Seite 59 [59]
OCR
Living Images and Gestures in Wartime: The Other as an Iconoclastic Figure against an ideology presented as illusion—as a false awareness or a lie. According to Zaremba, those who produce iconoclastic images face a dilemma—a rejection of or a challenge to current standards of acceptability. During wartime there is a visible shift from the Other towards the Alien. Gamboni points out that hostility afflicts the images of those who became successful (1997) or it attacks those images which embody special value. As William Mitchell puts it: “iconoclasm is not just a belief structure but a structure of beliefs about other peoples beliefs. As such, it depends upon stereotype and caricature (image repertoires that reside on the borders of social difference). (...) A stereotype establishes the general set of beliefs and behaviors that are attributed to others” (Mitchell 2005: 20). On the other hand, the caricature “deforms or disfigures the stereotype, exaggerating some features or rendering the figure of the Other in terms of some subhuman object in order to ridicule or humiliate” (Ibid.: 20). Not all who are alien or Others are the iconoclasts defined by Mitchell—only some of them are, usually those to whom we ascribe more. Further to the thought of Mitchell, an iconoclast is one who creates an image of the Other as the idolater, one who sets off to punish the idolaters for their false beliefs and practices, attempting to deface or destroy their images (Ibid.: 20). This is a special case of an Other who is dangerous and charged with power. Being an idol or a ‘living’ image is always attributed by someone else and perceived through someone else’s eyes; the idolater him- or herself might not realise that this is what he/she is. The process of demonisation takes place in the eyes of the iconoclasts’. This approach fits the context of war destruction, where certain images referring to specific destruction of meaningful objects are usually charged emotionally for one or both sides. According to Mitchell, critique assumes a separation of good from evil, therefore the issue of images is determined by the evaluation of values, and even more strongly by their ‘crisis’ which results in the fact that true critique becomes, in a sense, a default form of iconoclasm, an aspiration to destroy or expose the false images that cast a spell on us (2005: 81). In other words, an iconoclast believes that he is right or has a true god, while others have their lower or degraded idols or spirits. In line with Mitchell, we might then speak about the ‘structure of iconoclasm’. During wartime this structure would be best revealed through direct interactions with the Other. War images are always related to cruelty and violence. Susan Sontag (2010) wrote about the various motivations and ways of presenting violence during WWI, the Spanish Revolution, WWII and the Vietnam War. Sontag shows us that the images of violence originate in various contexts under the influence of various fac ° As Mitchell argues, polytheism, paganism and gentle pluralism towards gods and goddesses construe a certain general approach, which may be associated with actual forms of idolatry. Iconoclasm, on the other hand, is a product of the three great religions of the Book. It springs from the principal rule, according to which images are suspicious, dangerous, evil and deceitful (2005: 20). 57
