“When DaVinci gives instructions for a battle painting, he insists that artists have the courage and imagination to show all war in its ghastliness” (p.1). The idea of artistic detachment is a significant one throughout “Regarding the Pain of Other”. Sontag states that an artist must portray the reality of a situation in a manner that provokes the emotions of the viewers.
One major tool the author uses to make this point evident is the use of the word beauty. Many see beauty as it clearly is defined: something that is both stimulating and aesthetically pleasing. In the essay, Sontag goes against the grain and says that this beauty can be found in war photography, and makes some very valid arguments to support her thesis. It is true that beauty can be found in a war photo, and Sontag insists that beauty can also be found in other things that are not so obvious such as pain, suffering and grief. The events of 911, and Ground Zero are things Sontag stresses on to validate her point. “Photographs tend to transform, whatever their subject; and as an image something may be beautiful-or terrifying, or unbearable, or quite bearable- as it not in real life” (p.2). There is a clear effort here to make it palpable to the reader that things aren’t so black and white with photography; there is often a gray area involved.
A related example, although not stated in the essay, is one concerning religion. Certain religions find beauty in death as opposed to a feared view of it; they see it not as the end but the beginning of an even more beautiful journey, and this can be related to the images of death being captured in a photo, and then being called beautiful. In the Hindu religion, its believers practice of Dharma to be liberated from Samsara. In short, they look forward to death, in order to be liberated from this cycle of reincarnation, which is called Moksha. Here you can see that the followers of Hinduism are markedly trying to emancipate themselves from this cycle. With other religions, a common thread among Christianity, Judaism and Islam is that they all believe in an “afterlife” which is timeless, peaceful and is the ultimate goal as the result of living a moral life. Religion can epitomize that there is no right answer, view, outlook or feeling for someone to have in regards to death and Sontag does a great job of exemplifying this through her explanation of war photography. “That a gory landscape can be beautiful-in a sublime or awesome or tragic register of the beautiful- is a commonplace of images about war made by artists” (p.1). This quote relates directly towards religion; religion covers the topics that are sublime, awesome and tragic, and shows how in that the beauty is then found. Both war photography and religion are both conveyable to life so the connection between the two, although a few layers deep beneath the obvious, is a link worth uncovering.
More support for this idea would be a situation where a sacrifice is made. A not so common, but not unrealistic portrayal of sacrifice could be a husband jumping in front of a bullet to save his wife’s life, just out of pure love and affection. Beauty can be found because the love, sacrifice and devotion was there, and although the husband got hurt and sad feelings are in play for all parties, love and beauty will always trump sadness and grief.
Similarly, this essay talks about how “impact” and “shock” are major factors in regards to the pain of others. A very real portrayal of this is the section of the piece where she discusses smokers and cigarette boxes. This is a tricky one because there are a lot of factors psychologically that come into play: addiction, “shock”, guilt and neuro-marketing are just a few. “For photographs to accuse, and possibly to alter conduct, they must shock” (p. 4). When she talks about the study group of smokers that were exposed to cigarette boxes with images of cancerous lungs on them as opposed to just a verbal warning, 60% more of the people were inspired to quit. “But for how long, how long does shock last?” (p. 4) Sontag questions. This is where the difficulty comes into play, and the answers one may never know. It is certain, however, that images do shock and they do provoke a certain mentality~ regardless of the butterfly effect. So to elicit this message to its maximum potential, the photographer, or artist, must be one hundred percent detached so others can shock and grieve.
One man has taken it upon himself to fulfill that duty and that is he photographer Gilles Peress. He exemplifies war photography extremely well in the way of shock and could not seem to be more detached and heartless. In the album Nyarubuye massacre site in Rwanda, Africa, Peress’ photo album makes him seem callous as an artist. The first photo I chose is extremely graphic, repulsive and most importantly shocking. It shows two dead bodies lying curled next to each other, still partially clothed. The exposed parts are what make it really brutal. One’s bones are completely barren while the other’s still has visibly rotting flesh hanging off of it’s bones. They seem to be in a ditch, most likely thrown in there, where the ground is part mud and part puddle. Insects seem to be lurking and flying around which makes the viewer almost imagine the smell floating out of this ditch. This is photo is very important to support Sontag’s argument because every summer, my dad and I clean the pool for swimming enjoyment. Every so often we come across a dead rabbit, mouse, and always a bunch of frogs in the filtration system. The first time the smell was so rancid I almost yakked. Yet after doing it one time, after jumping that first hurdle, I found the cleaning to become as easy as blinking. The lucid smell remains in my head when the thought of dead flesh comes about, but its not something intolerable. Sontag says something similar in her essay: “Does shock have term limits”? (p.4). This is definitely a problem for many photographic artists today. Can their message really get across to people, and if they do, for how long? The point of them are to impact, and ultimately reveal beauty so the artist must be very picky and concise when it come to their work. Overall, the photographer does a careful job of being clear and prompts the viewer to make a connection of this sight with a smell, henceforth making the photo a shocking, relatable reality.
The second photo I chose is one that shows something less shocking, yet still is an image that provokes the viewer to have a certain emotion. This one, for me, helps me connect to what Sontag was talking about in regards to finding beauty in photographs. It has a very triumphant nature, and shows the people of Rwanda persevering and continuing life even in a time of war. Whether the people are doing daily tasks and retrieving water, or moving their location to a safe haven, what is important is that it shows peoples persistent nature and shows the best in human nature. This image reminded me of the part in the essay where it speaks about how people can take an image and find themselves in a portion of it. whether is be something they fear or something they like about themselves. I found this photo to be inspiring and evoking; It makes me want to persist and continue with whatever struggles I’m having in my life and I think that was the photographer’s intent.
Lastly, I chose and image of Peress’ that I found to be a very interesting combination of both shock and beauty. The image is that of a boy who has clearly been injured due to a fight, battle or beating, and has now lived on, recovered and found safe haven. At first you think the image to be a bit gruesome but within moments you can see the boy is alright and has survived. It makes me feel like it’s a horror story preceding the success story.
Overall I chose Peress’ photography because I thought he had an interesting mix of photos yet at the same they all had a common thread (they were all black and white and they were all from the same year, place and event). I felt his photography was (although seemingly heartless and detached as it should be) very left open for interpretation-which was a good thing. Artists must evoke the viewer to think and formulate an opinion of some sort. To describe Gilles Peress’ photography in a nutshell, he does it very well himself and puts it simply in his own words: "I don't care so much anymore about 'good photography'; I am gathering evidence for history". And that’s precisely what he’s done; he’s provided images as evidence for this horrid event, which we would not have necessarily known was horrid unless we had viewed Peress’ photos. His photos were heedfully taken and have a clear form of semblance about them; you can tell it’s not just a bunch of random photographs that anybody could have taken with a disposable Kodak.
The central message from both Sontag and Giles Peress’ photos were that regardless of the event, photo or purpose, a photo needs to do only a few simple things: they must have an effect, shock, be open for interpretation and display beauty of some sort. The main purpose of photography, similar to that of literature, it to have an audience and provide a certain central message or theme. The means by which an artist accomplishes this is up to them to decide; yet their work will not have purpose unless they can connect to their audience by shock and beauty, and all the while they must stay detached, as cold-hearted as it may make them out to be.

Posted by Shaz at 1:47 PM