Che's Afterlife, The Legacy of an image

[garywilliams]

<p>The New York Times <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/21/books/21kaku.html?scp=2&sq=che&st=nyt">reviews a new book </a><br /> by Michael Casey called "Che's Afterlife, the legacy of an image". <br /> It discusses the continuing impact of the famous image made in 1960 by by the Cuban photographer Alberto Diaz Gutierrez.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>I'm always amused (or not so much, really) when I see kids wearing their Che t-shirts in a fit hipper-than-thou-ness. It's always the progressive, stick-it-to-the-man types who like wearing Ernesto as a badge of the little guy, all while forgetting that he was quick with phrases like, "To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary. These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail." It's funny how a heroic-looking image or rakish, charismatic photogenecity can blind people to that sort of stuff.<br /><br />We often talk, here, about the power of a photograph to communicate - and it's true. But it's usually talked about as a way to unveil truth or right some wrong. It's easy to miss how well it can be used (or appropriated) to convey something so fundamentally self-contradictory or toxic. If Hugo Chavez were more dashing and telegenic, he'd have an even easier time being the thug he is, it seems. The famous Che photo is another great reminder to sometimes <em>ignore</em> a photograph and pay more attention to its circumstances and its subject's actuality.</p>

[dan_b.4]

<p>I'm with Mr. Laur. Guevara was a ruthless murderer who wrapped himself in ideology. I am amused, though, that the image of him has become such a roaring capitalist success.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Interesting article, I will probably pick up the book when it hits the library.<br>

<br /> Too bad some people let their politics interfere with any ability to pick up on the point of the article, and the book.</p>

[seismiccwave]

<p>History was always written about the victor. Only in recent times there were questions about the "truth" behind the victor. Unfortunately, there is never any truth nor there ever will be. There will only be interpretation of the "man"/"men" or the circumstances.<br /> I, with less than adequate information can never judge what Che did nor what Pol Pot did or didn't do was justifiable or not. I was not there and cannot understand the situation or the circumstances of the event.<br /> Just the the "first" emperor of China, King Kamehameha the great, Alexander the Great, the Romans or any other regime. If you were on the wrong side of the spear they were murderers. I am sure there are enough tales to justify their murdering acts. However they were also the victor and history praised them.<br /> Hugo Chavez, Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, Mao Tze Tung, Hirohito, George W. Bush, all thought they were doing the right thing, upholding the truth, liberating their followers. Unfortunate, a mere peasant like me will never be able to pretend to understand some of the actions these men executed.<br /> The point is about the emotion the photograph bring and not what the character did or not do.<br>

As far as the photograph, the success of it depends on marketing. There was a propaganda machine promoting the photograph so it became very well known. The emotion brought forth by the image is simply the result of the experience of each viewer.</p>

[michaelchristensen]

<p>Wiki does a pretty good job of discussing this photo and the commercialization that resulted here <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara_(photo">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara_(photo</a>)</p>

<p>To separate the use Che's photo from his polictics is to remove whatever marketing appeal it possesses.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>I, with less than adequate information can never judge what Che did nor what Pol Pot did or didn't do was justifiable or not. I was not there and cannot understand the situation or the circumstances of the event.</em></p>

<p>If you cannot judge those two men, particularly Pol Pot whose crimes rise to the level of crimes against humanity, then there is something very seriously wrong with your sense of morality.</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>The review is interesting, as is the history of Korda's photograph. I once read that Guevara disliked that image, captured at an angry moment, at a service for victims of an explosion of a French ship in the Havanna harbor. Guevara, along with many in the Cuban government, considered that the explosion had been the work of the CIA. ( I want to avoid getting into discussions of whether it was the work of the CIA, but the belief clearly affected Guevara's expression during the service. )<br>

It is a cliche to say that the left is given to wearing t-shirts with Diez's photograph on them. There are many who wear such t-shirts, who may be of different views, but many on the left in Latin America will avoid them. In 1972, when Argentina was under a military dictatorship, a group of activists were captured and shot to death inside the prison at Trelew, in the southern province of Chubut. Photos taken before they were killed showed the ordinary clothing of lower-class and middle-class Argentine kids. They wanted to blend in, not stand out. In the 1980s, when a day's set of lecture's about Guevara's life was organized by the University of Buenos Aires, one rule was carefully enforced -- no one could attend wearing clothing with Guevara's picture on it.<br>

Finally, it is my understanding that the photographer who took Guevara's picture had a very difficult time collecting any royalties for his image. I'm surprised more photographers don't seem to get upset about that.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>I am amused, though, that the image of him has become such a roaring capitalist success.</em></p>

<p>This shirt brought to you by capitalism: http://www.thoseshirts.com/checap.html</p>

<p>The SWPL, spoiled little brats who think Che is cool would be the ones crying the loudest if all of a sudden their cozy, bourgeois lives were taken away at gun point and they were forced to work the fields and the factories "for the people." Or worse, if they witnessed their friends and family stripped of all rights and placed before firing squads for "crimes against the state."</p>

[monika_epsefass]

<p>The original ideas that Che Guevara and Fidel Castro had were not stupid at all, especially in the context of a country dominated by rich barons (having come from France or England) exploiting the native population. Unfortunately, it is so that you cannot simply tell a person to go out and work, and share the results with everybody, just for the pleasure of it. A little egotism comes into play, a bit of anarchy, a bit of rebel approach, and there comes your escalation - it's at that point that Che's politics went bad, not right from the start.</p>

<p>I am of course not neglecting the impact this has made on the past 50 years of Cuba. Having been there in November, and having had some good discussions with locals behind closed doors, it has truly been a political and cultural experience.</p>

[acarodp]

<blockquote>

<p>"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary. These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You know, I might be a cynic man, but I have the impression that the vast majority of the people in the world would agree with that phrase, if they were allowed to choose <strong>who</strong> to send to the firing squad. After all, a number of times (even quite recently) faked evidences were considered quite sufficient, in educated and even democratic countries, to attack another country.<br>

So if you look it from the phenomenological point of view, he was indeed right: in countless cases in history, under all kinds of governments, firing squads did not need any judicial proof. But generally this is considered a bad thing only if the guy sent to the firing squad had your same point of view. I am italian, we had a nice civil war at the end of WW2, and it is amusing to see how the heirs of either side still now seem to remember only the bad deeds of the <em>others</em> ...</p>

<p>L.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Politics and controversy aside, it's undeniably one of the great photos of the 20th century and deserves its place as a pop culture icon. It's also produced some amusing riffs on a familiar theme by applying it to <a href="http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=oGw&q=boxxy+che&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi"><strong>the latest web celeb</strong> </a> .</p>

<p>Personally, I prefer a t-shirt with one of the iconic Jimi Hendrix photos. And if I saw a kid wearing one I wouldn't assume he played guitar, dropped acid or was born at Woodstock.</p>

<p>Sometimes powerful images are nothing more than the essence of a person distilled to a single word or concept. In the case of Che, that word would probably be "rebel" in the minds of most kids wearing the shirts or sticking the posters on their walls. To others, a photo of James Dean would represent the same thing, but with a different flavor.</p>

[seismiccwave]

<p>

 

 

<p>>>If you cannot judge those two men, particularly Pol Pot whose crimes rise to the level of crimes against humanity, then there is something very seriously wrong with your sense of morality.<<<br>

Daniel, there is definitely something very wrong with may morality. I refuse to pass judgement on any man by simply reading something about him in the media. As far as I know Pol Pot and Spoil Sport are the same man. They were both invented and fabricated by the media to sell newspaper. <br>

Now as to the larger picture what I simply meant was that I will not get into a lynch mob debate with anyone and condemn some one without thoroughly finding out and knowing the facts personally. I don't know Pol Pit (mispelling intended) nore Pit Pot. I simply read about him in the newspaper. You know how good are the newspaper. They manipulate, misguide readers for their own benefit all the time. <br>

Before you get all high and mighty about your morality I am not saying that there were no Pol Pot. So you need to read and understand what I said a bit more carefully. <br>

If you are in a trial you do want me as your juror because I try my best not to be bias and I do not follow the lynch mob attitude. </p>

<br />

 

 

</p>

[nickjeftic]

<p>Jeff, Lex..... you said it!</p>

[michael_dimarzio]

<p>Whose sense of morality? Mine yours Pol Pot Che?</p>

<p>These are the guys that show, morality is not relevant to life, an artificial construction, made for your enjoyment.</p>

<p>http://www.threestooges.com/bios/</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>The original ideas that Che Guevara and Fidel Castro had were not stupid at all, especially in the context of a country dominated by rich barons (having come from France or England) exploiting the native population.</em> <br /> <br /> Yes their ideas were stupid because those ideas, which had been tried before in other places and times, do not solve the problems they (claimed to) set out to solve. Had Che or Fidel spent any time actually researching history and economics, they would have realized that their glorious plans would only lead to a different group dominating the people, and only after much bloodshed and suffering.<br /> <br /> Or perhaps they did study, and they did realize this, but the temptation to be the dominate group was too great. I respect George Washington because he laid down his power for the good of his nation. I question whether Che or Fidel ever cared one bit for the people they claimed to represent because they siezed power, held it, and used it with great brutality, leaving the people they claimed to love in a situation no better than the one before.<br /> <br /> These two men deserve to be vilified to the same level as Hitler or Stalin. They are all cut from the same cloth.<br>

It's a sad sign of the times that we see kids walk around with Che t-shirts instead of George Washington t-shirts. And no, arguing that it's just a great photo that signifies "rebel" does not cut it. Nobody would excuse a teenager for walking around with a Hitler t-shirt and claiming that he just thought it meant "rebel". When you wear the image of a murderer, you mock the humans he murdered. Ignorance is not an excuse. If you don't know history, wear blank t-shirts until you figure it out.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>You know how good are the newspaper. They manipulate, misguide readers for their own benefit all the time. </em></p>

<p>Hansen, the history surrounding butchers like Pol Pot is well established. If you have some grand piece of evidence to cause the world to question the many sources available regarding this sad period in history, including the eyewitness accounts and mass graves, feel free to present it. Otherwise spare me the "history may not be real" argument. It's a cop out and a waste of time in this case.</p>

[seismiccwave]

<p>Daniel, the worse thing you can do is to start a political debate on photo.net. Unlike you my intent was to stay away from any politics. I did use extreme examples to illustrate my point and yet because you felt so full of opinion that you had to twist my actual meaning around to benefit your argument. To you history surrounding Pol Pot (I don't care who he is you could easily substitute any other name you wish which I am certain you are more qualified according to your history) is well established. Did you ever realize in your world that maybe your history of Pol Pot may or may not be so well established in the rest of the world.<br>

I am not going to defend Che or Fidel or Hitler or Geoge Washington or George Bush. I was simply stating the obvious which is so hard to understand for the bias. The obvious is that history meant different things to different people. Go down to Cuba and poll some citizens down their. Some will and many will not agree with you. <br>

The OP want to discuss the article about how Che became a marketing machine without his doing. His adversary did most of the marketing for me posthumously. We should not bring our own view of politics into this thread.</p>

 

[joe_jackson4]

<p>I suppose she did a passable job in The Witches of Eastwick, but I don't like her voice much.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>Lex, I looked up that Boxxy video, and associating it with Che on a t-shirt might be proportional payback for something.</p>

<p>Che, Pol Pot, Castro, Hitler . . . <a href="

video.</a> Might be going a little hard on some of the other tyrants. But, it's in the ballpark.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I wouldn't wear a Che t-shirt. But I might wear a Boxxy-Che t-shirt. She's hilarious. That video irritated me at first, but the manic energy and expressions are priceless. Plus, she made the interweb underground rage, which can only be a good thing. Stuff like that reminds me not to take myself too seriously.</p>

[bob_bill]

<address>Matt, exactly. I wonder how those students who excuse Dr. Guevera, (yes, he was an MD who instead of saving lives, spent the latter part of his life personally executing those who disagreed) would feel about him if instead of shooting his victims, God forbid, he water boarded them? If you want to see how this rebel's victims felt, watch the video of Saddam arrogantly standing in front of a crowded auditorium calling out the names of people there he accused of betrayal and who immediately knew they wouldnt see another sunrise. Watch them as they are hauled from the room in terror to their deaths. No Guantanomo bay for Che's victims, just a quick firing squad. No Geneva convention. No right to an attorney. Didnt have to be and enemy combatant to qualify, just Che's decision. That's the behavior this "rebel" exhibited. He was simply a ruthless conqueror who, by the way, was kicked to the curb by Castro. His execution in a South American squalid hut after a failed communist overthrow attempt there( after another in Africa) was fitting end for a murderer, a low level one at that. Rebel? That's not the reason for the fad. They think he opposed America, and they like him because they think "America bad." They think and their america hating profs like Bill Ayers or Ward Churchill think communism is wonderful. Right, that's why Russia and Cuba have such a huge illegal immigration problem-not. The starving Haitian boat people drifted right past Cuba to reach this terrible land. And all those Mexicans trying to get to Cuba to do the jobs Cubans wont do. Right. To those empty skulls of mush sporting that image, I say, walk the walk, no need to change America, paradise already exists, a one way plane ticket there is cheap. Dont let the door hit you in the butt on the way out. Take Castro's useful Hollywood idiots Danny Glover, Sean(the whiner) Penn and Michael Moore with you( they go to Cuba but for some reason always come back). And kiss daddy's bmer goodbye for a 55 Buick if you are lucky, comrade. Where's the rush to the door?</address>

[nickjeftic]

<p>Bob, I don't know or care where your hatered and aggression come from but why don't you keep it to yourself. It has nothing to do with this theme or contributes in any way to this site.</p>

[acarodp]

<p>I frankly don't think this is the right place for people to jump on a soapbox and defend their own personal political prejudices.<br>

Discuss politics and history is a hard business: a discussion worth its name needs that people 1) know what they are talking about and 2) do not believe to know already all the truth. Without the first hypothesis it is just nonsense, without the second it is a collection of sermons.</p>

<p>Some consider the Che a ruthless murderer, some consider he a hero. The sad thing is that some people in both groups are not interested in understanding the historical figure, nor in understanding the Cuban revolution, or communism, fascism, democracy or whatever for that matter. What they need is to slap a "truth" label over something to feel safe, to feel right, to feel better that somebody else.<br>

What is ironic, is that in doing so they resemble closely those that followed the flags of all emperors, all dictators, all integralists, all mass murderers. Such people are craving for somebody to tell them what they are and what to do.</p>

<p>Photo.net is not about politics. But one could well discuss politics as well, if it was not for this kind of lemming behavior. I don't know much about the Cuban revolution or the Che history. I would be curious to know more, to hear (informed) points of view which are bound to differ. But like this, I fear this thread will be locked quite soon...</p>

<p>L.</p>

 

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I understand the political passions. But in simple terms of the impact of an image, you're fighting an uphill battle. People will take from an image what impressions they will. There are still some people who think Time magazine naming Hitler "Man of the Year" was an honor, just as so many photo.netters mistakenly believe the Photo of the Week is an honor. Many POW nominees would tell you it's a curse.</p>

<p>The power of an image, especially an iconic photograph, is that it takes on a life of its own outside of the context of a particular era's culture and politics, and despite the intentions of the photographer. Row, row, row against the current all you want, but you'll only exhaust yourself. There's a very good reason for the iconoclast movement. They understood the power of images and the need to destroy them as part of an effort to undermine the perceptions those images gave to people.</p>