Why is it that photographs
have more impact in politics than other forms of media?
While many forget the actual specifics behind a story they will remember the photograph that came to symbolise it, whether it’s Che Guevara wearing his beret or the unknown Chinese citizen standing in front of advancing tanks.
Although our constant exposure to these images leaves them imprinted in our minds, the story the image represents becomes diluted to the point that it only signifies a basic idea. For example the iconic image of Che Guevara no longer represents an Argentine and Cuban revolutionary gorilla fighter, but courage, freedom, liberty and resistance, which has subsequently led to Guevara becoming a romanticised figure.
While many forget the actual specifics behind a story they will remember the photograph that came to symbolise it, whether it’s Che Guevara wearing his beret or the unknown Chinese citizen standing in front of advancing tanks.
Although our constant exposure to these images leaves them imprinted in our minds, the story the image represents becomes diluted to the point that it only signifies a basic idea. For example the iconic image of Che Guevara no longer represents an Argentine and Cuban revolutionary gorilla fighter, but courage, freedom, liberty and resistance, which has subsequently led to Guevara becoming a romanticised figure.
Postmodernism has played a
massive part in the progression of political imagery. Barack Obama has in many ways become a victim of this with the ‘Hope’ poster (that represented his 2008 political
campaign) being re-hashed and edited to project counter messages.
Another example of a powerful image being parodied is Lewis Morley's photograph of Christine Keeler. Although Keeler’s story and (arguably) the original image may have actually been forgotten by most people, the image of a person (originally a nude Christine Keeler) sitting 'back to front' on a chair is recognised by most. As is the qualities that it signifies (risqué and yet de rigueur) which are still relevant 40 years on from the original.
Of course this begs the question, does postmodernism give a politically motivated photograph the power to communicate an idea more than an original photo?
Another example of a powerful image being parodied is Lewis Morley's photograph of Christine Keeler. Although Keeler’s story and (arguably) the original image may have actually been forgotten by most people, the image of a person (originally a nude Christine Keeler) sitting 'back to front' on a chair is recognised by most. As is the qualities that it signifies (risqué and yet de rigueur) which are still relevant 40 years on from the original.
Of course this begs the question, does postmodernism give a politically motivated photograph the power to communicate an idea more than an original photo?
The point is we remember a powerful photograph, because it is a snapshot that leaves an indelible impression on our minds. Whereas a film may provide a powerful medium to get across a message, it's the words and the way that they are spoken that are remembered more so than the image.
Who remembers the film of JFK in Berlin? And yet his words 'ich bin ein Berliner' are much parodied 'I am a Berliner'. of course he himself was parodying the line 'civis romanus sum', ('I am a citizen of Rome').