Blog Assignment_4

Larie Gries titles her war porn essay to the San Francisco convention as “Revisualizing Abu Gharib in the Name of Democracy”.  This title alludes to the general claim she concludes by the end of her essay: that these images of war porn are a catalyst to our political policy and democracy in the US.  Gries begins by showing examples of war porn from the well-known and infamous photographs from the torture of victims in Abu Ghraib. She uses these images, as well as the fact that they are easily found on the internet, to prove that they symbolize a “cultural phenomenon unique to the 21^st century visual culture” (2).  She cites specific websites, such as “NowThatsFuckedUp.com”, to further support the fact that these quick images taken by soldiers are easy to access to the everyday American.  Moreover, Gries makes a personal observation that the number of sites related to Abu Gharib has increased by 830,000 since the beginning of her research.  The fact that Haim Brethsheeth, an author of Third Text that Gries mentions in her essay, mentions the “ineffective role [of warporn] in the public sphere” leads Gries to question “What is the functions of the war porn?”  Gries’ further analysis, including a comparison and contrast of Jean Baudrillard’s definition of war porn as an “immediator” and Susan Sontag’s description of war porn as a medal of superiority, Gries concludes the active nature of warporn in society.  Gries backs up this claim by stating the “politically explosive events” that have happened after these images have been shown.  These political actions include the interrogation of the US soldiers responsible for capturing war porn and the passing of the 2008 Army Field Manual Provision of the Intelligence Authorization Bill, which prohibits “inhumane” techniques to interrogate suspects.  War porn, Gries claims, has led Americans question their own democracy and our current ethical values as we continue to fight Iraq today.  Ultimately, Gries commands that “war porn is a public vehicle in participatory democracy … and affects real change”. 

The images that Gries uses throughout her paper serves a key role in her essay (including the map that she intends to present during the speech).  Photographs greatly illustrate the torture and infliction that the victims had to bear.  It brings a greater emotional appeal to her audience, as it brings a literal image to the reality of what is happening in Abu Gharib.  Gries also gives a detailed description of “the most disturbing content of war porn [she has] witnessed,” as if to erupt even greater disappointment of our own soldiers and shed light on the real function of war porn.  A use of logos is also used when Gries defines torture as “any act by which sever pain or suffering… is intentionally inflicted on a person”.  We are therefore led to believe that Gries is not using the term “torture” lightly.  

Advertisement