Pixies Place Forums - View Single Post - The hidden cost of our..........

I do remember Piss Christ, and I recall being somewhat (pardon the pun) pissed off about what happened to it.

I saw the picture, and on a purely technical level I find it to be quite outstanding though I am very much a lay graphics person (read: I suck at graphics). I do think it could be, and probably was intended to be disrespectful towards George Bush Jr. I don't find disrespect to be an unacceptable political statement, however, and believe this to be central to any society offering freedom of political expression.

Isn't it the military's raison d'etre to facilitate - indeed, to act out themselves - political statements? If I were a commander committed to war I might be inclined, from a pragmatic point of view to not allow the photographs of the coffins to be released, because a pictorial reminder that soldiers actually die in war might not make me and my mission quite as popular with the citizens of my country, however, to not release the pictures obscures (in a pictorial sense) part of reality. To obscure information in any form that has no national security value, I believe, is not the function of the air force, nor military, nor any body puporting to act on behalf of "the people".

Quote:

Originally posted by jseal
Belial,

No photograph is respectful. No photograph is disrespectful. A photograph is a recorded image. A recording of what is. Reality is not respectful, nor is it disrespectful.

How an image is used or presented can be very disrespectful indeed.

For example, a few years ago, there was a picture entitled “Piss Christ” exhibited in several places, including Melbourne in 1997. Due to the way that the image was presented, it engendered such antipathy that it was seriously damaged, and the exhibit closed. A similar fate befell “The Holy Virgin Mary”. It was not that the images were themselves blasphemous; an image is after all only an image, but that they were presented in such a way as to antagonize people who had existing strong beliefs about the subject matter. As an aside, note that the responses elicited were so passionate that the exhibits were cancelled, thus depriving everyone of the opportunity to see the images. Most regrettable, and so avoidable.

Below is a link to a politically focused site. If you’ll take the time to follow it, you’ll see what has already been done with mere images. While some may take the picture in stride as an acceptable political “statement”, I suspect that others would consider it disrespectful. Composing a mosaic of a nation’s political executive out of images of dead people can plausibly be argued as disrespectful.

http://amleft.blogspot.com/archives...112087436221697

The last two American Presidents have had the dubious distinction of polarizing the political environment. The discourteous and nasty tactics which have become the political norm play into the hands of people on both the Right and the Left who seem to delight in savaging people with whom they disagree.

Now place yourself in the position of the Dover AFB commander. To make these images available on demand from a military facility is to be an accessory before the fact of a political statement. Is it fitting for the military to facilitate any particular type of political statement?

It is true that these images of coffins are only images. I believe that there is no prohibition of photography of the coffins once they have been released to the families of the deceased. Until then, how they may be used is very much within the purview of the managing organization, in this case the U.S. Air Force.