The Image of our future (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Aneirin -> The Image of our future (5/23/2010 4:11:28 PM)

In the course of my studies, I am having to research the role of  iconic imagery as it applies to the genre of war photography, right back from it's start with the American Civil war, right through to the present conflicts in the Middle East, and how that imagery was/is used to advance political thought. In the course of my research, I am discovering with the present conflicts the role of the camera phone is changing the accepted image of war, as no longer are we seeing sanitised releases via government publicity, but we are also seeing the private snaps taken by those in the situation, Abu Ghraib for example, images which do much to undo the accepted public feeling. But what I am also beginning to understand is although we are highly capable of recording light, creating vast collections, millions upon millions of snaps in time, we are actually shaping our future, because whatever image that becomes iconic has a lasting impression on the future and with that I now perhaps understand why it is those whom the West are fighting against in the current situations in Both Iraq and Afghanistan are taken by the people of those regions to include them, the so called crusade Bush mouthed for they also have access to war photography from both the established war photographer and the man on the ground with his camera phone. We interpret what we like, they interpret what they like, we seek the political, they seek the political, we use imagery, they use imagery and it all comes down to the fact that the eventual viewer does not know what led up to the moment in time the image was taken, thus proving imagery is still in a sense manipulated and what we see might not be the whole truth of the matter and based on that a future can be decided at least for that viewer. The more the viewers and the correct words applied shapes thought and there action and many things can then happen all them good, bad and lying in wait for the future, the correct time when that image will  explode like a timebomb.

So, after all that could it be that although we are highly capable of recording a snap in time, are we equipped  to deal with what we see, Do we know what we are doing when we press that shutter release, turn on that photo cell, do we consider the consequences of our thought turned to action ?

The media are in it to make money, the government is in it to garner support, but what is the man on the ground with his camera phone in it for, what does he represent ?

If we tend to remember events as still images in our mind, the still photographic image feeds directly into that.



pahunkboy -> RE: The Image of our future (5/23/2010 4:52:38 PM)

But then everyone has a blog- website, newsletter.    everyone has a gig.

So saturation- and bimbo attn span of the masses comes into play.   besides- the revolution - will it be televised??


Anybodies guess....  



Termyn8or -> RE: The Image of our future (5/25/2010 7:06:11 AM)

This topic brings to mind the picture of them raising the US flag in WW2, was it Iwo Jima ? It has been become a cultural icon of sorts, and in that case I don't think there were any ulterior motives. However the image does not depict the total fucking bloodbath it took to get there. So even with the best of intentions, it is misleading. Was that little piece of real estate worth all the lives ? Seems so when all you see is our almighty flag being raised in victory. Cut to the rivers of blood flowing into the sea and it might not be quite so cut and dry. And even if it was misleading, was it immoral ? Underhanded ? Manipulative (in a bad way) ? I think not. That image was meant to instill pride and morale to a people at war, on two fronts. Some people have the aire of superiority, but that war was hard on us, it wasn't easy by any stretch of the imagination. We lost a hell of alot of people there.

Cut to the footage of Iraq, the toppling of Saddam's statue. Satellite photos suggest that it was staged, and I think it quite probably was. But was it for malicious intent ? Well that is in the eye of the beholder I guess, one's point of view cannot be discarded. Do I think that there were people in Iraq against Saddam ? Hell yes. Were there people who supported Saddam before the invasion ? Of course. But alot of them are gone now - meaning dead.

So now bring in the digital age, as opposed to when you watched Get Smart and saw a mini camera and had to envision a little roll of microfilm and and entsy teensy shutter mechanism and all that. Now it can be done with a few ICs, and millions of people on the scene can bring you pictures from a multitude of angles, showing the horrors of war. Well governments of course see this as counterproductive. Just as Bush forbade pictures of soldiers' caskets returning from Iraq. That was a bad move IMO, because it shows blatant obfuscation. All it is is a bunch of caskets. But in their view, as long as they want to start wars they want people in lala land thinking that we go in, killem, be right back. Again, you judge the morailty of that, I already have but my opinion means nothing at the moment.

Regular folk with cameras have indeed changed the variables a bit. For example we might never ever heard of Rodney King. And for myself, I wonder just how many undiscovered Rodney Kings are out there, who did not have the benefit of someone rolling a videotape in the right place at the right time.

And with all this, with a picture being worth a thousand words and all, it is still not reality. For example every once in a while a house blows up because of a gas leak or something. Of course the pictures are on the news, and we see a house turned into toothpicks, and surrounding houses blown off their foundations. No matter what the resolution, how clear the focus, they do nothing to recreate the experience of sitting there in your house, FEELING this huge explosion and having your hous move a foot or two, and then walking outside to find out your neighbors are DEAD. A thousand words don't do it, and probably neither would a million. The next best thing to being there will never be being there. (try not to get dizzy on that one)

Imagery is a science and has been for a long time. Think of back before the invention of the camera. Everything you saw was a representation, filtered through the artist's mind. And this is a natural thing, without ulterior motive at best. What detail was included, what was omitted ? Ten people can look at one piece of art and come up with about fifteen opinions. But they all stem from the opinion of the artist.

Just my opinion. I yield the floor.

T



pahunkboy -> RE: The Image of our future (5/25/2010 7:12:32 AM)

Well that napon Vietnam naked pic got me in trouble.

even tho it had been on cover of Nat- Geo.     



Aneirin -> RE: The Image of our future (5/25/2010 5:16:34 PM)

Yeah, I have studied Joe Rosenthal's Raising the flag on Mt. Surbachi for an earlier part of my studies, that is the famous Iwo Jima pic which became the Marine Corps Memorial in Washington, but the photo is surrounded with controversy despite it being the most reproduced in the history of photography and some would say it didn't do Rosenthal many favours for his future career. But that flag raising was not the first on that mount, and it was at the start of the battles of which three of the six in the pic died in later battles. It says victory, but that victory came later and at a heavy cost in lives, but it had the effect to rally support for the boys over seas.

I am now studying the Abu Ghraib pics, and somehow, am thinking and there is literary work to support the fact that those pics were meant to get out and what they are saying is not very nice, sort of another kind of conflict where all the enemies morals are abused and shown for anyone watching to see, including the enemy and their supporters. So perhaps imagery has entered a new phase, instead of it being in the context of war used for propaganda, it is now being used as a psychological weapon, but a weapon with as of yet not fully definable results leading to the thought that modern digital photography is becoming a very dangerous medium of communication.

Oh, the photographs of flag draped coffins I now understand the ban has been lifted.



pahunkboy -> RE: The Image of our future (5/25/2010 5:17:46 PM)

WHY?

Why inflict pain?



kdsub -> RE: The Image of our future (5/25/2010 5:20:29 PM)

Anyone in this digital age is an idiot to believe a photo or video is reality.

Butch



Aneirin -> RE: The Image of our future (5/25/2010 5:26:18 PM)

It doesn't matter if an image is reality or a fake, it is the impact that image has on it's audience, and even before the digital age conventional film based photography can vastly alter the reality of the subject, as much can be done with optics and even the viewpoint.



kdsub -> RE: The Image of our future (5/25/2010 5:42:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

It doesn't matter if an image is reality or a fake, it is the impact that image has on it's audience, and even before the digital age conventional film based photography can vastly alter the reality of the subject, as much can be done with optics and even the viewpoint.


I understand your premise but I believe it only applies to underdeveloped or third world audiences. Sophisticated and educated civilizations such as the UK and the US are past the point of believing a photo is hard evidence of anything. Now this does not mean less than honest people, sophisticated and civilized, will not try to use obviously manipulated media to their advantage.

Butch



Termyn8or -> RE: The Image of our future (5/26/2010 4:46:22 AM)

No shit Butch. In fact I have done a bit of image editing myself. There is a whole field of study about it, as well as detecting it.

While I don't think this aspect of it was on the OP's mind, it is still a valid point. I guess them old timers were right, they just keep getting smarter every day despite being dead. They would say "Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see".

T



RCdc -> RE: The Image of our future (5/26/2010 4:57:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
I understand your premise but I believe it only applies to underdeveloped or third world audiences. Sophisticated and educated civilizations such as the UK and the US are past the point of believing a photo is hard evidence of anything. Now this does not mean less than honest people, sophisticated and civilized, will not try to use obviously manipulated media to their advantage.

Butch


If that were true Butch, then magazines like OK or Hello wouldn't be popular and there wouldn't be an audience for gossip magazines or tabloid papers.
People aren't as educated as you might want to believe when it comes to photography and film.

the.dark.



Aneirin -> RE: The Image of our future (5/26/2010 5:46:36 AM)

I am interested in the genre of war photography as it is applied to fake a situation, as usually situations in history have been manipulated to put an incident whatever it may be to whatever purpose the artist desires of it.The old adage believe nothing of what you hear and only half of what you see I believe is more pertinent now than it has ever been before, never mind digital imaging a still image regardless of it's technology of capture without context can be used for whatever purpose. I understand this by reading a paper that has examined where a particular image was used, the image was a digital image recorded in a war zone. That image was used by various new agencies in support of various incidents and not one of them connected, thus giving the impression that the image is powerful enough to stimulate an emotional response that gives credibility to the associated news story.

But further to my understanding that the image capture device often found on many cell phones is contributing more to a more questionable future is indicated in this article ;

http://www.iraqwararchive.org/data/apr04/US/nyt05.pdf

The new organisations are indeed playing a very dangerous game, for a simple cell phone image can cause many problems problems arising from possibly a non incident, but a collection of words backed up by an emotive image.

The question could indeed be asked, really, who are the enemy, the terrorist whatever, the money orientated news sales organisations, or the recipient of emotional words and imagery that stimulate a response based upon their perceived level of outrage ?

Are we equipped to deal with the imagery we view.



Termyn8or -> RE: The Image of our future (5/26/2010 6:01:03 AM)

I have a tertiary point An, so I'll try to make it brief, but I think it germaine to the topic as I understand it's intent.

Around this country, in capital cases if the victim was good looking, say a cute cheerleader killed by a drunk driver, they pull up a nice big picture of her and put it right in the jury's face. This is even before the punishment phase. It is to evoke emotion to ensure a conviction. In fact one's physical appearance shouldn't even matter in the punishment phase.

That is like saying that the cute and lovelys' lives are worth more than that of a butt ungly bitch. This is so abhorrent to me that I can't even find words to express it, TOS or no TOS.

And back during my DUI carreer I was forced to go to some MADD meetings, and I approach everything with an open mind. But when one of the MADDs got up spouting that their daughter "could've been an actress", they lost me. The door slammed shut. Is looks all that matters ? Is the loss of your daughter akin to losing an object de' art ? What if she were butt ugly, would you take her back to the hospital for exchange ? Would you not so virulently emote in court to ensure the maximum penalty for her killer ?

And should we ?

Like I said tertiary, but I think it applies to the spirit of the thread.

T



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125