Realistic portrayal of war dead in images

[Hank Trent]

Re: Realistic portrayal of war dead in images

To all, I am not going to be able to explain what it felt like to watch them unload Blackhawks of KIAs.

But no one's asking you to do that. We're discussing the reaction to a photograph, not the reaction to real life. If the answer was merely, "The photo makes me feel the same way," that seems a fair enough response. I'm sure many of the modern combat veterans on here have seen the bodies of men KIA too, or watched them die.

And Hank,.sorry you got your feelings hurt.

No worries. My feelings weren't hurt. They'd only be hurt if someone I respected insulted me.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[Dale Beasley]

Re: Realistic portrayal of war dead in images

To all, I am not going to be able to explain what it felt like to watch them unload Blackhawks of KIAs. And Hank,.sorry you got your feelings hurt. Just don't think I would have been able to explain anything to you without another question or debate. So, my point was made.
I do wish I could be like you and look at that picture and think of it as a performing art. But I can't. But I do respect you for your knowledge of history and performing art.

The person and those involved in the picture did a good job in doing what they did. I did not vote for it." Brought back Baghdad" for a few min. Really no comparison I know...so guys no lectures please about takng hits, etc.

Thank-you moderators for not deleting my post.

[Hank Trent]

Re: Realistic portrayal of war dead in images

For me, it's just the opposite; with the distance of the period technology, I can accept a disturbing picture as a piece of history, rather than something I need to have a modern emotional reaction to, so I'd find a color image more disturbing than a period-styled one.

One thing which is connected to that, but which hasn't been mentioned yet...

I have no idea, but I'm guessing that the wetplate image was posed specifically for the purpose of making the picture. In other words, it wasn't a reenactment activity where the main purpose was to allow spectators or reenactors to experience the situation of dealing with bodies in a trench, including perhaps Mathew Brady's assistant photographing the aftermath of battle. I "read" the picture as an image created primarily for its own sake.

If that's true, then I think the resulting image itself becomes the artwork, and that separates it from the color newspaper photograph, where the reenactment itself was the goal, and the photo was merely a record of it.

In that case, the wetplate photo can be making a statement about reenacting, about reenactors, about history, about war, or any number of things, but what's not included in the "art" is the fact that the men will get up and walk away when it's over. That's "outside" the art. Intellectually, we know it to be true, but it's not part of the picture itself.

However, if a reenactment itself is the "performance art," and the color picture is merely a record of it, the getting up and walking away is part of the art itself. You can't help but see it happen, if you watch the "actors" finish their roles. And that makes it less disconcerting, because it emphasizes that the scene isn't real. It's a reenactment. It's what they do every year. We're all used to it.

Here's where I think the most challenging and controversial cutting edge is, of reenacting as "performance art":

Imagine blending the realism of the wetplate photo with real-life reenacting. Imagine a reenactment that seems as real as the photo, not necessarily including dead soldiers, but that blends reenacting with reality--not just realism, but actual reality. Imagine stepping into that scene for example, with the sights, sounds, smells, activities, and with no known ending. Any reenactment would still have a measure of illusion of course, but in what I'm talking about, the illusion would be much, much deeper--as real as the illusion of reality in the wetplate photo. That's where I think one would venture into an area that I'd find either horribly offensive or absolutely powerful performance art, depending how it was done.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[Spinster]

Re: Realistic portrayal of war dead in images

Elizabeth, I'm glad to see you on this discussion.

Here's what is really circling around in my head: What if this was a much more common 19th century post-mortem image than that of war dead? What about a staged post-mortem image of a child? Does this change opinions?

And before anyone asks--yes, its already been done. At the time I knew it was happening, could see the family procession passing on the road, headed toward the cemetary, coffins in the wagon, young passengers inside, just in case those coffins were searched. And yes, an image was made.

Pretty powerful stuff. I just about twisted my neckkerchief in two, just watching them pass.....

[ElizabethClark]

Re: Realistic portrayal of war dead in images

Hank, I see what you're asking. I do think that many reenactors are fine with recreating hits, or color images, but when they see a posed "death" image with period technology, it starts feeling more real, and can make them uncomfortable. For me, it's just the opposite; with the distance of the period technology, I can accept a disturbing picture as a piece of history, rather than something I need to have a modern emotional reaction to, so I'd find a color image more disturbing than a period-styled one.

[Spinster]

Re: Realistic portrayal of war dead in images

Why does this image disturb so much?

It requires us to deal more closely with the reality. For most days, men march out, all spit, polish, and bravado, flags flying and musicians sounding, they shoot, they fall...........and then they get up and walk away, sometimes to great approbation, if there be a crowd watching.

Here, the men are frozen in time, in a medium that says 'yesterday' to our eyes, but 'today' to our heads. Confusion reigns, and with it, emotion. This image speaks death, sudden and in battle, silent and permanent as this side of the grave.

Awhile back, I was faced with an event where it seemed likely that a man would be nursed for hours, and die in my barn, sometime in the night. That whole scenario was terribly wrenching, especially since he was 'enemy' and I was somehow also required to treat him with only a begruding form of christian charity. Still, I see his face today, and think on the number who died slowly and alone, of wounds or sickness, barely tended and with little comfort.

There are those who cling behind the safety of the same protrayals in the same settings, and some who continuously push the envelope to a greater depth of insight into the life in the mid-19th century. I'm saddened and disappointed in the former, and intensely greatful for the latter. Those who participated in this image are a part of the second group.

Is it a disturbing image? Certainly. It should be.

Did I vote for it as accurately depicting one facet of life in the mid-19th century? Yes.

[sthabig]

Re: Realistic portrayal of war dead in images

I read Johnny Lloyd's original post of course, and found it thoughtful and worthy of further discussion. He said he could see both sides, but what he didn't explicitly address was the difference between any image of men portraying dead soldiers, and wetplate images.

I can see the two sides that either both images are offensive, or neither are. (Neither are offensive to me personally, but I can understand how someone would think they are.) However, if some reenactors feel that being photographed in color after "taking a hit" is not offensive, but the wetplate image is, I was hoping for further discussion where others would articulate what they felt was the difference.

But I should have known, you always think I'm too stupid to understand your superior insight. If you didn't want to discuss it, or thought that Johnny said everyone you could, you could have just said so and referred me to his post. There was no reason to add a personal insult to make yourself look superior.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

I agree 100% with Mr. Trent. How can one be acceptable and the other not? I see guys in a reenactment screaming while acting as wounded, lying dead in haphazard positions, and at mainstream events I see people with fake blood, limbs, etc. If one takes offense to a still image of a bunch of guys pretending to be dead, why wouldn't they be taking offense to the above? On the other hand, if you do why reenact? Pretending to die is something that happens to accurately show what happened during the war.

One can't just say something without bothering to explain their stance to everyone . If one chooses to post and share their opinions do so completely so others can understand where you are coming from.

Thanks,

Tyler

[Hank Trent]

Re: Realistic portrayal of war dead in images

Hank,

Explaining that to you would be like explaining a rainbow to a blind man. Go back and read Brother Llyods post, it speaks better than me. I don't want to get into a debate about this.

I read Johnny Lloyd's original post of course, and found it thoughtful and worthy of further discussion. He said he could see both sides, but what he didn't explicitly address was the difference between any image of men portraying dead soldiers, and wetplate images.

I can see the two sides that either both images are offensive, or neither are. (Neither are offensive to me personally, but I can understand how someone would think they are.) However, if some reenactors feel that being photographed in color after "taking a hit" is not offensive, but the wetplate image is, I was hoping for further discussion where others would articulate what they felt was the difference.

But I should have known, you always think I'm too stupid to understand your superior insight. If you didn't want to discuss it, or thought that Johnny said everything you could, you could have just said so and referred me to his post. There was no reason to add a personal insult to make yourself look superior.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[D F Smith Historic]

Re: Realistic portrayal of war dead in images

Hi All,

I look at this from a differnent angle , as I mentioned in the post regarding the AC cover. My point of view is largly from being an illustraitor & my time in art school.

Photography , like Paint, Ink or Pencil are mediums. For as long as there has been art & war , there has been war art portraying the dead from battle. Whether it is the tapestry of the battle of Hastingsin 1066 to Don Trioni.

The period immages that are done protraying the dead are part of this.

Now that being said ,..... there is art that is well done and art that is not well done at all.

Some folks like it, and some don't

I think it is intersting here that this image on the front cover of the AC is getting much of the contoversy that M . Brady's work recieved when it first whent on exhibition.

When war dead are painted or illustrated, there is a higher tollerance for it as it is seen in a "historical romantic" light. Photography is raw, and brings folks that much closer to a reality (either real or percieved).

If a person is going to endevor in putting together and staging a "dead" image. It ought to be done well and be well thought out and reserched.

Mr. Decker did a fantastic job on this image, & it is in my mind as imprtant in making us think about the war & its costs as any other piece of historicaly set art.

My .02

Don S

[marktaylor]

Re: Realistic portrayal of war dead in images

I agree with Mr. Trent's comments relating to "taking a hit". (Unfortunately) Death and injuries are a part of recreating the ACW.
I have no problem with the cover image or what the artist/subjects were attempting to portray. I think sometimes people become a little desensitized when dealing with the subject matter, but as long as an image is done in "good tatse" [open to interpretation here] I have no problem.

[Tom Dodson]

Re: Realistic portrayal of war dead in images

I was not inferring that because the dead had been "posed" their death was any less a tragedy of War or any less honorable. Nor any less traumatic to their loved ones back home. I was merely pointing out the practice to help justify to some extent my position that the picture on this month's cover is not offensive or in poor taste. It is a very realistic image. As I said it shows the tragic results of War be it in the 19th or 21th centuries.
You are correct in that the photographers did do us a service by making it possible to identify and stand on the hallowed ground shown in their photos.
Tom Dodson
47th Ga

[Hank Trent]

Re: Realistic portrayal of war dead in images

When I saw the picture, well I just wanted to fight and cause trouble, "how dare them", well it doesn't matter, it is just feelings and feelings are just emotions. And emotions are best left alone.

Johnny just said it for me.

Okay, somebody explain to me. How is the image different from every reenactment where men "take hits" and lie on the battlefield, while photographers and video people film away? Like for example, this random one from google images.

Are they both equally offensive? Is the wetplate image more offensive because it looks more realistic?

Edited to add: while the wetplate image looks more realistic for an antique photo of Civil War soldiers because it uses the technology of the day, I'd argue that the color photo I linked to would look just as believable, if the "dead" alone were shown dressed in modern civilian clothes and it was captioned as a modern news photo of a riot or shooting. It only seems obvious they're not really dead because of the reenactors in the background and the fact that we know no color photos of the Civil War survived.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[Dale Beasley]

Re: Realistic portrayal of war dead in images

All:

Okay, I'm 'gonna go there'...

Normally, I eschew what seem to me to be trivial 'hobby issues', but this month's AC image (of excellent quality from an excellent artist with acute originality, Mr. Wendell Decker) really plays in my mind. When I saw the image, I was amazed that it wasn't an original. I showed it to a friend who is not in the hobby and he said at first glance 'Isn't that morbid?'.

On one hand, I read some postings by individuals that referred to images like this as 'borderline disrespectful'. I can see what these people mean and I respect their opinions greatly. Being someone that has seen actual real war deaths, I asked myself how I would feel if I saw casualties from the war I recently fought in a recreated image no matter how noble the intentions. On that note, I felt a bit repulsed by the submittal.

But...

On the other hand, I felt that the picture grabbed my mind so deeply that it made me remember that what we are doing in our hobby once happened in real life to people of extraordinary courage, both blue and grey. For this point, I have to thank all of those that made such a picture possible.

Gents, I'm not trying to stir-the-waters or 'lift shift' in the nest of our wonderful hobby, but from what I read in the posts here, there was an interesting point/counterpoint presented in the thread accompanying the July image submittal: How do we morally and emotionally deal with the concept of realistically portraying the dead in recreated period images?

From my own research, I know people of the 19th Century period used the relatively new medium of photography to not just commemorate war dead or a historical battle, but also to satisfy public curiousity (sometimes a lurid curiousity at worst) as to what death in war really looked like to those on the homefront that had never seen such action before.

So, in effect, our ancestors of the period used photography in a way that we recreate period images like this one... a) to communicate what war looked like to a mass crowd that have never seen it and b) because pictures like this communicate human emotion. (Notice here I fail to stress that original war-dead pictures back in the 19th century sold to the masses quite well... I'd like to keep this on a philosophical, not base, level.)

Maybe it's because I'm a combat veteran, but I feel a strange repulsion, but concidentally a strong affinity to this picture. On one hand, I think of what it represents very realistically, but I know it is staged... that all of those men in the picture went home at the end of the event and dead Americans in the real pictures did not.

On the other hand, I think that by realistic portrayals as we can possibly imagine and do, we as living historians keep the tragedy of the American Civil War fresh in 21st Century peoples' mindset. Our country and the world should never forget the sacrifices of what people did to preserve our freedoms we cherish so dearly today. I feel there is a certain 'strange nobility' in attempting to recreate and remember such ordinary Americans in extraordinary times that made our country as great as it is today as faithfully and realistically as our personal resources allow.

In real war, soldiers have to grieve silently within themselves when their comrades or other innocents die in war and one doesn't want to keep thinking about it. But at the same time, a soldier wants to commemorate their comrades and see fit that the war deads' memories don't die... that people continue to remember the sacrifices that these men made bravely for God, family, friends and country.

Mods, I know this is a valid yet dicey, possible emotionally-filled subject, so if ya'll feel so inclined or see the boat moving in a wrong direction, please do what you must. This was a thing that has been bugging my mind today and I thought I might ask the mature opinions of those that are on this forum what they felt about the subject.

There are no 'right' answers, just feelings here. I can see both sides of the issue very clearly.

Also, I'm not knocking the image in any way, it is of wonderful quality and very deserving of being on the AC... as Mr. Decker's work always is.

All the best- Johnny Lloyd:wink_smil

PS- I am also not the 'offended' type... so no, I'm not 'offended' about the pic in any way- just that there is a debate within my head on what I should think about some very sensitive subjects that we deal with in this hobby such as this one.

Brother Lloyd...

Said it better than I could, for he is a man who thinks first before he reacts, I wish I could be more like him. When I saw the picture, well I first thought , "how dare them", well it doesn't matter, it is just feelings and feelings are just emotions. And emotions are best left alone. Plus I know it was not ment as as dissrespectful , sometimes "Over-There" just creaps back up on you, when you worked with this type of thing.

But as far as the picture looking authentic, it got a reaction...so that should say something for it.

Johnny just said it better than me.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Realistic portrayal of war dead in images

Hallo!

True, some of the photographers had little or no compulsion not to pose or stage what they felt were more intresting or evocative images whether repositioning bodies or adding props such as guns.

However, with the exception of the later posed "dead" on the rocks of Little Round Top, we are still talking about KIA men who were no less dead posed than as found.

And we could add another twist- thanks to William Frassinito and others who find the locations where the slain had fallen that we can visit today...
Or like mass burial trenches, such as those in front of the "The Wall" at Gettysburg, that millions pass by or walk over unaware and oblivious.

Curt

[Tom Dodson]

Re: Realistic portrayal of war dead in images

It seems to me that some of the most famous and grizzly images from the actual War were posed: the famous Confederate "sharpshooter" in Devil's Den at Gettysburg where the body appeared in another image and was then moved to the devil's Den location. There was the photo of the soldier who appeared to have taken a load of canister. His severed hand had been found and moved back to the body. Moving bodies around to capture a desired image may be on the morbid side but it seems to have been an accepted practice by the photographers of the War Between the States. As has been stated they were showing the people at home what War was.
I do not find the image on this month's cover in bad taste. Sad and sobering yes, but not morbid. The photo depicts the by product of war. It is what we all choose to reenact or portray. I suppose we all have our own reasons for doing what we do. Maybe if you find the image disturbing you should question yourself rather than the photo.
Tom Dodson
47th Georgia