Photography as a Weapon by Errol Morris
What you believe to be a thesis statement?
The thesis statement of Errol Morris’ article ‘Photography as a Weapon’ is basically written in the title — photography is a very influential and powerful tool that has an ability to alter reality and manipulate our minds.
What are the arguments used to prove the thesis statement?
The first argument of the article is photographs can deceive. In Morris’ opinion, the presumption behind a photograph is: ‘Someone saw this.’ We tend to believe that the photographs are original, ‘presenting something that someone saw and wished for someone else to see.’ The author maintains that the photograph could be manipulated even more easily, just by adding captions or labels. He supports this thought by providing an example of the photographs presented by Colin Powell at the United Nations in 2003.
‘Photographs that were used to justify a war. And yet, the actual photographs are low-res, muddy aerial surveillance photographs of buildings and vehicles on the ground in Iraq. I’m not an aerial intelligence expert. I could be looking at anything. It is the labels, the captions, and the surrounding text that turn the images from one thing into another.’(Morris)
The author analyzes why do we trust photographs. Morris discusses a famous photograph of 4 Iranian missiles being launched with digital photography expert Hany Farid. The photograph appeared to be fake, as one of the missiles was simply photoshopped. ‘The brain is just very good at processing visual imageries and bringing in memories associated with images.’ (Fraid) Fraid claims that images stay in our head, but the labels are not as text is processed in a different part of the brain.
You start putting it out there and saying, ‘Oh look, this picture? It’s a fake. This picture? It’s a fake.’ But you know what people remember? They don’t remember, ‘It’s a fake.’ They remember the picture. Fraid
So this is exactly what happened to Iranian photograph: people won't remember that the photograph was manipulated, they will recall only the image itself — Iranian missiles being launched.
Morris also resolves what angers us if the picture was manipulated in his discussion with Charles Johnson, an American web designer and blogger, who uncovered several photographic frauds. They discuss the term ‘fauxtography’, why is it important to expose photographic fraud and how to do it. As Johnson poses it, we should ever not expose fraud. 'When you see a photo that’s been faked, and it’s on the cover of newspapers, and it came from a regime that’s our enemy, you’ve got to expose that, if you see it.’(Johnson) Both, Morris and Johnson, stated that we are angered not because the photograph has been manipulated, but that we have been manipulated by the photograph. We have been lied to and became the victims of the fraud.
The second argument of the article is that manipulated photographs could be used not only deceive us but can be used to bring our attention to certain issues. To support this, Morris analyses the works of a German visual artist John Heartfield, who became famous for his war-related photomontages. In his works, Heartfield pointed out that photography is used as propaganda and we should be careful with the information provided by mass media. Heartfield employed the motto: ‘Use Photography as a Weapon.’ His photomontages are pretty straightforward, ‘he juxtaposed familiar photographic images to create a bleak picture of Europe on the verge of war.’ (Morris) One of his most powerful images is accompanying with the text: ‘Whoever reads bourgeois newspapers becomes blind and deaf. Away with these stultifying bandages.’
Summarizing the article, Morris goes back to his thesis statement.
We should remember that the power of photographs comes not only from their ability to copy reality but also to alter reality. Photographs can be used — to borrow Heartfield’s phrase — as weapons. They can be used to warn us about the dangers of impending war. They can also be used to ratchet up the blind forces of rage and unreason that drag us into conflict. Morris