WEEKLY DISCUSSION #29: Joe Rosenthal - "Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima"

<p>Once any nation's flag is in the shot then it almost has to become patriotic or nationalistic (depending on the context), so both the Iwo Jima shot and the Reichstag shot are equivalent really when looked at in these terms. While it is difficult not to be impressed with the Iwo Jima shot, the Reichstag shot to my eyes is much more dramatic. There is no question to me though that the Iwo Jima shot is easier to render as a meaningful memorial sculpture (as it is at Arlington).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why are we at our worst when we are at war? I think that's because animals are at their worst when boxed into a corner and we too are animals. In war we're boxed into a corner</p>

</blockquote>

<p>War is defense of territory. Animals defend their territories; so do humans. There is no greater or noble deed then to give one's life in the defense of one's country and fellow comrade-in-arms. War unifies a people and empowers them to do great things. Territory allows a people to have the advantages of an area to advance their well being. Food supply, water, enterprise, etc. which allow them to raise successful families. That territory must be protected and is when outsiders invade. Should the Brits not have defended themselves against Hitler? Should America have just done nothing when Pearl was attacked? A land that is not defended is not yours and will be lost to others. That happens in the animal world as well. The Iwo Jima flag is a symbol of a people's successfully defending themselves, extremely important for their very survival as a people. That's the power of the photo.</p>

<p><em>the Reichstag shot to my eyes is much more dramatic. There is no question to me though that the Iwo Jima shot is easier to render as a meaningful memorial sculpture</em><br>

The Reichstag shot would be utterly impossible to render as a meaningful memorial sculpture. The fighting on the eastern front between Germany and Russia was exceptionally brutal on both sides, but the Red Army progressed towards Berlin raping and pillaging as it went. The official line of the former German Democratic Republic was of gratitude to the Red Army from liberation from fascism, certainly none of the German women who were gang-raped (with official sanction from Red Army officers) felt gratitude in any shape or form.</p>

<p>David, let's just say that the two shots stand for the some 400.000 American and the some 25 million Russian casualties during the war.<br>

Whether the shots are good rendered as sculptures, is totally irrelevant for the quality of the photos, in my eyes.</p>

<p>Since the Iwo Jima photo was, in fact, turned into a sculpture, this part of the discussion seems to be about the realities and uses and characteristics of the photos as well as their quality. I think it's interesting to note the sculptural quality of any photo, which would often suggest to me how important gesture is as part of a given photo. Many effective sculptures seem gestural to me, in a similar way as dance. Photos that I negatively critique as lifeless or not having energy (including many of my own rejects) often seem to have a lack of significant or telling gesture. It's a quality I think well worth considering when making photos, even of static things. Good photographers can find photographic gestures (especially with light and shadow) when photographing buildings, still lifes, and other non-living things.</p>

<p>That being said, I agree with David that the Reichstag shot is less sculptural in nature though interestingly it is still quite gestural, especially if we look at the people and even the way the flag pole hangs over the city. It may just be that it would be trickier to translate into a sculpture but still has rich potential as one. There's a sculpture, for example, at Land's End in San Francisco in memory of the Holocaust. Like the Reichstag photo, it is more of a scene than one particular subject, (though many bodies comprise it, yet the space they occupy is an integral part of the sculpture and it's more about scene than a particular subject, IMO) and probably sculptures are often thought of as a single subject, like the <em>David</em> or Rodin's <em>The Thinker</em>. A good sculptor might take up the challenge to translate the Reichstag photo and use the various gestures against the destroyed buildings to great effect.</p>

<p>You could indeed have a Russian soldier holding a flag just as in the pic on a parapet of the Reichstag and rendered as a sculpture. With an inscription it would make perfect sense. There are not dissimilar memorials that exist. I can see it quite easily. But it would not be as powerful as the Iwo Jima version in my view. </p>

<p><em>David, let's just say that the two shots stand for the some 400.000 American and the some 25 million Russian casualties during the war.</em><br /> <br /> That important statistic alone that Anders mentions (the 25 million dead as a result of the Nazis) may reply to David in regard to the incredible and justifiable anger of the Russian people over Hitler's merciless siege of the former St-Petersburg and other war atrocities and the hate therefore instilled in the Russian soldier's mind that may have allowed him to consider defenceless (and often enemy country) women as less than deserving of civilised treatment. Or hate at the firing squad dismissal of allied soldier captives in Europe. Or the Japanese hate of US pre war actions to affect their economic survival in a trading world, apparently one reasonJapan went to war. Or Chinese hate of the Japanese for the planned massacre of tens of thousands of Japanese citizens to "try out new war weapons and methods".</p>

<p>All this to question whether any one or a few photos can represent, like the Iwo Jima shot, or the Russian Reichstag conquering, what really the war was all about. They cannot I think. Things are not always cut and dry, even to a well-intentuioned and even neutral historian. Insofar as their apparent intent was concerned, it is surely noble to bolster the moral of a nation that is making enormous sacrifices in a war, as both Russia and USA did, and in that context (and in saving Europe and the rest of the world from subjugation of the Nazis), these two photos are both powerful.</p>

<p><em>You could indeed have a Russian soldier holding a flag just as in the pic on a parapet of the Reichstag and rendered as a sculpture. With an inscription it would make perfect sense.</em><br>

Of course you could physically do it, just as you could, for example, erect a monument to America's heroin dealers as embodying the spirit of free enterprise. It would, however, be a very sick joke. The Red Army fought with ferocious courage in WWII, but the behavior of personnel to the German civil population in the closing phase of the war comprised some of the most disgusting acts ever committed by men in uniform in Europe.</p>

David, maybe we should keep out of sharing accounts on disgusting acts of men in uniform here in this forum. The list is

long and varied, even without going far back in history, as you surely would know. Back to this week's photo discussion.

<p>As was mentioned earlier there was a movie camera present at the flag raising when Jim took his iconic photo. A chap by the name of Greg Williams realised that the movie footage almost certainly included a frame taken at the same moment as the iconic photo. He checked and, sure enough, it did. It was taken from a position a few feet to the right of Jim Rosenthal and when combined with the iconic shot it creates a 3D view of that moment in time - http://williamsprojects.wordpress.com/tag/bill-genaust/</p>

<p>Not sure I see the connection David. Both photos are about a life and death struggle at the point of final resolution. I see very little connection with drug dealers.</p>

<p><em>Not sure I see the connection David. Both photos are about a life and death struggle at the point of final resolution. I see very little connection with drug dealers.</em><br>

Quite simply, I am suggesting that to create a statue based on the activities of Red Army soldiers in Berlin in 1945 would be to commemorate rapists, thugs and thieves.</p>

<p>Nonsense, David. You are blinded by cold war rhetorics .<br>

As thousands of statues throughout Eastern Europe and Russia, they commemorates the millions who died combatting for freedom from nazi terror and dominance. No-one has problems of condemning "rapists, tugs and thieves", whatever uniform they wore. 60-90 million died during the war. Less than half a million of them were Americans. All of these casualties are worthy of our commemorations. The photos we are discussing are images of the sacrifices, that were made. </p>

<p><em>Nonsense, David. You are blinded by cold war rhetorics .</em><br>

My view is based on a close study of German history and conversations with eye-witnesses to the events I describe. Anders, your arrogance and condescension know no bounds.</p>

<p>David, as suggested several times, concentrate your comments on the this weeks photo discussion and keep away from half cooked and partial cold war rhetorics. <br>

I have learned a new word: "<em>condescension". </em>Never too late !<br /></p>

<p>Since my view is that the image is from war, not about war, then if the image were to more fully tell the tale of that war, it would point out in some artistic way that even more than the preceding great power wars, the civilian population was deliberately targeted by all sides in WWII. Soldiers raising a flag implies <em>soldiers</em> from the other side who are either dead, running away, or captured. As an image of an allied victory, the image speaks neither to Dresden nor Tokyo. If we don't think of Dresden and Tokyo at the same time we think of German (or even Red Army) brutality we aren't thinking honestly enough, which is the problem with images from war: they don't make us think very much beyond <em>a</em> war. War brings out the worst in all of us.</p>

<p><em>half cooked and partial cold war rhetorics ...</em><br>

I utterly refuse to engage in a pointless exchange of insults. If anyone is wondering what the fuss is about, I would refer them to this:<br>

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes</a><br>

and merely remark that much of what is stated in this article chimes with what I have heard at first hand from German citizens who were both in uniform and civilians during WWII, including my own mother-in-law who was forced to flee as a refugee from East Prussia (Ostpreussen) in the closing phase of the war.<br>

The question with regard to this week's photo discussion is this - did the US Marines merit a memorial? I unhesitatingly say yes. Did the Red Army deserve one for replacing one bunch of thugs with another? If there are people that think it did, good luck to them - I don't think any of these people was around in eastern Germany in 1945!</p>

<p>"The question with regard to this week's photo discussion is this - did the US Marines merit a memorial?"</p>

<p>David I disagree that the discussion should be that narrow.</p>

<p>Also, I've a formerly German woman now USA'er relative whose Polish neighbor came to her father's farm with a shotgun, took the farm and turned her family into West Germans; and who also as a 14 or 15 year old was raped by Red Army members. For her those are old wounds that have healed.</p>

<p>And the personal experience of another woman relative also about 14 or 15 in Okinawa in 1945:</p>

<p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Japan</p>

<p> </p>

"What difference does it make who took the picture?

I took it, but the Marines took Iwo Jima."

 

So wrote Associated Press photographer Joe Rosenthal (1911 – 2006) ten years after snapping the world famous image of the four U.S. Marines and one Navy corpsman raising the American flag on Mount Suribachi during the battle for Iwo Jima. He explains the remarkable impact that the photo had on the American psyche as well as the popular culture on the American home front, both during the war and afterward. Rosenthal was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for capturing on film one of the notable events of W.W. II and briefly explains that the three surviving men who participated in the event were thrust into fame for years afterward.

 

So if we look at the photograph in light of the history of photojournalism, I suggest we have to respond to at lest a few questions:

 

- Is it intellectually honest? In my view yes. If not, I say the burden of proof is with those who say no. That has not been convincingly evidenced in this discussion. We are all pacifists at heart, if we are sane. No one brags about smell of cordite or napalm I mean....

 

- Does it deserve status of classic in sense that it is memorable of the event in light of the time in question. Did the press and then the U.S. public see it as powerful and tributary. I say yes, especially in light of its use as the model for a much visited bronze monument.

 

- Was and is it aesthetically and technically good as an image, something that stops and makes you look and think"? Well if we assigned a sculptor like Houdon to do a memorial for the Marine Corps, the placement of warriors

"works."

 

- Does it glorify an ugly war? Or all war? Only a certain frame of mind will strain to argue that from the photo itself.

Just one photo, widely reproduced and known to generations and their offspring.

 

That is how I look at the flag raising image.

<p>Gerry, I don't see this as an evidentiary discussion. It's one where opinions and thoughts are offered, often coming from gut feelings and reactions, which seems perfectly legitimate. I think many varying opinions have been well articulated, including those I disagree with. I'm not looking to be convinced of another's point of view, necessarily, though it sometimes happens. I'm interested in what has been a lively and diverse conversation and sharing of perspectives and ideas.</p>

<p>Consider the frame of mind that sees this, in part, as a glorification of war to be equivalent in understanding though dissimilar in conclusion to your own frame of mind. Me, I don't see the photo as a glorification of war so much as a profound photojournalistic effort and result. It does its job and does it well. What I said from the beginning is that the reactions to it and uses of it have helped make it an icon of what I see as the deplorable militarism the U.S. has pursued since fighting this brave and necessary war. I also feel conflicted and alienated by it, because I think these guys were heroes and I think it depicts their bravery and heroism in victory but I also am mindful that war is not all about heroism, bravery, and victory, thus the conflict within me and the sense of alienation.</p>

<p>Good photos often make me feel conflicted and alienated. That can be powerful and I relish it. It's not a put-down of the photo to say it makes me feel that way. In fact, it may be one if its more powerful accomplishments. But I'm not going to sit here from my place in history and simply dwell on the victory and heroism without also feeling and discussing some of the less glorious things an icon of victorious soldiers brings to mind and heart.</p>

<p>David, do you think the bombing of Dresden, Braunschweig and many more german cities towards the end of the war by the american and british air force was any better than the horrible deeds of these red army soldiers just because it was commanded by high ranks? I understand the desire for revenge when I look at both actions, but still think it was not human and not justifiable. Having said that, I'm still thankful to the allied forces that they freed germany from the nazi regime. I am german, born in 1964. I grew up in a country that I think learned it's lesson, but still suffers on a psychological level under the consequences of the war. Many of the generation of my parents and grand-parents not only remained silent, out of guilt or shame or suppression, but was also emotionally withdrawn. The german word for "responsibilty" is "Verantwortung", which includes the word "Antwort" or "answer". Every participating nation in this dreadful war must seek it's own answers instead on pointing the finger on the others.<br>

Regarding the photo in question. For me it's propaganda and it's value rises and falls with my grade of approval with the aims of the publishers. I dislike propaganda, when I think it wants me to identify with the power of a group/nation or whatever. Maybe one lesson I learned from german history. Even if I can identify with the american soldiers who fought a necessary war, the photo still leaves me with a feeling of dislike.<br>

I think it's a difficult task to differentiate between the content and esthetical aspects, if possible at all. Leni Riefenstahl was a terrific photographer and director, but I still think she was nazi whore.</p>

<p>Gerry, you ask, does the photograph glorify an ugly war and/or all war. Are you asking if <em>Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima</em> is an example of a 'glory of war' shot? I've learned from this discussion that it isn't. As has been pointed out by others, the image underplays individual accomplishment by obscuring the faces of the flag raisers, stressing group achievement not individual glory.</p>

<p>You ask if <em>Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima</em> is intellectually honest. In the broadest sense of the term 'intellectually honest', my answer is no. It's the product of war, part of prosecuting a war. In that regard, images that stress group achievement, images that portray individual glory, and images that demonize the enemy are all part of prosecuting a war. Intellectually, war doesn't have its origin in intellectual honesty, the group could have achieved something by doing something else, glory is available to humans in other endeavors, and all we have to do is to look in the mirror to recognize that we are as demonic as our enemies.</p>

I think it's pretty profound how this picture creates

so much discussion on war and peace, and moral

actions. That in itself shows the power of the

photo. How many pictures can do that?

<p>Also this week we got to discuss two pics for the price of one! My personal view is that both pics are equally powerful and I doubt you would not find a Russian who would not find the Reichstag picture a powerful statement of revenge and resolution and the equal of the Americans' view of Iwo Jima. It was a tragedy that the force that largely defeated the Nazis was almost equally flawed, but I suppose we can say that in 1940 there were two big evils in the Western world, but by May 1945 there was only one, so that's an improvement, right? I'm taking a Steven Pinker-ish view of the world. </p>