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

[Norma Desmond]

<p>David, IMO, the strong emotional content and so-called poor composition can't be completely or ideally separated in a photo or painting. Looking at the strong emotional content of this photo, part of that content is the men working together, grouped in determination around the flag, a common goal. Isn't that grouping and proximity both content and composition? The direction of the flag and the gestures of their arms upward . . . both content (suggested movement and showing us what they are doing) and composition (a strong diagonal pull and sense of energy).</p>

<p>Comparing a photo to a sculpture and claiming the sculpture is better composed is tricky business, and I'm not sure it works and could be like comparing apples to oranges. A photo often wants to be and winds up being suggestive of a more fluid moment in time, so what might seem like a poor composition is really a matter of the imperfection of life as it's caught. Journalism and street work, in particular, often carry with them different needs for compositional effect. A sculpture usually is more studied and more structured.</p>

<p>In most cases, a sculpture doesn't take account of its surrounding space to the same degree as the subject of the photo is seen as part of a framed-off space. So, the <em>statue</em> of Iwo Jima is only positioned within a rectangular or square frame in a picture of it but not so delimited when we see it in person. When we see the sculpture in person, what we call the sculpture IS the subject and the surrounding area includes periphery and is not framed in, so there is less of a consideration of composition in terms of the sculpture's placement within the environment and the composition is mostly limited to the sculpture itself and not its surrounding space. Obviously a sculpture's placement will affect our perception of it, just as the placement of a photo in a museum will affect our perceptions. But that placement of the sculpture is not part of the sculpture in the same way that the framed space in a photo is part of the photo.</p>

<p>That the profile of the front man in the sculpture, for example, is a bit more "perfect" than the much more hidden position of that same front man's head in the photo doesn't, for me, mean that the photo composition is poor. It means that a photographer doesn't always have the choices a sculptor has and suggests a difference in how I accept and look at different mediums more than it means one is more "poorly" composed than the other. In fact, more "perfectly" composed or constructed photos often lose that sense of spontaneity and the live moment and what works in a sculpture could potentially ruin a good photo, suggesting too much thinking and intentionality rather than the kind of fluidity and life-as-it-happens quality a camera has the potential to catch. True, some photos are poorly composed. But that's a determination I make with all the considerations of what a photo is and is doing, and not in comparison to what a sculpture might accomplish. I expect different things from sculptures and photos. The sculpture of Iwo Jima was obviously made to highlight the iconic aspect of it and the more perfected sense of each man was probably quite intentional. On the other hand, I've seen many sculptures that work well in giving me a sense of life and moment that more freely interpret the moment and seem less intentionally wrought or contrived and more free in their gestural and compositional qualities. The intention behind the statue was likely, in part, to perfect our experience of the moment, and for good reason. A lot of sculptures, and probably more photos (and this one specifically, IMO), don't do that and aren't meant to, also for good reason.</p>

[James G. Dainis]

I believe the point that David was trying to make up above with his photos of the statue at Arlington was how different the perspective would have been if Joe Rosenthal had shot his photo from a different angle. Even Mr. Rosenthal said that if he had the time he would have ruined the photo by taking it with the men's faces showing. That was standard procedure for the folks back home to see and recognize people in the photos. The photo just wouldn't have had the same impact.

 

The photo itself shows that Joe Rosenthal was an excellent photographer. Taking a quick snap with a Speed Graphic's metal wire sports finder (and maybe he didn't even have that up) and taking the shot at the decisive moment of fast action proves that. One can look at the movie video of the flag raising

 

 

and advance frame by frame and see that Joe Rosenthal hit the decisive moment exactly, rivaling anything that Henri Cartier-Bresson did of a man jumping over a puddle.

[Norma Desmond]

<p>James, I responded to David because I don't really see that the perspective in the sculpture is any "better" than in the photo. I agree with you that the photo is excellent and disagree with David when he says the composition of the photo is poor, whether or not it's compared to the sculpture. I think there's a lot more to the photo than "content." As you say, the timing is crucial. As are the perspective and scale, as is the capture and conveyance of the energy.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Just as an aside, and as an illustration of how photography and politics can interrelate in similar ways, regardless of the political system, there is nearly the same confusion over which red flag was first on the Reichstag, and put there by who ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_a_flag_over_the_Reichstag ).</p>

 

[michaellinder]

<p>Thanks, Gerry, for the clarification. </p>

<p>One final point: The soldiers who fought during WWII mostly were from the "World's Greatest Generation." Having had contact with a few of these people, including a centenarian who still works out at my gym, I have no doubts about the applicability of that designation.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>"World's Greatest Generation": presumably this appellation only applies to the Allies, and not to the Axis soldiers (who were perhaps the "World's Worst Generation")...So perhaps some narrowing of the definition is required.</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>Point well taken, Robin. As far as I know, that use of that phrase is limited to the USA.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I think it's pretty much universally understood to be limited to that generation of the Allies and, more precisely, Americans, because it also includes the fact that the same generation had already experienced, in their youth, the Great Depression. If it was good enough for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greatest_Generation">TOM BROKAW</a>, it's good enough 16 years later without needing any limitation or qualification, IMO.</p>

[saintelmo21]

<p>The US Secretary of the Navy was present on Iwo Jima at the time of the second flag raising. They certainly understood that raising a larger flag on top of Suribachi was HUGE propaganda "photo-op".I wonder if they had any clue how important it would become? With the US casualties on Iwo Jima at 25,000, it is no wonder that a photo like this reached instant notoriety.</p>

<p>It makes me think about the tremendous emotional impact the flag raising must have carried for all the the men fighting on the Island. For the US Sailors and Marines: Hope, Strength to carry on, Assurance of Victory (but not of survival). And for the Japanese: I can only imagine it was a crushing blow to have lost the high point of the Island so quickly; and to know absolutely no chance of repulsing the US landing existed. Maybe it engendered a grim determination to die fighting; which most of them bravely did.</p>

<p>What a powerful photograph. Surely one of the most influential of the 20th century, not to mention WWII. Gives me chills looking at it.</p>

[c_watson1]

<p><em>I think it's pretty much universally understood to be limited to that generation of the Allies and, more precisely, Americans, because it also includes the fact that the same generation had already experienced, in their youth, the Great Depression.</em></p>

<p>That's taking American exceptionalism a bit too far, especially since Canadian and UK/Empire forces not only experienced the Depression but also fought a longer war. Might be best to take the discussion back to the image itself.</p>

[James G. Dainis]

"With the US casualties on Iwo Jima at 25,000, it is no wonder that a photo like this reached instant notoriety."<P>

 

It reached instant notoriety because it is a magnificent photo. Only then did politicians see an opportunity to exploit its notoriety and the surviving flag raisers to raise American spirits with a determination to fight on and dig down deep to buy more war bonds to finance the war. There was no plot to "Send some guys up there to raise a flag and take a photo. We will show it to the folks back home and get the renewed support we need to continue the war." <P>

 

When the first flag went up there was mighty cheering from the marines on the beach and sailors on the ships as well as ships' whistles sounding. That caused some Japanese to come out of their holes to see what was going on and fire at the marines. They were quickly subdued. This may be an accurate reason of why a second flag raising took place:<P>

 

http://www.jaygarmon.net/2010/02/truly-trivial-what-happened-to-first-us.html<P>

 

"The Greatest Generation" is a term coined by journalist Tom Brokaw to describe the generation who <U>grew up in the United States</U> during the deprivation of the Great Depression, and then went on to fight in World War II, as well as those whose productivity within the war's home front made a decisive material contribution to the war effort, for which the generation is also termed the G.I. Generation."<P>

 

If someone wants to use the expanded term "The World's Greatest Generation" to also include people from other countries, not just the United States, fine. But Mr. Brokaw was talking about the greatest generation of Americans.

[saintelmo21]

<blockquote>

<p>It reached instant notoriety because it is a magnificent photo. Only then did politicians see an opportunity to exploit its notoriety and the surviving flag raisers to raise American spirits with a determination to fight on and dig down deep to buy more war bonds to finance the war. There was no plot to "Send some guys up there to raise a flag and take a photo. We will show it to the folks back home and get the renewed support we need to continue the war."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mr. Dainis,<br>

It certainly is a magnificent photo, and it won the Pulitzer prize the same year it was published. However, if you separate the photograph from its context, it is just a photograph. The <em>moment</em> itself was a very dramatic part of combat action which was choreographed by the press officers, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Marine commanders present on the battlefield. If this wasn't the case, sir, then a film crew would not have been standing by to record the incident. I'm not saying this to attempt to take anything away from those incredible men who fought there, nor am I too much of a cynic. I'm saying this because the adroit use of propaganda is a strategic weapon which our governments were well aware of then as now.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>instant <em>fame</em>, not <em>notoriety</em>, in any case.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>notoriety</strong> |ˌnōtəˈrīətē|<br />noun<br />the state of being famous or well known <strong><em>for some bad quality or deed</em></strong>: the song has gained some notoriety in the press | she has a certain notoriety.</p>

</blockquote>

[aplumpton]

<p>Like the poem of poppies growing in Flanders field, or the magnificent Australian war memorial that celebrated bravery in a lost battle, the flag raising by American soldiers in an American and Japanese part of WW2 is an emotional thing. I see it more as a memorial to the needless dead than any aspect of national pride because I think we should be more proud of how our diplomats and politicians can avoid the strifes or greed that lead to war (true on all sides) than the first past the post thinking that creates or at the least stimulates national pride. Wars on a great scale have already failed before any shot has been fired. It is at least comforting to know that the most peaceful times over the last several hundred years occurred during the relatively long period of the last half of the twentieth century.</p>

<p>As a salute to bravery and to the losses incurred, where they should not have been required, the flag raising has some meaning for me. Like poppies that grow in Flanders Fields or the Aussie memorial. Uniting the people of nations, but mainly, and below it all, in grief.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Well said Arthur ! That's why I actually like even more the photo of the Russian soldiers raising the flag on the Reichstag in Berlin on the background of a totally devastated city below. The context is clearly shown and maybe even celebrated by the winning armies. War is grief, suffering and destruction more than glory and bravery. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Part of the reason it may be a such a good photo is that it serves its subject matter. In doing so, it is also a very particular, intentional, unique, and deliberate perspective. Any good photographer, which Rosenthal certainly was, would know not that this would become such a well-known and important photo, but certainly that his perspective and the stark composition would lead to an iconic view of the moment. Shooting upward, against the sky, at the scale he did, with a moment like a flag raising after a battle is going to yield an iconic-looking photo, whether anyone ever sees it or cares about it or not. He wasn't out to tell the story of war. He was out to (and succeeded in) put a fully heroic spin on a moment of victory. Not a thought-out propagandistic spin that he, himself, necessarily thought would have that effect on people (though clearly others would use the photo that way, which is not Rosenthal's problem). He was just doing something that came naturally to a good photographer . . . making what he thought was the most of a moment.</p>

<p>But he had many choices. He could have included something in the frame that would have given a hint of devastation and destruction, harm, negativity. That was not the photo he was taking. He was singular in his approach. I can both applaud that AND regret it, as I have done in this thread. And I still don't hold Rosenthal that accountable for all of it as much as I hold myself accountable for my reaction to it. When I view it, I see a great photo, but one that tells a very one-sided part of the story. I would consider it magnificent if it told a bit more.</p>

[James G. Dainis]

There are some people who think the whole photo was a set up. One conspiracy theorist person I knew insisted that Iwo Jima had no strategic value, it was just a wasteland of volcanic rock and sand. All those men died there just so "they" could take that photo to use as propaganda in the States.

 

To Joe Rosenthal, taking the photo was just part of another work day as a combat photographer. When the AP sent him congratulations on the photo, he had no idea of which photo they were talking about. When asked it the photo was posed he said, "Yes," thinking they were asking about another photo. Pointing this out to a conspiracy theorist will only get a smug look and a, "Sure, that's what he was told to say" reply. Proof that the whole thing was a set up? "The Secretary of the Navy himself was there! He wouldn't have been there if this whole photo thing wasn't a setup that he was directing."

 

One can only shake one's head in wonder and disbelief.

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I am a pacifist, but I love the photo.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[AlanKlein]

The photo was taken at the top of the highest point

on the island looking up at the flag. Including battle

destruction would have been near impossible. The

photo shows exactly what it's intent was.

[AlanKlein]

Lannie: Why? Would you explain?

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"Including battle destruction would have been near impossible. The photo shows exactly what it's intent was."</em></p>

<p>Alan, I agree with both your statements. IMO, that a photo shows its intent doesn't necessarily make it great. Sometimes, the intent itself has to be considered and even critiqued. I think Rosenthal's intent was likely just fine. As I said, it's the way of looking at this photo that I have to question.</p>

<p>And you may be right that showing any battle destruction in this photo might have been impossible, BUT . . . photography is a matter of a lot things coming together: a good eye, a vision, stylistic choices, perspective, composition, also often luck and opportunity. I think a great photographer like Rosenthal will make the best of the situation he has, and may well have done so. But, for me, a magnificent photo, which I reserve for very few that I've seen, is where everything comes together. If he lacked the opportunity to show the destructive side of war here, then he lacked it and did the best given the situation. A magnificent photo, for me, would be one which had included that opportunity (even if accidental). So, I'm not taking anything away from Rosenthal by saying this photo isn't magnificent. I'm taking something away from the photo because of its limited narrative about war. I readily admit that, for me, it's partly political. Just like I'm disappointed even when I see a stunning and brilliantly-timed and composed photo of a homeless person that doesn't address in some visual way a deeper narrative about homelessness but instead just shows homelessness in a kind of vacuum. I will always be disappointed in a war photo, any war photo, that just shows heroism and victory while the darker realities of war seem to go visually unmentioned. </p>

<p>By the way, that might have to come in a series. Not every photo can tell a complete story or all sides of a story, though a magnificent one should do a pretty good job at having a broad perspective on a news event or political moment.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>I agree Fred that such might have to come in a series.</p>

<p>As to the different points of view expressed in this thread, each contributing to our fuller understanding of this particular photograph, I consider one more, although it might already have been mentioned: the demoralizing effect on the enemy, an effect just as is the morale boost of a sort of 'rally around the flag boys' shot for our side.</p>

<p>My opinion is that it is appropriate to call "Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima" propaganda from <em>a</em> war. It isn't a photograph <em>about</em> war. And that is my perspective because, in fairness to the dead and to the defeated, we move on from war into peace and celebrate that the war is over perhaps even more than we celebrate a victory. "Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima", similar photographs, are just part of prosecuting a war and prevailing, are a part of who we are as a species when we are at our worst; at our worst, <em>is</em> war, at our worst <em>as a species</em> each and every effort to prosecute and prevail in war.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<blockquote>

<p>...But, for me, a magnificent photo, which I reserve for very few that I've seen, is where everything comes together. If he lacked the opportunity to show the destructive side of war here, then he lacked it and did the best given the situation. A magnificent photo, for me, would be one which had included that opportunity (even if accidental). So, I'm not taking anything away from Rosenthal by saying this photo isn't magnificent. I'm taking something away from the photo because of its limited narrative about war...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But there was no intent to show the destructive side of war but rather as a good feeling morale booster for Americans. So for that objective, it was magnificient.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima", similar photographs, are just part of prosecuting a war and prevailing, are a part of who we are as a species when we are at our worst; at our worst, <em>is</em> war, at our worst <em>as a species</em> each and every effort to prosecute and prevail in war.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why are we necessarily at our worst when we are at war? War, violence and civil strife are often the only methods to change things. Are the founders and patriots who fought the British crown for political freedom in America in 1776 war mongerers or freedom fighters? If we were somehow able to snap our fingers to prevent all future wars, what will happen to all those people who currently live in oppressive dictatorial regimes like Cuba and North Korea? Are you willing to condemn those people to a lifetime of abuse forever? </p>

[charleswood]

<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>

[AJHingel]

<p><em>The photo shows exactly what it's intent was.</em><br /> <br /> I fully agree. That's why I have never really liked it. It glorifies war. It is nationalistic. And, it could have been staged in a Hollywood studio.<br>

The <a href="http://default.media.ipcdigital.co.uk/11134/000001b7e/dc3e/Raising-a-flag-over-the-Reichstag.jpg">Russian flag shot</a> is more to my liking, because its shows the dirty business, which is the reality of any war. </p>