What war looks like.

December 6, 2002 1:26 PM

What war looks like. Susan Sontag has written an important essay on the intricate relationship we have with images of human suffering (e.g., war photography) in the December 9 issue of The New Yorker. A sample:

Perhaps the only people with the right to look at images of suffering of this extreme order [i.e., gruesome combat horrors] are those who could do something to alleviate it – say, the surgeons at the military hospital where the photograph was taken – or those who could learn from it. The rest of us are voyeurs, whether we like it or not.

The essay is not online but there is an excellent introduction with links to other galleries of the imagery discussed. With a new war likely on the way, her essay provides a timely set of insights into wartime suffering and how it is usually depicted, often manipulated, and never understood.
posted by skimble (43 comments total)

Another gallery of war images, albeit much older and not photography but shocking nevertheless is Goya's "Disasters of War."
posted by iamck at 2:11 PM on December 6, 2002

A lengthy section of the Sontag essay, which is not entirely about documentary and news photography, devotes itself to Goya's Disasters and other artistic depictions of war and suffering. Thanks for the link.
posted by skimble at 2:17 PM on December 6, 2002

Sontag is marvy. I have read much of her work and in fact met her when she was at Rutgers. My point: why does she write a piece with pictures and then tell us we should not look at it? I have seen the Brady pics of the Civil War, to go back some time. And I had a former student who was a Nam war photographer (he later took his life). The statement a bit like the announcement by I forget who that after the Holocaust all writing was false etc. or that nothing could be said.

And should no one then look at Picasso's Guernica? or is that ok because it is not a photograph but a reproduction of art, unless we see the original.
posted by Postroad at 2:20 PM on December 6, 2002

I think the risk of being a voyeur is by far outweighed by the risk of accepting the myth of anti-septic war. I think it is important, especially for young people, to somehow experience a degree of visceral reaction to the gore inherent in war and other violence.
posted by ahimsakid at 2:34 PM on December 6, 2002

It's kind of hard to discuss an article when there's no link to it. I couldn't figure out what she was trying to say from that summary.

MeFi: it's still about the links.

Postroad: Hard to tell, but the sentence in the summary about how the Internet is unmediated by criticism makes me guess that Sontag is suspicious of any information that is not delivered with a suitably "mediated" ideological frame that tells us what is the right thing to think about it. The basic stance is that we are so easily manipulated and desensitized.

On preview: What ahimsakid said. I would add that's it's important in general for people to be able to form their own opinions and reactions.
posted by fuzz at 2:43 PM on December 6, 2002

The article (and I'm sorry there's no link) is far more complex than the excerpt suggests. But I would wager that "The rest of us are voyeurs, whether we like it or not," is not equivalent to "Don't look at it" in her opinion.

The excerpt above was really about the role, or the involvement, of the viewer. In other words, unless you're in a position to help out, why do you slow down to look at a car crash? Because you can't help looking. It's horrible, and fascinating in spite of itself.

The basic idea about image manipulation and mediation is made many times elsewhere in the article.

I apologize for trying to boil down a complex work like this into a small excerpt, but I wanted to bring attention to it in spite of the fact that it's offline.
posted by skimble at 3:42 PM on December 6, 2002

I think it was Theodore Adorno who said, "After the Holocaust, poetry is impossible." Of course, there was a long debate about this question, ongoing. A poet who took this struggle with words, and the struggle to embody this struggle, was Paul Celan whose "Todesfugue" is a breathtaking marvel (and horrible trope of the disfiguring of German Romanticism that was Nazism).

Haven't gotten to the Sontag essay yet, which I expect will be the usual combination of brilliant metaphor and incisive comment punctuated by Steineresque flights into the intellectually vague and metaphysically ridiculous.
posted by minnesotaj at 3:45 PM on December 6, 2002

"Perhaps the only people with the right to look at images of suffering of this extreme order [i.e., gruesome combat horrors] are those who could do something to alleviate it – say, the surgeons at the military hospital where the photograph was taken – or those who could learn from it."

This is vacuous, because anyone can do something to alleviate the horrors of war. War only happens if we allow it to, especially (but not exclusively) in democratic nations.
posted by Aaorn at 3:48 PM on December 6, 2002

"As much as they create sympathy, I wrote [in On Photography, 1977], photographs shrivel sympathy. Is this true? I thought it was when I wrote it. I'm not so sure now. What is the evidence that photographs have a diminishing impact? "

She also has a very nice take on the idea of the society of the spectacle: just because millions of rich tv-owners have become inured to news as entertainment should be no means be extrapolated for the rest of the world, who do not have "the luxury of patronizing reality."

In any event, a link would help discussion, but I'm not gonna transcribe the whole article.
posted by RJ Reynolds at 4:24 PM on December 6, 2002

All vision can be categorized as voyeurism by a reductionist. But in many cases, seeing things is the quickest and most reliable way of engendering understanding in human beings. I think she's just squeamish, in both the traditional and moral senses.
posted by rushmc at 4:48 PM on December 6, 2002

I wanted to bring attention to it in spite of the fact that it's offline.

This isn't sufficient justification for a front page post. There would have been nothing wrong with recommending the article in a comment on a war post, but... no link, no post.
posted by languagehat at 4:50 PM on December 6, 2002

minnesotaj: wonderful precis of Sontag's work. I love reading the New Yorker, but have not yet gotten to this piece, but I'll throw out a comment anyway.

War is hell, and everybody should know this.

We "know" through photos and videos these days ("we" meaning most humans, not most Metafiterians). So I think people should be exposed to the hell that is war through photos and videos.

Sheltering the public from the horrors of war and pumping up the young to fight with propagandistic appeals ito "homeland security" is...hmm...disingenuous? evil?

I'll get to Sontag tomorrow, where I'll be killing time at a debate tournament, but, for now, I have to say: the more information, the better.
posted by kozad at 5:54 PM on December 6, 2002

"The article (and I'm sorry there's no link) is far more complex than the excerpt suggests."

We'll just take your word for it.
posted by todd at 8:02 PM on December 6, 2002

Until we can figure out how to get the public to smell the horrors of war, even the bloodiest pictures will lack sufficient impact.

I'm thinking of the infamous picture that was published some time after the end of Gulf War I, which I think the Army understandably didn't want the public to see -- the one of an Iraqi armored-vehicle crew member, dead where he stood no doubt trying to climb out of the hatch of his burning vehicle. I wish certain chickenhawks in this Administration had a good idea of what a freshly immolated human body smells like.
posted by alumshubby at 8:50 PM on December 6, 2002

alumshubby: I wish certain chickenhawks in this Administration had a good idea of what a freshly immolated human body smells like.

Why?
posted by Hieronymous Coward at 11:44 PM on December 6, 2002

languagehat: There would have been nothing wrong with recommending the article in a comment on a war post, but...

You mean people would notice it among all the flamebait, trolls, ad hominem attacks, and insults?
posted by Vidiot at 12:31 AM on December 7, 2002

This is vacuous, because anyone can do something to alleviate the horrors of war. War only happens if we allow it to, especially (but not exclusively) in democratic nations.

What about war eliminating the torture, rape, murders and other aspects of "peacetime" in certain nations, IRAQ, for example? Perhaps the veritable vacuity comes from people who "know" that those who favor war don't understand war.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:35 AM on December 7, 2002

Sontag: arrogant moral fool par excellence.
posted by ParisParamus at 6:28 AM on December 7, 2002

pp - war is peace
posted by iamck at 12:54 PM on December 7, 2002

Anyone who has been in a war zone and has seen the effects of war first-hand, please raise your hand.

Anyone who claims to understand war, and think that those who wish to avoid starting one are "arrogant moral fools", please raise your hand.

Anyone in the first group who is also in the second?
posted by skoosh at 2:07 PM on December 7, 2002

skoosh: Anyone who has been in a war zone and has seen the effects of war first-hand, please raise your hand.

Does Lower Manhattan count?
posted by Hieronymous Coward at 4:59 PM on December 7, 2002

Sontag is a vile, morally bankrupt, equivocating leftist whose critical views on art are the problem with what passes for superior art today.

Does Lower Manhattan count?

Apparently not.
posted by hama7 at 3:28 AM on December 8, 2002

Sontag is a vile, morally bankrupt, equivocating leftist whose critical views on art are the problem with what passes for superior art today.

Is not.
posted by Grangousier at 6:11 AM on December 8, 2002

Is so.
posted by hama7 at 7:14 AM on December 8, 2002

Is not.

Nyaah.
posted by Grangousier at 7:19 AM on December 8, 2002

Sontag is a vile, morally bankrupt, equivocating leftist whose critical views on art are the problem with what passes for superior art today.

Have you actually read Sontag, or are you just aware that she's one of those evil people that your brand of "conservative" is supposed to revile, so you obediently do so? And aren't you ashamed to be calling people "vile"? Strike that -- you obviously have no shame.
posted by languagehat at 7:20 AM on December 8, 2002

Anyone who has been in a war zone and has seen the effects of war first-hand, please raise your hand.

I've been there.

Anyone who claims to understand war, and think that those who wish to avoid starting one are "arrogant moral fools", please raise your hand.

Ridiculous question here. I feel there are very few people who actually want to start a war. Mostly there are those that feel it is necessary, even if they would rather avoid it.

There are some of us who feel that letting people suffer year after year under brutal dictatorships all in the name of avoiding war is wrong and morally bankrupt.
posted by Baesen at 8:57 AM on December 8, 2002

There are some of us who feel that letting people suffer year after year under brutal dictatorships all in the name of avoiding war is wrong and morally bankrupt.

Honest question - When is the last war that was fought first and foremost to free people from a brutal dictatorship?
posted by iamck at 11:44 AM on December 8, 2002

Have you actually read Sontag, or are you just aware that she's one of those evil people that

Say no more! Grad school cured me of any sympathies for Sontag that I may have ever harbored, and her disgusting comments after the terrorist attacks made me want to force her to read her own writing.......for eternity.

Also, languagehat, I am surprised at you. I have no shame?? Pretentious, leftoid, filthily amoral, Marxo art critics with are O.K. with you, though, I guess?
posted by hama7 at 3:48 PM on December 8, 2002

hama7, I have my problems with Sontag, including the comments you mention, but I think the violent, over-the-top language in which you indulge is bad for MetaFilter and bad for the country; it reminds me of unfortunate moments in history, and it comes from both left and right: vile, degenerate, filthy, amoral... The subtext is "Ecrasez l'infame," and it makes me nervous.
posted by languagehat at 5:58 PM on December 8, 2002

I do apologise, then, languagehat. I certainly didn't imagine that my language was violent, but I'm sorry if it came across that way. The progressive nonsense of artsy sneering Marxoids does get the circulation going though.

Even though the language I used may not have met with approval, I do wonder why pointing out amorality is bad for the country, or MetaFilter?

Anyway, point taken; I shall choose my words more carefully in future.
posted by hama7 at 6:50 PM on December 8, 2002

[...]I do wonder why pointing out amorality is bad for the country, or MetaFilter?

Do keep us apprised of the headings indicated by your universal amoral compass (UACompAss™), hama7. Graduate-school keepsake, was it? The one-size-fits-all model?

I shall choose my words more carefully in future.

Oh, don't be silly. Bombastic superfluity is very attractive - and a proven recruitment tool. I use it all the time. Please, do carry on.
posted by Opus Dark at 8:20 PM on December 8, 2002

Honest question - When is the last war that was fought first and foremost to free people from a brutal dictatorship?

For that specific reason? Unfortunately, I can not think of one. There have been wars fought that have ended up with this result though. I'll even take that. It isn't nearly as neat and well intentioned, but if the results are appropriate...

Hmmm... brain is fuzzy, I need to sleep, then write more.
posted by Baesen at 9:59 PM on December 8, 2002

indicated by your universal amoral compass (UACompAss™),

Actually, it looks like a wristwatch but beeps rather loudly around Sontags and linguists.
posted by hama7 at 10:42 PM on December 8, 2002

When is the last war that was fought first and foremost to free people from a brutal dictatorship?

History much?

The American Revolution? WW1? WW2? (Italy, Germany, Japan?) Viet Nam? The cold war? Every single damn war to prevent the virus of communism? (to name but a few).

Unfortunately, I can not think of one.

Fortunately, I can.
posted by hama7 at 4:53 AM on December 9, 2002

hama7: Some of those wars ended with that result, but they were not the reason they were fought.

The American Revolution, if I remember right, was fought because of taxation without representation. I don't think I have ever read where the conditions in the American colonies were considered brutal.

WWI: A war of aggression by Germany and their allies.

WWII: Same thing.

VietNam: Fought to stop communism and keep a US foothold in the area.

Cold War: Similar to above.

None of these, in my opinion, would be considered to have been fought to free people from a brutal dictatorship. Mostly, they were reactions to things that were happening or self defense.
posted by Baesen at 8:43 AM on December 9, 2002

hama7: Sorry, I seem to have been in a state of hightened pomposity yesterday. Now that I'm once more at work in my windowless hutch, I'm back to normal. (I do think your characterization of the Revolution is a little odd, though; as annoyed as the colonists were by London's suddenly deciding to interfere with their smuggling and expecting them to pick up some of the tab for the Seven Years' War, "brutal dictatorship" is a stretch.)
posted by languagehat at 10:29 AM on December 9, 2002

"brutal dictatorship" is a stretch

Yes, for colonial England perhaps it is. I guess that brutal taxation-without-representation thing got me all confused.

But Baesen, the other ones were pretty brutal, and pretty dictatorial, weren't they?
posted by hama7 at 9:57 PM on December 9, 2002

iamck: Honest question - When is the last war that was fought first and foremost to free people from a brutal dictatorship?

As a conservative of the foreign-policy-realist persuasion I'm surprised to hear myself say this, but I think the replies to iamck's question have been too gloomy. I nominate NATO's and especially America's recent action in The Former Yugoslavia:

This war changed the way many American liberals, particularly liberal intellectuals, saw their country. Bosnia turned these liberals into hawks. People who from Vietnam on had never met an American military involvement they liked were now calling for U.S. air strikes to defend a multiethnic democracy against Serbian ethnic aggression. Suddenly the model was no longer Vietnam, it was World War II -- armed American power was all that stood in the way of genocide. Without the cold war to distort the debate, and with the inspiring example of the East bloc revolutions of 1989 still fresh, a number of liberal intellectuals in this country had a new idea. These writers and academics wanted to use American military power to serve goals like human rights and democracy -- especially when it was clear that nobody else would do it.

Many of them had cut their teeth in the antiwar movement of the 1960's, but by the early 90's, when some of them made trips to besieged Sarajevo, they had resolved their own private Vietnam syndromes. Together -- hardly vast in their numbers, but influential -- they advocated a new role for America in the world, which came down to American power on behalf of American ideals. [The Liberal Quandary Over Iraq by George Packer, 12.8.02 NYT.]

Recommended reading. Besides, how often do you get to enjoy the NYT describing the current anti-war movement as "impotent," "narrow," "unconstructive," and "controlled by the furthest reaches of the American left." ?
posted by Hieronymous Coward at 12:52 AM on December 10, 2002

Oh, I just found the MeFi thread on the Packer article here for those who want to pursue it.
posted by Hieronymous Coward at 1:09 AM on December 10, 2002

Thanks, Hieronymous for your extensive and thoughtful comments.

Also an apology for my "linguists" comment above which I realize could have been easily misconstrued as a shot toward languagehat. It was not. I was referring to a certain linguist at M.I.T. whose name need not be spoken.
posted by hama7 at 3:55 AM on December 10, 2002

Thanks, hama7 -- I just managed to duck as the shot whizzed overhead! (Hopefully striking the Nameless One.)
posted by languagehat at 8:28 AM on December 10, 2002

hama7: You are correct. There were some pretty brutal dictatorships that were brought down in those wars. There is no arguing that. But, the question that was posed to me had to do with the reason we got into those wars. While the outcome had the desired effect, it wasn't the reason we go into them. That's the rub.

Hieronymous Coward: Would you consider the US involvement in those areas to be a full fledged war or some sort of a mopping up police action?

This is one of those times when not having English as my native tongue causes problems.

I count for recent wars the US has been involved in as WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq. I'm not sure if Afghanistan would be classified that way, but I guess it could.

With all of this, I'm still annoyed that the world sits idly by while assholes lead some horrific regimes.
posted by Baesen at 8:59 AM on December 10, 2002