Visual Presentation in Iraq War - Coursework Example

Visual Presentation in Iraq War Introduction Visual presentation is one of the most fundamental media mainstreaming aspect that has great impact on people. This is because people have the essence of capturing and interpreting what they see even before reading about it. In simple terms, visual presentation has the greatest effect on people’s feelings and arouses different emotions and perspective that can either be positive or negative depending on the visual presentation. Photography is a type of visual presentation that captures images and is therefore believed to be the most effective form of visual presentation as it represents the actual happenings in our world (Ingle dew 2005, 99-178). The Iraq wars photos are a proof of the great impact that visual presentation can have on people. Particularly, the Abu Grab prison photographs which displayed sexual, physical and psychological abuse including sodomy, torture, homicide and rape of the prisoners by the United States Army and other US governmental agencies aroused mixed negative reception from the public that tempted the public and government to take various actions to help mitigate the sexual torture victims reflected in the Iraq war photos. An analysis of Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison photographs and their reception will therefore give us a clear picture of the visual representation of war in Iraq and its reception and impact of people to give us a general overview of the impact of visual presentation on people (Cannon 2005, 102-169). Pain Sontag points out that photography create ecology of images whereby world fragments are torn from their respective context and mixed together with history. As she puts across, this transforms people into tourists of other people’s reality and their own hence causing pain by reinforcing the predatory mode of people’s consciousness. As she explains, casual snapshots enact metaphysical aggression towards the world as they are represented as crude facts that are addressed to the eye. This makes people feel sympathy toward those who suffer to an extent that they try acting with good intentions in order to evoke the appropriate response. For instance, the United States government officials seemed to sympathize with the detainees. They regarded the acts as cruel treatment which were degrading and humiliating against any detainee in and place and therefore took the responsibility of ensuring that those who committed the crime were brought to justice by evaluating what had happened. Some of the Armed forces members involved were imprisoned, others fined while others were forcefully removed from their career posts and their careers brought to a halt (Songtag 2010,56-111). Culture of Commemoration According to Simpson once the public grief is aroused by visual presentation, the public is transformed into a grieving nation and nothing is ever the same. As he puts across, photography or visual presentation arouses a culture of commemoration to the public. The public develops the conventional culture of remembrance and mourning such as summarizing their names in the obituaries, grieving of the dead and erection of monuments. This can be evidenced by the impact that Abu Ghraib prison had on the public. After the United States television news magazine known as the 60 minutes showcased the prisoners’ tortured photographs that depicted their abuse, grief was aroused within the public and substantial political scandal between US and coalition countries arose. This led US coalition to start a prisoner release policy in attempt to reduce the prisoner numbers and its demolishment by George Bush in 2004. To commemorate the prisoners, US handed the prisoner to Iraq authority who renamed it to Baghdad Central Prison. As a way of grieving over the prisoners tortured, people were filled with anger and sought revenge by attacking the prison. In April 2004, insurgent fired mortar into the prison with an aim of attacking detained that cooperated with U.S. in attempt to make U.S. close down the prison, 60 insurgents attacked the prison using rockets, grenades and small arms in 2005. Framing and unethical photography Some people received the photographs with doubts and questioned the ethics of photography. The photographs were seen as a form of framing whereby the photographs which had short descriptive words under them or names were used for selective influence over people’s perception. Immediately after the photos release, an article entitled ‘Regarding the Pain of others’ was published and the humiliation, brutality and rape was linked with the Iran war that was going and the photos therefore became evidence of war crimes. However, the release of photos in Iraq was reception was in low key. According to Iraq people, true stories pertaining torture in jails, abuse, custody and mass rape had already been going around for sometime even before the arrival of the United States army. To them, there was nothing unexpected and most people were wondering how comes the torture of the detainees was released at that period. To many people, the photographs were used to steer people into thinking that the sexual torture and abuse caused to the detainees by the American soldiers was related to war while on a factual basis, the American soldiers probably adopted the daily routines or happenings of the Iran prisons and fell victims of framing (Butler 2009, 156-187). The Abu Ghraib photos were considered by many as violent imagery and unethical photography. The context of interpreting the Abu Ghraib photo was used for conventional pornography, trophy image whereby people collected the photos and kept them in their albums for display and travel photo whereby the photos were used over the internet to attract travelers and tourists. The photos were also used to taint photojournalism whereby soldiers used their cameras and digital phones as photojournalists, subject the victims to abuse and sexual torture and captured them for public release contrary to photojournalism ethics. The soldiers also started swapping and emailing and sending the pictures over the internet at everyone’s disposal. Furthermore, the photos are being used in museum exhibits and contemporary exhibits and this has raised major issues of whether people are using photography for spectatorship, desensitization or sensitization of other people’s suffering. The violent imagery was particularly evident on one picture that showed a man who was made to stand on the box and was hooded with wires sprouting out. A short description indicated that he was reportedly told that if he fell off he would be electrocuted. Some prisoners were always bound to stay in painful positions such as standing with outstretched arms. The photos resultant violence was brought about by people’s need for a changed social life. Most people demanded a change or intervention from their leaders through advocacy, campaigns and riots that resulted to political strife between the involved parties (Benveniśtî & Ehrenreich 2004, 111-178). Failure for personal responsibility Senators such as Campbell and Feisten believed that even though the humiliation and abuse of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison was not appropriate, it did not constitute torture. The pictures put forth in the media reflects unprincipled and undisciplined persons masquerading as members of the U.S military and most people believed that the Senators statements were out of lack of a sense of personal responsibility. Reports show that the senators personally viewed the photographs and reported that the U.S soldiers were having sexual encounters. The pictures constant display in the media reflected the societal constant emphasis on sexual and pornographic degradation. For most people, it seemed like the senators were trying to ignorantly claim that they did not know that the pornographic industry is the biggest industry in the world and did not seem to mind the degradation of the subjects involved and humiliation of women. The media did not make it better as media personalities displayed lack of responsibility for the prison detainees. Rush Limbaugh, the host of Right wing- US stated that the incidences that had occurred and the photos put forth were common and were only placed under public scrutiny in attempt to ruin people live and hamper military efforts. The host also said that there should be more humiliation tactics because the victims were enjoying themselves and ‘releasing’ their emotions ( Gourevitch & Morris 2009, 90-123). Even though various soldiers were later convicted of charges, it was noted that no soldier was convicted for the detainees’ murders. Lieutenant Colonel who had more than twelve charges against him was acquitted all charges. The prisoners who died death certificates stated that they died of natural cause or while sleeping. However, the Iraq doctors were denied chances of investigating the cause of death even after prrof that the death certificates had been forged. The U.S government however failed to carry investigation on the US military doctors who were reported to have forged the death certificates. Conclusion As we have seen, negative photography or visual presentation on any issues including war can cause people pain, culture of commemoration which can result to human grief that can steer revenge or inappropriate actions, framing and unethical photography and lack of responsibility. This implies that photography is a very important media mainstreaming content that has tremendous impact on the way people think and act and should therefore be handled with care. To do this, people should take full personal responsibility in issues regarding visual presentation ethics particularly in photography like avoiding subjectivism of people while taking photos, avoid framing, avoid distributing them through the net without authorization among others. This will mitigate negative photography that may cultivate a culture of trauma and conflict (Carpentier 2007, 190-233). References Benveniśtî, M & Ehrenreich, B. 2004. Abu Ghraib: the politics of torture. New York: North Atlantic Books Butler, J. 2009. Frames of war: when is life grievable. New York: Verso Cannon, M. 2005. Abu Ghraib. Jefferson: Xulon Press Carpentier, N.2007.Culture, trauma and conflict: cultural studies perspectives on war. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Gourevitch, P. & Morris, E. 2009. The Ballad of Abu Ghraib. London: Penguin Books. Ingledew, J.2005.Photography. New York: Laurence King Publishing Simpson, D.2006. 9/11: the culture of commemoration. Chicago: University of Chicago Press Songtag, S.2010.Regarding the pain of others. Kansas: Picador Read More