The Pictures Worth A Thousand Words – How War Photography Shapes Our Perception Of Conflict

“War is one of photojournalism‘s favorite subjects. It is impossible to utter the words “Verdun,” “Saigon,” or (of course) “Iwo Jima” without a press photo springing to mind, like an emblem of the conflict.”- Vincent Lavoie (art historian)

After photography was first invented in the early 19th century, it did not take long before this new form of art was used to document major geopolitical events such as conflicts. The Crimean War, from 1853 to 1856, is thought to
have been the first instance in which a British photographer, Roger Fenton, was commissioned to take pictures for journalistic purposes. Photographs, unlike paintings or any other artistic interpretations of war, are taken in an instant and are meant to provide an exact impression of what is happening on the ground. Because photography presumably gives a much more authentic and objective picture of the conflict than what any artist could draw or any writer could describe with words, it has, from its very origins, been regarded as a means of documentation much less prone to manipulation than any other form of journalism.

However, and maybe precisely because of their high levels of credibility, the potential of selectively chosen photographs to support or disrupt certain narratives about conflicts and wars has been recognized from a very early stage. Vicky Goldberg, an American photography critic, wrote that photojournalism emerged when “society wanted pictures and proof and was prepared to believe that the two were the same.” By taking a brief journey through the history of war photography, we can see how this idea was made use of over and over again, from the wars in Crimea to the ones in Iraq. As mentioned above, the history of war photography most likely began with Roger Fenton and his coverage of the military conflict in Crimea, for which he travelled to the frontlines for four months during the summer of 1855. Although directly exposed to many of the horrors of that war, which
killed several of his friends and acquaintances, Fenton refrained from documenting scenes of action or violence, and instead typically photographed the landscape, the troops as they were socialising, or the military leaders in portrait mode. While factors like technological limitations might have played a role in this, there was also an understanding between Fenton and his commissioners, the publishing house Thomas Agnew & Sons
(supported by several ministers of the government), that his task was primarily to provide a positive image of the Crimean war so as to provide the British population at home with a more positive impression of a war they had started to become critical of (see image 1).

This tradition of using pictures to justify governments’ actions with their countries’ population was continued during the decades that followed. An extremely interesting case is the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 – 1871 (see image 2). Although we mostly rely on paintings here, the particular style employed by the artists went on to heavily influence war photography of the 20th century. During this war, it became clear to the French government relatively quickly that they were heading towards a military loss against the Germans. Instead of providing the population with pictures of confident generals and cheerful soldiers, as had been the tradition both in paintings and in photography up to this time (see for instance the Crimean war), the illustrations thus turned towards showing the struggles and the hardships of individual and small groups of soldiers. Now it was the bravery and perseverance of the army that was highlighted, which was able to justify an eventual loss of the conflict much more easily than the classical images of the powerful army could have done.

During the first and the second World War (see image 3), photography became a much more established means of documentation. Yet the style focused on soldiers’ struggles, put forward by the art of the Franco-German conflict, continued to play a big role. Faced with previously unknown levels of destruction and violence, according to researcher Eve Sinaiko, “Mourning, introspection, self-examination and scepticism replaced
the cheers” and the “ancient tradition of celebration and victory” as photographic themes.

This change in perspective has massively shaped our perceptions of war, as well as of the kind of pictures we expect photographers to provide when covering a war. It has also contributed to the fact that photography, and especially free-lance photography, has become an established way of offering counterevidence to the official (positive) narratives of war provided by governments. The most well-known example of this is certainly the Vietnam War (see image 4) from 1964 to 1975. Images like that of the summary execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém or “Napalm Girl” Phan Thị Kim Phúc fuelled a strong anti-war sentiment among Western and especially the US population, which eventually forced the American government to abandon the war.

Ironically, precisely the case of Vietnam has made many Western governments aware of the importance of national support when engaging in military conflicts as well as of the potential of photography to secure this necessary public endorsement. Especially since the United States’ Operation Desert Storm in the 1990 – 1991 Gulf War (see image 5), but also during the war in Afghanistan and the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the government has severely restricted access for freelance photographers. Accreditations were allocated only to official military photographers who had to comply with strict rules that provided a rather “clean” image of the war.
This meant, for example, that no pictures could be taken of US casualties. Official photographs were also supposed to portray the missions in a “surgical” way: as effective, precise, and hitting the right targets without causing many civilian victims. While this provided a distorted vision of the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan, it also allowed the US government to justify its military engagements at home much more effectively.

Because of these developments of the past three decades, we can now see a widening gap between official and freelance photography. How a certain conflict is portrayed can depend heavily on who commissions the pictures to be taken and on who pays the photographer. This also means that photography’s potential to influence narratives and our perceptions of conflict now comes to the fore more clearly than ever before. Still, in an era of social media and smartphones there is also hope for a new trend: In a time when more people have access to cameras than ever before, the insights we can gain into what the situation in a war zone really looks like might also become more extensive, broadly diversified and authentic than ever before.

Additional sources:

Mott, Thomas. „Images, imagination and impact: war in painting and photography from Vietnam to Afghanistan.“ Calhoun Institutional Archive of the Naval Postgraduate School (2013). https://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/34709/13Jun_Mott_Thomas.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.

Woodward, Michelle. „Photographic Style and the Depiction of Israeli-Palestinian Conflict since 1948.“ Jerusalem Quarterly 31 (2007). https://www.academia.edu/22910368/Photographic_Style_and_the_Depiction_of_Israeli-Palestinian_Conflict_since_1948?email_work_card=view-paper.

Banner image courtesy of US Air Force via Wikimedia. All images public domain unless otherwise stated.