The most indelible images from the gulf war, to my mind, were the famous video views of a “smart bomb” at work; time and again that bomb sought its bunker target, plummeting hour after hour through the endless present of CNN newscasts. For some observers the video views showed that we had managed to sanitize war, to surgically hit only the bad guys. For others the tape symbolized everything that was wrong with the war: we saw the bomb drop, but saw nothing of its impact on the ground–not to mention the impact of the “dumb bombs,” which were released in much greater quantities. The video-game view was the perfect symbol of modern warfare not because of what it showed us but because of what it left out.
Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
For almost as long as photography has been around, theorists have considered the question of what really happens when a photograph enters the public realm. The latest entry in the field is Vicki Goldberg’s The Power of Photography: How Photographs Changed Our Lives. Unlike many previous authors, Goldberg, a contributing editor of American Photo magazine, looks at the history of individual photographs. A portrait of Abraham Lincoln may have gotten him elected president; how did it happen? What was the impact of the photos an Army photographer snapped during the My Lai massacre? How about the first views taken from space of the whole earth? Goldberg acknowledges that influence is difficult to measure: “Photographs are direct and immediate, but like ideas, their full import may take time to sink in. A few, a very few, act like matches and set instant fires. Most pile up like tinder with other pictures and events until they can generate a lot of heat.” By examining publication histories and television broadcasts, Goldberg makes a stab at measuring the effect mainly of the photographs that kindled instant fires.
Unknown to the public was the publicity savvy of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, which helped organize the demonstrations. The SCLC knew that the notoriously racist sheriff “Bull” Connor and his police force would respond vigorously to any demonstration. Photographs always seem to glorify the underdog, and the SCLC set up a sure-win campaign. Greenpeace did the same thing in the 1970s when it positioned protesters between whaling ships and their prey. Pictures of demonstrators marching wouldn’t accomplish much; pictures of demonstrators being set upon would.
It is possible that in the time before photography–and more importantly, before widespread printed reproduction of images–people moved about the world with more idiosyncratic ways of seeing. True, people have always been stirred and influenced by common images, but the sheer volume of images today is something new. Most likely our shared visual culture has made us more homogenous, less able to react to the world in a unique, individual way. Say you see a sunset and think it’s beautiful. Is the view just a reminder of a scene in a movie? A beer commercial with stirring music? A postcard from a vacationing friend?
Art accompanying story in printed newspaper (not available in this archive): photo/Charles Moore–Black Star.
