On the day of April 30th, 1975 marked the end of the Vietnam War. The following years prior to that left many Americans devastated and in a state of outcry. This was due to the overwhelm support of withdrawing the troops out of Vietnam because it was such a heavily controversial matter at the time. Several media reports and horrific images that were disclosed to the public had the capacity to quickly shift the public’s opinion on the war. The images generated were horrific, powerful and meaningful. At a flash of an instant, we are able to see the world that we must convey how the photographer sees it. These images are important to our history and have the ability to tell a story that words would not be able to describe. In my research paper, I will be interpreting my ideas about the visual image I have chosen, which is titled “War is Hell”. By analyzing the image, I mean how it is examined in the visual culture schema and it makes and produces meaning to the eye of the observers. Images have the capacity to communicate ideological, meaningful messages which hold different views to observers, in which they are required to be reduced to fully comprehend the realities that concur in the world. These images are a part of a representation system, to which they must be selected, simplified and then interpreted to fully grasp the context behind the photo. Although they must be encoded and decoded in the process, this is not an equal concept. It will not deliver the same meaning to everyone unless it is broken down to its basic core.
To answer the question of how we come to understand an image is a complex process. Meanings of an image are lost in a sense of distortion. To answer this question, in order to understand an image then we must know the context and interpretation behind the image that is given to us as the observers. This is addressed by Stuart Hall about distortions in the sense of a communicative entity during his Representation and the Media documentary in which he claims that “There will never be one interpretation of what is going on… There will never be a finally settled fixed meaning.” (Hall, Stuart Representation and the Media). Hall’s statement perfectly exemplifies the “War is Hell” image that I have chosen. This image contains a young-looking serviceable boy wearing a combat helmet that has a message that reads “War is Hell” while grinning and posing to the camera during the Vietnam War. What holds significance is the combat or ‘war’ helmet and the message along with it displaying “War is Hell”. In order to truly grasp the meaningful concept of this image, then the components that make up the image must be intact and then simplified to fully comprehend. In a way, this image is composed of a collective unit of signs and meaning in its entirety. If it was just a photo of the grinning boy without the combat helmet, then it would not mean anything but just a tasteful and simple image of a boy. Although, when you add in the combat helmet with a message displaying “War is Hell” then you now have a different image. A completely different meaningful picture that captures both the purity of the first analogy, but also carrying the horror of war and how it even affects the most ‘battle-hardened’ of people in our society. These photos must be analyzed and viewed through the photographer’s vision before knowing the full meaning that is being portrayed. This idea is acknowledged by Claire Harrison in terms of how meaning making is applied into the observer’s aspect. Harrison stresses that “image is not a result of a singular, isolated, creative activity, but itself a social process… its meaning is a negotiation between the [photographer] and viewer, reflecting individual social/cultural/political beliefs, values and attitudes” (Harrison, Claire: Visual social semiotics: Understanding how images make meaning). This accordance of ideology is important when it comes to meaning making in these images, as everyone is different and attributed to their own views. These signs depicted in the image are arbitrary and different to everyone, as a mother would react scared or protective of their son differently to this particular image than a war veteran who could have related or has regarded precedent in the young boy’s iconic photo at first hand and agree. Each and every person differs differently to the semiotics of an image and holds meaning that is different in their vision or their very own reality, in ways of how they would perceive things and channel these thoughts to the world.
At the surface level of the photograph, it seems like a simple ‘selfie’ but this kind of thinking merely scratches the surface of how this image came to be and the indication that this piece establishes. The sender of the “War is Hell” image was conveying and defining his image through the systems of representation. In order to indulge in the meaning and focus of the image, the ideology and history at the time have to be revisited and acknowledged to do so. At the time, US government were pushing for media coverage on the positivity of the war and how they would bring democracy or ‘freedom’ to the communist land that was Vietnam. They wanted to obstruct and resist the spread of communism that opposed their nationalist views. As time went on, the public later found out that this was largely propaganda to attract the majority of the public support in sending the troops over. This is recognized by Michael Griffin, in which he says, “Published and telecast images of war are widely presumed to sway public perceptions and attitudes, potentially reinforcing or eroding public support for war policy” (Griffin, Michael: Media images of war, pg. 8). The political climate to the war at the time emphasizes why the “War is Hell” photo was so iconic and regarded as profound. Since the US media and government had a large control of what was being circulated and distributed, in which they “aimed not only at shielding particular images from public view but [also] promoting and facilitating the distribution of preferred types of images… [which] establishes an approved universal of imagery”3. There were fairly small amounts of images that were able to break through in the media that did not alter the realities of war which at the time was altering the public’s reality of the war. This only proved that media had a powerful influence on society and its embodiment regarding the government. As soon as images like these were disclosed to the world, people would use these sources of information to have a better understanding behind the story behind images like these. This corresponds to a higher amount of insight and knowledge about what was truly going on in a place that is across the world from them. Images are collective, the meaning is constructed to be collective. Combining these two produces unity of both the people and the image in itself. The entirety of the public quickly transitioned to fully supporting the troops and their mission to rallying the troops out of Vietnam and getting them home. The “War is Hell” image portrayed a youthful soldier that seemed careless of his world which was present at war but, in his reality and in a semiotic intention, is in a situation that can only be compared to hell. The public was able to find and shape their own realities in the war through taking what they know of the representation that these images construe and these images that would later alter the political reality of war policy.
These images provide an intimate relationship to the observer and require a connection or contract of these two parties. A whole process of representation takes place, through encoding and decoding between the sender to the receiver in hopes of replicating a message that the sender is trying to portray. There is no existing meaning unless it is given a purpose or an emphasis on the event. As Stuart Hall says about the topic of representation “True meaning of it will depend on what meaning people make of it… and the meaning will depend on how it is represented”. If the “War is Hell” photo was not represented in a way to create the aspect of innocence and horror of war, then it would not have the impact that the current images hold now. Observers are required to differ away from their very own reality and picture the reality that was depicted in the image in order to attain a sense of equality and a perception of the message that was being conveyed to the mass audience. Without meaning, then an image has no use and is not being objectified in the world. When an image is given meaning through semiotics, and observation is when it is given a language that appeals to the observers. This language is only in a form that helps form ways of viewing the world. It breeds knowledge through a global fashion and provides methods in which involves a process of inquiring how the world works and evolves. Without any prior knowledge of this language can only lead to the inevitable, an image without any meaning. As Hall asserts the notion of representation and its relation to the meaning which corresponds to its own language is through “true meaning is [which is through] the way it is represented” .
All in all, media and the powerful capabilities of imagery are a blessing and a curse to the world. It has the capacity to completely propel propaganda but also at the same time, show the realities of the world and how it works, an example being the visual piece I have chosen “War is Hell”. Images have the capacity to communicate ideological, meaningful messages which hold different views to observers, in which they are required to be reduced to fully comprehend the realities that concur in the world. Different meanings can be produced by different people, but this does not affect the outcome or the overall idea of the image at the end, an outcome that media and imagery have the capacity to communicate concurring thoughts that are established to the observers spanning globally to each and single person as a collective unit bringing in collective beliefs, ideals and values pertaining from the image. Thus being, “War is Hell”