As an aside, Sontag also argued that photographs of violence would anaesthetise us: she was proved right - four decades after she published her book, we have become complacent about images of war, and it is inconceivable that a modern government would be affected by photographs like Ut's.
As I said in my earlier post, some books are worth reading despite their literary style, not because of it.
For starters, thank you for your nice interpretation of Susan's unnecessarily obtuse prose. You did a decent job though perhaps it wasn't as necessary as you believed.
Second, I am not an intellectual nor have I ever been. I am not necessarily anti-intellectual though I have observed that many of them are a bit elitist and seem to feel that us plebeians need rescuing from ourselves.
Finally, I want to address the thought that some of us have attacked Ms Sontag without justification; and have failed to describe why.
In the excerpt I picked out from RichC's post, I highlight a statement made as an interpretation of what he felt Ms Sontag was trying to say, and I do agree with him. I do apologize for taking his statement out of context but this was only an attempt to shorten a post that will almost certainly end up too long as it is. Please read the entire post for yourself. As RichC stated she has made this point as well as many others, albeit with some of the most obtuse writing I have had to wade through. We are led to believe this is a European affectation considered necessary by those in the Humanities group. I am not sure I totally agree but I'll address that later.
My problem with Ms Sontag actually has nothing to do with her writing, bad as it is. She is simply wrong. Yet everyone is so ready to accept this, and many other, points she has made without questioning them at all. To attempt to blame photographs for desensitizing people to violence is absolute silliness and I have difficulty believing that anyone can actually believe it.
Photography does not desensitize anyone to violence. If that was in fact true, then every single documentary photographer throughout recent history has been completely and totally misled. If true, then all attempts to reveal the atrocities being perpetrated around the world today through the use of photography are totally and completely worthless. ChrisC even agreed with this. He stated unequivocally that Ms Sontag has been proven correct. Yet again we are left hanging. Why should we believe this? Because RichC says it, or Ms Sontag tried to make the point several years ago? What proofs are provided to support this drastic premise. Actually, if we would just give this a little bit of thought we would realize that her conclusion cannot be correct.
To my own personal shame our own US Government has done everything they can to sanitize the images coming out of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, in a desperate attempt to maintain public support among our public. If RichC and Susan Sontag are correct, why would they bother? They have largely been successful but, once in awhile. something leaks through, such as the images from Abu Graib. If what Ms Sontag claims has actually come true, then the public would just turn away. But that did not happen; people were suddenly horrified and there was an outcry around the civilized world to cease and desist. I personally doubt that a desensitized public would feel that way.
Every Government in the world, and a lot of other public agencies, are scared to death of what will happen if some of the things they do are photographed. Sophisticated Governments attempt to rigidly control this. Less sophisticated governments just shoot the photographer, as evidenced by the recent death of Camille Lepage. In similar fashion police around the world attempt to block the photographing of their actions, for fear of what might be revealed. If our public were truly desensitized this type of reaction would be completely unnecessary.
In my opinion most of Susan Sontag's thoughts about photography are largely wrong. I personally believe that On Photography is a very misleading book, and when allowed to go unquestioned it perpetuates myths about photography that could discourage others from actually attempting to use our medium for those things it does best.
Of course, photography is really only a representation of reality and certainly can be manipulated just as Ms Sontag writes. But rather than being some big secret that the unwashed public is too dumb to understand, it is a well understood fact by anyone who has tried to photograph Aunt Emma, only to be told that we aren't getting her "best side". But the intellectuals believe that we aren't intelligent enough so we need protecting from ourselves.
This is only one of many reasons why I do not like Ms Sontag's book. There are many others. The real reason that the Sontag s of the world feel the need to write so obtusely has nothing to do with European custom, like some believe. Rather they are afraid that if they wrote plainly their ideas would be more easily read and revealed as drivel, to quote another member of this forum.
