Last Friday, we watched James Nachtwey, the photographer, talk about his experiences in war zones, taking pictures and showing them to the world. He said that his inspiration for becoming a photographer was watching the effect the photographs of the Vietnam War had on the United States community.
Most of the photographs shown—and indeed most photographs from war zones—are bloody, gory, and violent. Not only are they somewhat gross, they’re also emotionally trying. The average American doesn’t have to deal with famine or gunshot wounds on a daily basis, and seeing these things in such life-like clarity is scary.
On the one hand, these photographs can have positive effects on the public. They can mobilize a nation, creating protests against an irrational war. Sometimes it becomes difficult to get through to people if they are too removed from the situation. For example, it took years for news of the genocide in Darfur to reach American people en masse. Photographs open a person’s eyes to the reality of war, and this is rarely a bad thing.
But there is another side. For one, these images are painful to see. They can even be emotionally scarring, if seen at the wrong time or in the wrong context. And, eventually, people become desensitized to the violence involved. If this happens enough for a long period of time, people become even more apathetic about things like genocide and famine.
So is censorship in terms of war a good thing or a bad thing? Should images like the ones that James Nachtwey shows be broadcast to a nation? Since we are Greenhill students, I expect that most people will say that yes, they should. I’m interested to hear why, though.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I really like your post Tess. Especially when you say "the average American doesn't have to deal with famine or gunshot wounds on a daily basis." I think a lot of people take this for granted, and photographs are a great way of relaying the emotions of war that most Americans fail to see.
Furthermore, War has not been fought on American soil since the Civil War, allowing most Americans to feel safe, and detatched from all of the U.S.'s campaigns since then. Photographs are a way to re-open this connection between the wars going on and American people. I can only imagine how some Americans would react if a war was ever fought on United States territory.
Great question. I am somewhat torn though when it comes to answering this. Like you say, these images can help or hurt a people.
I think war is overly censored. I feel like if people were to know the horrors of war, people would hesitate before jumping into a war, especially one that would bring many deaths. James Nachtwey showed these images to show the terrible nature of war.
In World War II, almost everything pertaining to an American soldier being hurt or killed was completely censored from images/movies. This helped boost morale within the United States because the general public was not aware of the horrors of war. I think that the amount of censorship for a war should be directly related to how popular the war is. In contrast,
WWII=more censorship=higher morale
Iraq War=less censorship=lower morale.
I believe that pictures such as Nachteway's should be shown. In Acton's blog he talked about how pictures say more than words. I agree with him. To bring awareness to a crisis, genocide or something else, words are often times not enough. Pictures of starving children and ravished war zones say volumes that can otherwise not be expressed.
I feel that war pictures should be shown but the context of the picture should also be given. War pictures have been around for a long time and they most likely will never go away because of the sense of reality (whether it is actually real or if it is a false perception) that is conveyed in them. Also because pictures can provide a false sense of security and a feeling of dominance during war.
I agree that media coverage of the war can be beneficial in educating the public about the reasons for war and the impact of warfare in regions around the world. Images and video of wars are disturbing and gruesome, but are the realities of warfare and battles. These pictures can help create a more sensitive and humane approach to war and can hopefully educate people about the physical damage that results from war. The Vietnam War is a perfect example of how people were deceived about the reasons for war and how media coverage helped educate the public about the tragic effects of the war. I believe in supporting my country, but I do not think that people should blindly accept their countries actions without knowing the reasons and impacts of these actions.
I too really like your post Tess. I think you can look at it in many ways, and even further, dive into the role the media has in the way America fights wars. Vietnan was the first war in which the media broadcasted from within the war itself. We lost that war. We have seen the war in Iraq from its beginning and will assuredly see it to the end. I think that this release of information to the media is crippling to a country attempting to come out victorious. Both Sun-Tzu and Clausewitz agree that to win a war, you must be willing to kill. In a war where every move is publicized, sometimes criticized- a country will inevitably lose its support. So to relate your point to media influence, I absolutely abhor it.
Love the post Tess, it really made me think about how America handles war through the media. I think (not sure) that the first real war photos that we saw as Americans was during the Civil War. I understand what Sam said that we can feel safe because a war has not been fought on our soil since the Civil War, and with the development of the camera and television we can be shielded from what is really going on and the media can control how we interpret a war. But with Nachteway's photos it helps us understand what a third world country has to go through on a everyday basis.
Post a Comment