).  “Men act and women appear”.  A photograph is for a man to look at it, and a woman to watch her being looked at.  Berger’s understanding of photography, specifically the relation between men and women, seems rather critical of both subjects involved in the “looking” or “gazing” process.  In a simplistic view, women are choosing to be exploited and men are choosing to exploit them.  I think this point is interesting, and I think that as a class we can dive into this point a bit deeper.  Due to the fact that we have grown up in a world of photography, and have been photographed our entire lives, do you think that you fit this mold?  Why do you take a photograph, and why are you the subject of a photograph?  What do you think photographs represent in the 21^st century?