In the chapter “Image, War, Legacy”, Ritchin discussed photography’s role in media and politics. Photography is increasingly being used as a tool to “package” politicians and sell them to the target audience. It is not a means to make public figures a commodity. Ritchin uses examples of Richard Nixon and George Bush (both of them) posing for the camera to come across in the media as more macho or more involved with the soldiers in the Iraq war. He discusses how photography is being censored in the same rite, dictating how a person or situation is being portrayed or not allowing portrayal at all. During war time, graphic images of injured and dead civilians are being censored from new sources and deemed unpatriotic or morbid. In some cases, photographers are being held back from covering the wars at all. This reading made me think about Jean Baudrillard’s theory on post-modernism and consumer culture. He argues that after the industrial revolution and the possibilities for mechanical reproduction, consumption of objects (fueled by Capitalism) has developed into a type of alternate reality that dictates social hierarchy and individual status. Advertising and communication has turned into rapid, impersonal and shallow instances of interaction. All of these dynamics are creating a society, which has ultimately lost touch with reality. Photography, TV and film are significant factors that have paralleled this development and ultimately changed art in the process. Ritchin acknowledges this implication of photography etc, “even many non-governmental organizations, like major corporations have recently embarked on strategies to use photographs to “brand” their identities”, the branding being an effort to appeal to the consumerism that has plagued our society (89). I think this stance really has most relevance within journalism but certainly is something to consider when thinking about fine art and its evolution after photography and film came along. That, however, is a whole other beast.
No comments:
Post a Comment