This week, we will be moving from Berger’s observations about the tradition of the female nude in European art to a very different kind of image. For Friday, please read Chapters 3 and 4 of Susan Sontag’s book “Regarding the Pain of Others.” In your response, please pay careful attention to demonstrating your understanding of her argument. You might choose to do a close reading of a specific section of these chapters, or you might think about Joseph Harris’ guidelines for “Coming to Terms” and work on defining her project. We will be doing analysis of her ideas together.
In addition, I ask that you bring two images to class: the first should be one of the paintings or photographs Sontag alludes to in the reading. For the second, you should look through a newspaper or a magazine (New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, etc) and choose an image that was published in the last month that reflects Sontag’s argument in some way. Be prepared to share and discuss your images with the class.
In “Regarding the pain of others” by Susan Sontag, there is a particular section that resonates with me. When she begins talking about photographs and how they are real unless they are tampered with. I viewed one of her projects as how the pain of one can be seen through different mediums. She explained in the beginning about how unbearable it is to view paintings in which bodies were in pain from torture or atrocities committed by certain powers. Later in photographs, there is a specific section: war photograph. In this, we can really picture the grotesque images that one can be portrayed. Yet, there is a different side to war photographs. This side focuses less on the truth and more on trying to persuade people about the happiness of being in a war and in a way obstructing the truth and “the war–movement, disorder, drama– stays off camera.” An example is Roger Fenton in the Crimea War (1855). This moves along to the next point of photos being staged for the sake of strength and photogenic properties. Iwo Jima’s flag raising, one of the most famous pictures of World War II, was staged under careful conditions. I think that Sontag is trying to indicate the case of perspectives. She indicates that it is “easier to see your enemy as just a savage that kills…” At the end of argument, she begins to describe how third world nations have the most atrocities and how the people there are treated in an “outrageous, unjust” manner. This relates to how the pain of one can be seen through different mediums because the photographs we see are through the poverty, warfare, and tragedy are clear. The notion of horror is apparent in how Europeans treated non-Europeans through enslavement. The matter of perspective of how people treat others and how just based on complexion one can treat another so differently and radically remains a problem of the future. This relates to John Berger’s “Ways of Seeing” and his point of the difference between European and non-European oil painting and pictures; europeans believe in the idea of women being submissive in the painting to the spectator-buyer. Even when a male is in the painting with the woman, the woman is looking at the spectator. Non-Europeans view males and females together as a bond or form of intimacy. This difference in ideals and viewpoints may lead to the difference in how Europeans treat non-Europeans.
As I was reading the two chapters from Susan Sontag’s book, “Regarding The Pain Of Others,” one part stuck out to me immensely. Throughout the two chapters, Sontag was forming arguments dealing with how photographs became more trustworthy forms of expression compared to paintings, but she also created counter-claims concerning the falsity that could arise through technology and implied how photographs were used during wartimes. But, there was one part that stood out the most, and that was when Sontag wrote, “There is no war without photography.” I believe that this statement shows how faulty media could be at times. That even the public will not listen to what news channels air because we are in a point of time where visual aid is needed to prove that something is in fact reality. For example, hypothetically why should we as a people believe that there is a war going on somewhere if there is no actual prove through visuals that something is happening. People in this country want to know what the military is spending their money on, therefore people need to see through photography and videos that war is actually occurring. Another thing that caught my eye while reading these chapters is how Sontag stresses that many photographs that depict war attempt to refrain from showing faces of deceased soldiers and innocent people. This I believe should always be done and should be a rule that should be heavily enforced. Especially in the future because no one should be able to look at the someone’s loved one without consent of actual family members. Overall, through reading these chapters Sontag presented many controversial but valid statements concerning war photography, and as we move along as a society who will most likely be involved in multiple wars in the future we should find a way to be more ethical and right when it comes to depicting critical and gruesome wars.
In “Regarding the Pain of Others” by Susan Sontag, there is one particular part of the passage that truly speaks to me. The part that I will pick to analyze is in the second page in which Sontag discusses about how the brutality of a picture is meant for different purposes. In order to clarify my last point she states “In each instance, the gruesome invites us to be either spectators or cowards” and this is an interesting observation that can be compared to the way Berger discussed women in the nude. They are in the way in which the purpose of the art is different on whether or not the audience observes the piece or not. In Berger’s observation the nude paintings of women were feeding off of the attention of the audience that passes by, with each position the women were in telling a different story or action to the audience. This is comparable to the gruesome photos in the way that the art is telling a message whether or not the audience has the “stomach” for it, and that is truly interesting. It is interesting to me by how some of the ideals stated in the observations of the nude show similar features to the way gruesome photos are made.
In the beginning of chapter 4 of “Regarding the Pain of Others” Susan Sontag brings up a lot of great points that should be examined through a closer lens. Sontag even stated this important claim that ” the scale of war’s murderousness destroys what identifies people as individuals, even as human beings”. Well human beings, by nature are species that constantly depend on each other for survival, whether it be for food, shelter, or protection. As a human race we would have never survived for as long as we have, if no one was willing to protect his or her fellow human being in tough times. When Sontag discussed the atrocities during the Khmer Rouge regime there was an incident in particular with a man getting photographed just before execution. The person behind the camera is a human being just as vulnerable as the man who was about to meet his end. The person photographing the situation “Nhem Ein” would eventually get the emotion inside of him of being dead as well, just for the fact that the photographer didn’t try to help the other man over come this tough situation, as it is in the nature of a human beings to help out the other individual. However, even though we as humans “crave” to view violence and disasters at times most things do not have to look worse than they already are. The damage isn’t just the physical event being seen. For a brief moment at the time of the execution, both the photographer, the executioner and the victim being photographed instantaneously loose their humanity all at once. The unfortunate thing is that the photographs taken of people just before death isn’t a practice that is being discontinued. For example, there have been a few cases not too long ago of people falling off the subway tracks and instead of someone going down to bring them back up to safety, they get photographed by someone who technically has the ability to save that person from imminent disaster.
In “Regarding the pain of others” by Susan Sontag, there are a lot of stories about how the photographers took pictures during the war. When I took the history class before, and the teacher showed us the pictures and videos about the war, I was thinking about how they took the photographs. Now while I am reading chapter 3 and 4, I get to know more information about it. According to chapter 3,” Under instructions from the War Office not to photograph the dead, the maimed, or the ill, and precluded from photographing most other subjects by the cumbersome technology of picture-taking, Fenton went about rendering the war as a dignified all-male group outing.” Roger Fenton, the first war photographer, had to take about 20 minutes for a picture, and I am surprised that they need to do stage photographs and I always thought they were captured. There was also a company made by some photographs, they took pictures and videos of the war. They took a lot of pictures of the dead soldiers, it was violated the rules because they were not positive. Although the photographs are scared, I think they are good in some ways because they are real. I think people sometimes have to see the reality of the war. In the beginning of chapter 4, it talks about people was killed in front of the cameras, and the reporters would take pictures of the moments they dead. This is brutal, but it is the reality.
In “Regarding the Pain of Others” by Susan Sontag, she explains how pictures, unlike photos are more accurate and “trustworthy” than paintings. She states how photos may be used as evidence however, paintings don’t qualify as evidence. She also explains how no one can deny the authenticity of photos or movies, but can easily deny the authenticity of paintings. She explains how if a painting is not made by the one credited, it is unauthentic hence stolen. However, a picture or movie is only “fake” if it deceives the audience from a small detail. Sontag also mentions photos taken during the Boer War, where after a victory the Boers decided to take a picture of a pile of bodies of British troops. They circulated this photo in hopes of building morale and strengthening their troops, but this photo only showed the horrific scene of a pile of dead bodies, that took up the whole landscape. In Chapter 4 she states, “The first organized ban on press photography at the front came during the First World War; both the German and French high commands allowed only a few selected military photographers near the fighting”. This quote states that after horrific events from the Boer war, with undeniable photographic evidence of atrocities of war, censorship started forming. The quote also expresses how France and Germany limited the amount of people that could take war photos. By limiting the amount of photographers on the front lines, the governments were able to censor a majority of what the public was able to witness through their photos. Sontag argues greatly that photos, unlike paintings are able to show the exact second an event occurs. However, she states a painting, can have it’s authenticity questioned, thus lowering it’s expressive value to the audience.
In “Regarding the Pain of Others”, Susan Sontag discusses violent war photographs and its influence on people. I am most fascinated and intrigued by the very first point, in which Susan talks about the types of “sufferings” that are shown in media. On the first page, it is stated that
“the sufferings most often deemed worthy of representation are those understood to be the product of wrath, divine or human”. Susan believes the most popular type of “sufferings” represented are those that are out of anger and most gruesome. She then continues to question why sufferings from natural causes is rarely represented in the history of art, while sufferings such as the execution of Christian martyrs is. The idea of gaining pleasure and satisfaction from looking at bodies in pain is also brought up. Someway, somehow people are able to excite themselves by looking at others suffering. The only people who should have the right to look at horrid images of people suffering according to Susan are those who can actually help make the suffering less severe, such as doctors. The rest of the viewers are just “spectators and cowards” who aren’t helping the situation at all and are just there for underscoring the subject being represented even more.
In this article Susan Sontag argues how the photography of suffering and a painting of suffering are two different things. Sontag states how “It seems that the appetite for pictures showing bodies in pain is as keen, almost, as the desire for ones that show bodies naked.” Sontag is arguing that human nature has a weird desire to see pictures of suffering as much as seeing pictures of nudity. She argues how it is a challenge to be able to look at a picture of suffering without flinching and the satisfaction that comes about when one is able to not flinch.
According to Sontag’s argument when a painting of suffering is depicted it expresses all the elements an artist wants to add in order to show suffering. For example Sontag states, “In 1633 Jacques Callot published a suite of eighteen etchings titled Les Misères et les Malheurs de la Guerre…The view is wide and deep; these are large scenes with many figures, scenes from a history, and each caption is a sententious comment in verse on the various energies and dooms portrayed in the images.” This shows the vast elements this painting contained. Sontag then argues that pictures are vastly different from paintings. Pictures only show one perspective and are very secular. She stated how when advertising the war, war officers used to tell the photographers what pictures to take in order for incoming soldiers to feel heroic. Since they needed to recruit more soldiers. I understand Sontag’s argument and how a painting can have much more freedom to express suffering then a photo. However a photo is more disturbing to look at then a painting since a photo is so realistic.
The most striking section was Sontag’s discussion of how the sufferings of soldiers on the battlefield are censored so as to not promote the production of staged photography and stay within society’s confines of “propriety and patriotism.” Susan Sontag explains society’s arguments in support of this censorship but also recognizes how this regulation is not reflected in the sufferings of foreigners, particularly those belonging to poorer parts the world. “The more remote or exotic the place, the more likely we are to have full frontal views of the dead and the dying.” For example, from the survivors of the famine lands of Biafra to the survivors of the Rwandan genocide, the sufferings are captured in detail. Susan Sontag notes that this level of transparency nourishes, in the minds of the rich, this idea that these atrocities are to be expected in these places. Because this belief has been forced into our minds, it is easier to look at a horrifying image of an atrocity occurring in some Asian or African nation than compared to something hitting closer to home. It is very rare to find an image of the dead or dying during the 9/11 attacks. This is because this atrocity was unexpected, it occurred in a place that is much richer and more developed than the poorer countries of Africa and Asia. The image of just the site alone-without detailed images of the “dead and the dying”- was sufficient for people to comprehend the pain of others. Unfortunately, this cannot be said of poorer parts of the world; images that are much more detailed are required.
“The camera is the eye of history.” In “Regarding the Pain of Others,” Sontag speaks of war photography and what exactly the taboo is behind photographing the dead and wounded. The very first sentence she asks what exactly is the difference between protesting and acknowledging suffering. She then gives many examples, one of them including the Passion of Christ. How it is very easy to look at it, while we know he suffered, we do not truly acknowledge it as much as we acknowledge a photography coming from war. However, the number one guideline of war photography is to not photograph the wounded, the ill, or the dead. There have been so many representations of the Passion of Christ, however why is that it is not deemed at the same worth? Sontag also makes an interesting point on the credibility behind photography, and it is true. With the rise in photo editing software it has become increasingly harder whether to claim a photograph to be true or not. Unsurprisingly enough, war photography was soon revealed to be often staged, most likely to add some form of good light to war. For example, the image taken at Gettysburg, “The Home of a Rebel Sharpshooter, Gettysburg,” the soldier’s body had been moved to a more photogenic scenario, with a gun propped up and everything. “It is that we are surprised to learn they were staged, and always disappointed.” Her comment is interesting because it is, oddly enough, true. More of the shock factor comes in at the fact that the photo was staged, rather the dark natured means to achieve said photo.
In the two chapters of Susan Sontag’s book, “Regarding The Pain of Others,” Sontag discusses the effect of photos during war. She says that, through all these horrific things that happen in war like “unspeakably awful mutilation,” it might be fair to say that only people who have the right to see these pictures are those “who can help and learn from it. The rest of us are voyeurs.” I believe that this statement to not only be incorrect but also very insensitive. When it comes to war, everyone has a right to know what is going on. If you were to see an officer commit a crime, you would most likely record it and/or report that officer. The same goes for war too as there have been countless occasions where not only did the U.S commit war crimes, but most nations have done so as well. It is a right of the people no matter what country they are from, they have the right to know what is going on with their tax dollars in relation to war. I do however understand why Sontag does say that there should only be people who have the ability to aid or are connected to the moment occurring in the photo to view said photo. As human however, we are curious creatures, and we want to know the severity of what something like war looks like. I do understand that something very personal could be occurring in the photograph and most people wouldn’t want that out there if it was related to them; however I do think that Sontag is being harsh on humans for taking interest in war. War is something that occurs in the name of protecting people, nations and ideas. As a society, most, if not all of us have a right to see what the full effects of war are, not just what we think we see in a painting, but the real deal.
When I first read these two chapters, it reminded me about my paper that I wrote about the medias influence of the news coverage. In the two chapters of “Regarding the pain of others” by Susan Sontag, she talks about the selectivity of war photography. Susan Sontag introduces this idea of media selectivity when she says, “artists “make” drawing and paintings while photographers “take” photographs. But, the photographic image… cannot be simply a transparency of something that happened. It is always the image that someone chose; to photograph is to frame, and to frame is to exclude.” I found this quote, specifically, very interesting as there is a lot of truth in the what Sontag is saying. To relate this to my paper about the authenticity of the news media coverage, war has become very commercialized. It is not about going to war against real enemies that pose a real threat, it is more about making money. To further analyze the quote, why would the news agencies censor or frame the pictures and then present them to the public. One reason for this is money. If war photographers were to take real pictures of the spoils of war, such as, “a First World War veteran whose face has been shot”, people would not support their countries decide to go to war. Furthermore, without the support of the people of a nation, it is hard to continue fighting in a war as there would probably be riots and protests against it. And, for the news agencies, they might receive funding from some of the corporations that are creating weapons and other war materials, so it becomes that the news media has to protect their economic standing rather than informing the people of the real events that occur during war. Another possible reason for the war photography selectivity is these photographers “offer mostly positive images of warrior’s trade, and of the satisfaction of starting a war or continuing to fight one. If governments had their way, war photography, like most war poetry, would drum up support for soldiers’ sacrifice.” Without soldiers, no country can fight a war. If photographers of the government were able to show a soldier as a valiant warrior and hide the facts that they are in fact putting their life at great risk, being a soldier would become a desirable occupation. And if it is desirable, finding soldiers would be easy, and the government to continuously fight wars.
In this week’s reading we went from from Berger’s observations about the tradition of the female nude in European art to a very different kind of image, suffering and pain. In Chapter 3 and 4 of Susan Sontag’s book “Regarding the Pain of Others” . It provides a whole new point of view in a new area of pain, suffering, and death. But how does she able to get her argument to the reader? Similar in Berger’s observation with the use of nude art either painting or photographs, Sontag describes how we are able to capture this raw emotion through the use of art and photographs, however without actually showing the reader any, instead through the history of many famous paintings. “The sufferings most often deemed worthy of representations as those understood to be the product of wrath, divine, or human Suffering from natural causes, such as illness or childbirth, is scantily represented in the history of art; that caused by accident, virtually not at all—as if there were no such thing as suffering by inadvertence or misadventure.)” As the expression goes, “a picture tells a thousands words”, especially in time of war as Sontag explains the history of war time photography. “Under instructions from the War Office not to photograph the dead, the maimed, or the ill, and precluded from photographing most other subjects by the cumbersome technology of picture-taking, Fenton went about rendering the war as a dignified all-male group outing” This show is historical important as the knowledge of the death and destruction cause by war was hard to imagine or even explain, however this picture make it feel up and personal. Wars such as the American Civil War shows the extremes of human nature, the suffering and pain, where words can’t describe it but in an form of arts and photography does.