Page 68 [68]
OCR
66 Dagnostaw Demski Due to destruction, the construction of the images of the Other during wartime is perhaps the most spectacular phenomenon of othering. It happens that during the war people become lost in the collective consciousness, attempting to navigate between two or more identities. They participate in cultural values, memories and images, which have an individualised character, although it seems that a certain pattern is repeated. A clash of collective identities forces them to make unforeseeable choices in a complex and polarised social space. It appears that it is the inhumanity of the times, their cruelty, and the injustice and uncertainty of circumstances, together with a polarisation of wartime attitudes, that give colour to the visual representations. The living images evoke speechlessness, shock or anger on the part of their viewers and the survivors who witnessed the events in reality, but also, similarly, the next generations. Originally, these images were employed for propaganda reasons or for documentation, and yet they are still perceived by the next generations as an impulse that prompts insight into inhuman events. The fact that they were active agents in the mythical time—at turning point of history—made them become alive. However, on the other side, as stressed by Feona Attwood et al (2013: 8), “controversial status rests not so much on their [the images] content as on the way in which that representation embodies an information system and a political order in which power is exercised through the choice of particular ways of making the camp visible while making others invisible”. The controversial nature of an image was decided by politics, i.e. with the passage of time the meaning ascribed to a given image loses its force, as what was invisible before becomes part of everyday life. The instrumental use of them enhances their potential impact. As Dario Gamboni states: “the choice of weapons were consciously derived from the kind of battle being fought” (Gamboni 1997: 90). Did the images of the Other reflect the nature of the new revised relationship between the collective consciousness and the Other? Usually, they reflected a sense of resentment, prejudice and fear. Iconoclasm and propaganda belong to a separate order, although they have common features, for example, they destroy false images. Apart from the acts and objects, another significant issue will also be the manner in which this act of destruction is condemned or described by the victims, saying a lot about the event and its significance. Analysing the most common picture types it is possible to learn what is important for the nations and countries engaged in war: as Gamboni would say, these acts can be seen as barbaric, primitive, blasphemous, blind; as criminal, idiotic or ignorant; as a propaganda weapon, as regressive, vulgar or as acts of vandalism (a term comparable to iconoclasm: administrative, constructive, embellishing, personified, restorative vandalism). As representations, caricatures also serve as visual commentaries on reality. In contrast, the photographic records provide material evidence understood as real. As Susan Sontag puts it, “something becomes real (...) by being photographed”.
