Here is a critique I did. I thought I might as well publish it here the same way I did my essay (see previous post). It makes it easier for me to access, and it may allow more people to hit upon Sue Taits thought provoking perspective.
Art imitating death, and death on the Internet: A Critique of Sue Tait's "Visualising Technologies and the Ethics and Aesthetics of Screening Death" In a comparative exploration of representations of death on the Hollywood screen, versus images of soldiers posing with dead combatants posted on the Internet by coalition peers, Sue Tait (2009) turns the 'trophy'-photos-as-immoral stance on its head, arguing instead that the latter images do in fact enable a particular moral positioning. Here, she presents her perspective that says 'obscene' photos can actually be subversive to the military endeavor, drawing attention to actual human costs of war rather than celebrating victories over the enemy. Tait outlines how fictional films have been able to create a moral space around representations of death through specific cinematic techniques and even ultraviolent renditions coded as 'realistic' (p. 341). Particular coding encourages viewers to be repulsed by rather than attracted to war or violent death. Tait carries this perspective into her analysis of documentary films contain images of dying individuals. Through the curation of images and editorial techniques such as sound, music, and narration, the audience is guided to a particular moral position that has viewers questioning the circumstances that lead to violent deaths. For Tait then, once it is possible to see ultraviolent depictions of death as being ethical in the sense of 'bearing witness' to atrocity, it is no great leap to subsequently interpret 'trophy' photos by coalition soldiers as forming a similar moral stance. Tait sees these types of images as being subversive rather than supportive of the traditional military propaganda or news media reports (p.17). She claims within these images is the ability to question the true costs of war, such as war's "impact on the psyche of the soldier" (p.349). What Tait does not and perhaps cannot do is explain how other spectators might find the same moral point of view in looking at these images. With a large portion of film viewers finding entertainment value in Hollywood deaths (p. 339), it may be hard to overcome the sense of 'false witnessing' (celebrating the death of the enemy) in the soldier's photos if films such as Saving Private Ryan, originally meant to moralize against war (p. 343), are leading to similar celebratory responses (p. 347-348). Certainly new media enables broader access to these images, but in their uncurated, unmediated, raw form, the interpretations can be limitless. It is this openness of visual images, the ease with which they can be repurposed for alternative meanings, that Tait does not explore, but is central to her ability to find an ethical place within these images. Tait's mention that the US military have been rumoured to have bankrolled the removal of a select group of soldiers' trophy photos from the web (p. 349), suggests that she senses the US military recognizes the subversive nature of the images, thus having them removed to reduce peoples' chances to question the actual costs of war. Had Tait situated these images in a larger history of 'trophy' photos, from colonialism, to Native American persecutions, to lynchings, all the way through to the Abu Ghraib scandal, her conclusions about US military perspectives on these images may be different. Images like those from Abu Ghraib only become a scandal once in the international news and held up against the First Protocol of the Geneva Convention which protects the remains of the dead, a protocol that was not ratified by the US Government (p.347); a significance that Tait brings up, but does not use as a clue to explore the historical positioning of these images. It could be that, as Tait hints, the supposed silent bankrolling and removal of the more recent images by the US Military was to prevent the incident from becoming another international embarrassment. Yet the fact that the US social norms included trophy photos in the public realm for so long, including the images of Saddam's dead sons, and the ultimate trophy photo - the images of the dead Osama Bin Ladden - suggest that the US military are likely supportive, or at the very least publicly ambivalent, about them because in the end they support what is necessary for soldiers to kill: the dehumanization of the enemy (p.348). The article provided an excellent foundation in understanding the original intentions behind ultraviolent representations of death, particularly how they ultimately have been read more as entertaining because of the creation of a false witness rather than one who is bearing witness. In her ability to read moral positioning in the fictionalized, and formal documentary representations, Tait is able to carry this view into seeing soldiers' trophy photos as also ethically embodied. An exploration of the way new media can confuse interpretations, as well as open up such possibilities exponentially would be a way of extending her semiotic look at filmic representations into the Internet realm: the fact that images can be repurposed. A historical contextualization of trophy photos within the larger global colonialist and American racialist histories would lead to a more nuanced understanding of why such images proliferate and may be an integral, though morally troubling, part of military culture. Reference Tait, Sue. (2009). Visualising Technologies and the Ethics and Aesthetics of Screening Death. Science as Culture, 18(3), 333-353, September.
0 Comments
|
Blogroll...Good sites....Categories
All
Archives
November 2023
|