Introduction

I recently came across this book thanks to Feltrinelli discounts, and I was captivated by the title without knowing who Susan Sontag was. She was a writer and public intellectual who wrote highly influential essays on society, “she wrote extensively about literature, photography and media, culture, […]”.¹

This essay is about war photography, how it has been used throughout its history, and it dissects the point of view of us, spectators.
In order to provide a clear picture, I divided the essay into three main topics: the first one is about a more objective view of war photographs, the second is dedicated to how they are perceived, and the last one focuses on its functions. Sontag mixes these themes throughout her writing with linearity, there is no choppiness, even from one chapter to another.

Photographs are a means of making ‘real’ (or ‘more real’) matters that the privileged and the merely safe might prefer to ignore.²

Objectivity

Sontag states from the beginning the evolution of war photographs in terms of meaning, arguing that when there were first put before the general public’s eye and they didn’t have government censorship, their meaning was clear: war is horrific. The horror before out eyes is undeniable, no human being in its right mind would think otherwise.

The other concept of objectivity relies on the beauty of the photo, if the subject is well positioned, if there’s balance in the composition, if the colors are right, then it loses all its force as an authentic photograph. We, the spectators, cannot accept a well made photo is the circumstances of war, such photo loses its power and we discard it immediately as inauthentic.

Finally, the most objective characteristic about photographs is their muteness. Photographs present themself for what they are, they can be corroborating evidence, mere testimony of something that happened.

Subjectivity

Feeling of fear, horror, disbelief, attraction, these are some of our natural responses to a mass of corpses in the trenches, to a platoon of disfigured soldiers³, to a naked child running down a street after a napalm attack. Sontag pokes us continuously reflecting on the way we feel when looking at those pictures, she touches upon the feeling of indecency being a co-spectator of horror which can lead us to think that maybe we shouldn’t be shown them, we shouldn’t allow a public display of such crude suffering.

The reason is that we could become accostumed to seeing those pictures and become indifferent. However, the author provides a much better explanation about the indifference, discarding the hypothesis of normalization: it is not the amount of pictures we see, it’s the passivity with which we receive them. When we are in front of the TV, a hoist of picture passes before our eyes, we may have five seconds before our attention is directed to some other topic. It is not a reasonable time to form any meaningful and longer-lasting impression in our mind. We need to have the time to think about what we saw, to process it, to actively do something about it.

Function

Throughout the essay, the author lists the various uses and functions of photography. She points out that a war photograph is portraying the disaster of war, but when it is mixed with personal views, with a caption, it then loses that primary intent and acts as an instrument to support a narrative. When we see the photos of a destroyed hospital it is not present as the consequence of some horror, but, depending on who is the attack attributed to, the proof that a part in the conflict is evil, completely disregarding the human tragedy.

Here enters the action of media outlets and government, ready to stir attention and decide for us what is licit and what is not, what can be seen and what cannot, in order to control our response, to limit our freedom, to serve an agenda.

Once the atrocity is done, once the war has concluded, photography can either remain a memory, void of any significance, and tedious, if we are not able to reflect on its meaning, if we do not allow ourself to take some time and actively engage with the photo.

Conclusion

Sontag’s insights remind us that the true power of war photography lies in active engagement and contemplation. These images are not just to be seen; they are to be thoughtfully considered, serving as catalysts for understanding and reflection. Through this engagement, we transform them from passive records of horror into meaningful instruments of awareness and empathy.

List of photos

Most photographs mentioned do not have the title, or are a part of a book, hence I simply put the subjects or place of where the photos were taken.

1. Loyalist Militiaman at the Moment of Death, Robert Capa
2. The killing fields, Nhem Ein, Toul Sleng Genocide Museum
3. Roger Fenton, Crimea
4. Felice Beato, Crimea and Sepoi Rebellion
5. Eddie Adams, Vietrkong shooting and battle of San Juan Hill
6. Gardner and O’Sullivan, Civil war
7. William Eugene Smith, WWII Pacific Front (Tokomo in the bath)
8. Dan McCulling, Vietnam and Bosnia (Camp of Omarska)
9. Tyler Hicks, A nation challenged, 2001
10. Ernst Freidrich, War Against War
11. Yosuke Yamahata, Nuclear bomb consequences
12. Jeff Wall, Dead troops talk