"the scarface of fallujah"
So, I'm watching CNN right this minute, and they are reporting on the death of al-Zarqawi... they just referred to him as "the scarface of fallujah". They are referring to this as the equal to killing Hitler. Which is interesting.
Is anyone else creeped out by the 40'x48' full color, gold-framed print of his death portrait? The image, presumably taken from the field of war where he fell, is cropped to a close-up of just his face, which is composed peacefully, as if in sleep, and noteably free of gore. This is important, because it "reads" as a clean, humane kill... professional and positive. It's also clear that he is lying on his side, on the ground, but the image is displayed vertically; it's an odd design choice, but I assume this is to read that he was an "upright" foe, a worthy adversary, a challenging kill. He did not take his death "lying down". The viewer is meant to respect this dangerous individual... and, conversely, the guy who took him down must have been even more impressive.
If you haven't seen the context of this image on TV, it's displayed on a stage beside the podium where Iraqi politicians were giving the press conference regarding the circumstances of his death. There is a gaggle of press people with large lenses taking pictures of the gilded image from the audience floor. I've been watching TV for about 20 minutes, and while I have yet to hear what the men on the stage have to say, I've seen the image itself about 6 times, coupled with CNN analysts' and commentators' voice-overs about how many people al-Zarqawi has beheaded, how he was Hitler-like, how he really wasn't that great of a marksman, how it took a lot of work to plan this particular attack. The image is also sometimes displayed outside of it's context in the left margin of the screen with a simple caption.
I'm not interested in arguing about whether this guy is "Hitler" and got what he deserved, or if this is an "important step to end the war on terror", yadda yadda yadda. While those kinds of questions are important, I think it's equally important to deconstruct how public images of death are used, and to what end.
Blogging is such a reactionary medium, but I had such intense, knee-jerk reactions to this. I do not know the history of the post-mortem portrait in the Middle East. I do, however, know it's history in the USA. In short, public displays of such images function to police behavior and reinforce dominance through the spectacle of gore through the language of specific design devices. Do you think that gold framed portrait will end up on the wall of Bush's ranch, along side of what I imagine is a menagerie of other taxidermied (animal) trophies? Or will it stay in an Iraqi hall of government? It looks so much like the sheriff trophy "outlaw" portraits of dead bad-guys propped up in pine boxes along the public streets in places called "Dry Gulch" in 1820. It's a lot like lynching postcards in 1930. Only it's framed in gold, and being displayed globally in real-time.
It's message and function is clear. Recognized by all or not, there's a "new" sheriff in town. And along with his superior gun, he's brought a photographer and a satellite feed. This is "right action" because you saw it yourself. Sort of. And if you challenge the sherif, your picture is next. It's the role photography can play in policing behavior, creating and constructing the "reality" of power. Not to be too dramatic, as everyone uses these media tools today, but I really can't help but draw parallels to the ways in which the Nazi's used images to create power in similar ways (although in a more historically specific manner). They were, in fact, the best visual documentors of their discourse of power ever on record. Until now.
What I'm saying isn't new, or particularly subversive, or even "invisible". It's not unique to the Bush Regime, either, but rather part of the historically specfiic technological age we are in. But to those of us who care about how images create reality, we need to pose the obvious questions, out loud. What does this image and it's use say (or not say) about power? How is this image and it's use the same/different from other images of death we're consuming out of Iraq? What does it say about Iraqi's and ourselves? Who or what is "human"? What is the significance of a global real-time feed in this case? What is the significance of the (presumably) old west style of this portrait, and it's display within and outside the USA? And what about that ridiculous frame?
Who took this picture? How and why is it being consumed, and by whom?
How does that make you feel?
Is anyone else creeped out by the 40'x48' full color, gold-framed print of his death portrait? The image, presumably taken from the field of war where he fell, is cropped to a close-up of just his face, which is composed peacefully, as if in sleep, and noteably free of gore. This is important, because it "reads" as a clean, humane kill... professional and positive. It's also clear that he is lying on his side, on the ground, but the image is displayed vertically; it's an odd design choice, but I assume this is to read that he was an "upright" foe, a worthy adversary, a challenging kill. He did not take his death "lying down". The viewer is meant to respect this dangerous individual... and, conversely, the guy who took him down must have been even more impressive.
If you haven't seen the context of this image on TV, it's displayed on a stage beside the podium where Iraqi politicians were giving the press conference regarding the circumstances of his death. There is a gaggle of press people with large lenses taking pictures of the gilded image from the audience floor. I've been watching TV for about 20 minutes, and while I have yet to hear what the men on the stage have to say, I've seen the image itself about 6 times, coupled with CNN analysts' and commentators' voice-overs about how many people al-Zarqawi has beheaded, how he was Hitler-like, how he really wasn't that great of a marksman, how it took a lot of work to plan this particular attack. The image is also sometimes displayed outside of it's context in the left margin of the screen with a simple caption.
I'm not interested in arguing about whether this guy is "Hitler" and got what he deserved, or if this is an "important step to end the war on terror", yadda yadda yadda. While those kinds of questions are important, I think it's equally important to deconstruct how public images of death are used, and to what end.
Blogging is such a reactionary medium, but I had such intense, knee-jerk reactions to this. I do not know the history of the post-mortem portrait in the Middle East. I do, however, know it's history in the USA. In short, public displays of such images function to police behavior and reinforce dominance through the spectacle of gore through the language of specific design devices. Do you think that gold framed portrait will end up on the wall of Bush's ranch, along side of what I imagine is a menagerie of other taxidermied (animal) trophies? Or will it stay in an Iraqi hall of government? It looks so much like the sheriff trophy "outlaw" portraits of dead bad-guys propped up in pine boxes along the public streets in places called "Dry Gulch" in 1820. It's a lot like lynching postcards in 1930. Only it's framed in gold, and being displayed globally in real-time.
It's message and function is clear. Recognized by all or not, there's a "new" sheriff in town. And along with his superior gun, he's brought a photographer and a satellite feed. This is "right action" because you saw it yourself. Sort of. And if you challenge the sherif, your picture is next. It's the role photography can play in policing behavior, creating and constructing the "reality" of power. Not to be too dramatic, as everyone uses these media tools today, but I really can't help but draw parallels to the ways in which the Nazi's used images to create power in similar ways (although in a more historically specific manner). They were, in fact, the best visual documentors of their discourse of power ever on record. Until now.
What I'm saying isn't new, or particularly subversive, or even "invisible". It's not unique to the Bush Regime, either, but rather part of the historically specfiic technological age we are in. But to those of us who care about how images create reality, we need to pose the obvious questions, out loud. What does this image and it's use say (or not say) about power? How is this image and it's use the same/different from other images of death we're consuming out of Iraq? What does it say about Iraqi's and ourselves? Who or what is "human"? What is the significance of a global real-time feed in this case? What is the significance of the (presumably) old west style of this portrait, and it's display within and outside the USA? And what about that ridiculous frame?
Who took this picture? How and why is it being consumed, and by whom?
How does that make you feel?