Realistic portrayal of war dead in images

[Spinster]

Re: Realistic portrayal of war dead in images

Elizabeth, I'm glad to see you on this discussion.

Here's what is really circling around in my head: What if this was a much more common 19th century post-mortem image than that of war dead? What about a staged post-mortem image of a child? Does this change opinions?

And before anyone asks--yes, its already been done. At the time I knew it was happening, could see the family procession passing on the road, headed toward the cemetary, coffins in the wagon, young passengers inside, just in case those coffins were searched. And yes, an image was made.

Pretty powerful stuff. I just about twisted my neckkerchief in two, just watching them pass.....

[Hank Trent]

Re: Realistic portrayal of war dead in images

For me, it's just the opposite; with the distance of the period technology, I can accept a disturbing picture as a piece of history, rather than something I need to have a modern emotional reaction to, so I'd find a color image more disturbing than a period-styled one.

One thing which is connected to that, but which hasn't been mentioned yet...

I have no idea, but I'm guessing that the wetplate image was posed specifically for the purpose of making the picture. In other words, it wasn't a reenactment activity where the main purpose was to allow spectators or reenactors to experience the situation of dealing with bodies in a trench, including perhaps Mathew Brady's assistant photographing the aftermath of battle. I "read" the picture as an image created primarily for its own sake.

If that's true, then I think the resulting image itself becomes the artwork, and that separates it from the color newspaper photograph, where the reenactment itself was the goal, and the photo was merely a record of it.

In that case, the wetplate photo can be making a statement about reenacting, about reenactors, about history, about war, or any number of things, but what's not included in the "art" is the fact that the men will get up and walk away when it's over. That's "outside" the art. Intellectually, we know it to be true, but it's not part of the picture itself.

However, if a reenactment itself is the "performance art," and the color picture is merely a record of it, the getting up and walking away is part of the art itself. You can't help but see it happen, if you watch the "actors" finish their roles. And that makes it less disconcerting, because it emphasizes that the scene isn't real. It's a reenactment. It's what they do every year. We're all used to it.

Here's where I think the most challenging and controversial cutting edge is, of reenacting as "performance art":

Imagine blending the realism of the wetplate photo with real-life reenacting. Imagine a reenactment that seems as real as the photo, not necessarily including dead soldiers, but that blends reenacting with reality--not just realism, but actual reality. Imagine stepping into that scene for example, with the sights, sounds, smells, activities, and with no known ending. Any reenactment would still have a measure of illusion of course, but in what I'm talking about, the illusion would be much, much deeper--as real as the illusion of reality in the wetplate photo. That's where I think one would venture into an area that I'd find either horribly offensive or absolutely powerful performance art, depending how it was done.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[Dale Beasley]

Re: Realistic portrayal of war dead in images

To all, I am not going to be able to explain what it felt like to watch them unload Blackhawks of KIAs. And Hank,.sorry you got your feelings hurt. Just don't think I would have been able to explain anything to you without another question or debate. So, my point was made.
I do wish I could be like you and look at that picture and think of it as a performing art. But I can't. But I do respect you for your knowledge of history and performing art.

The person and those involved in the picture did a good job in doing what they did. I did not vote for it." Brought back Baghdad" for a few min. Really no comparison I know...so guys no lectures please about takng hits, etc.

Thank-you moderators for not deleting my post.

[Hank Trent]

Re: Realistic portrayal of war dead in images

To all, I am not going to be able to explain what it felt like to watch them unload Blackhawks of KIAs.

But no one's asking you to do that. We're discussing the reaction to a photograph, not the reaction to real life. If the answer was merely, "The photo makes me feel the same way," that seems a fair enough response. I'm sure many of the modern combat veterans on here have seen the bodies of men KIA too, or watched them die.

And Hank,.sorry you got your feelings hurt.

No worries. My feelings weren't hurt. They'd only be hurt if someone I respected insulted me.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[Tom Dodson]

Re: Realistic portrayal of war dead in images

I am surprised that people who reenact the bloodiest War in this country's history would be upset by a wetplate photo showing a mass burial. An event that I would think was commonplace in the War Between the States.
All the people who actually took part in that War are long gone. Like many of you I have ancestors who fought and died in that struggle, so their memory lives on. I don't know how that photo on the cover relates to modern warfare in which people are currently involved. I am not a combat vet so I won't get involved in that discussion. I will say, however, that I thought modern politics were supposed to be a no-no on this forum.
Tom Dodson
47th Ga

[JimKindred]

Re: Realistic portrayal of war dead in images

If this thread starts to turn into a pissing contest it will be shut down.

[Old Reb]

Re: Realistic portrayal of war dead in images

Dale,
You can tout your military experience as much as you wish to do so, but most people I know that have been in actual combat don't toot their own horn as loud as you do. As for you flipant comment directed at Mr. Trent, it does not add to the discussion and only furthers how little anything you write should be given any credence. And before you slap back at me and tell more "war stories" I was a combat veteran and know the difference between one being in a combat zone and one actually serving in combat. The term REMF/Pogue comes to mind when I read what you write about "your war experience." So, if you want to slap, slap away!

[Dale Beasley]

Re: Realistic portrayal of war dead in images

Tom,
I just had to treat the wounded, didn't like it, {Edited by John Wickett as argumentative}.....I have to get off before I am banned....

OUT HERE.

[CSengineer]

Re: Realistic portrayal of war dead in images

I was going to add my two cents here but I reckon this thread ain't long for this world (pardon the pun).

Someone earlier posted a link to a random photo of "casualties" from a mainstream event, and the only differences are that it was taken with a modern color camera and the subjects are a little less than authentic. Essentially, the "dead" in the wet plate image in question and the "dead" in the mainstream event newspaper photo are just actors. One image is unquestionably more authentic than the other. A little morbid? Yeah, surely.

It is especially ironic that our end of the hobby thrives on the meticulous scrutiny of photographs of Civil War dead for the more mundane details of uniform and equipment, especially Confederates. How often have we stared with noses half an inch from the monitor screen, trying to see how some poor kid's shell jacket buttonholes were sewn?

[Burgoo Boy]

Re: Realistic portrayal of war dead in images

I think it's great that many of you find a positive connection with this image. Personally, I still see a bunch of reenactors playing dead for the camera. This image is no where near as thought provoking...or realistic as the Sunken Lane, Sharpsburg or Rose Farm, Gettysburg death studies.

I like to look at this as an artist would. This is what I see. And IMO. The composition isn't there. The bodies look too 'clean' and nicely bunched. Not like the twisted, tangled and dirt/blood cloted bodies of the Sunken Lane image. If we had a close up of the scene, maybe it would look a little different. But from my eyes and this angle, I don't "get it".

Now, IMO the only realstic and thought provoking scene is the fella's in the background. See how they're blurred, out of focus and kinda grainy? If this where an image of just them and the entrenchment, perhaps with some scattered equipment and clothing, now THAT would make me look twice. Call it less is more.

Back to the title question. I have no problem with reenactor death studies. If it's done realistically. We all know war is hell. With as much as society is exposed to now a days, we don't have to actually expierence it to "feel" it. Anyone with an interest in military history and has a soul can appreciate death via photographs, color or sepia. But if your going to do a period image death study, make it look real. Yes, I'm talking like the poor fella at Gettysburg that was torn in two by shell or beast.

Now, will we learn anything from these modern portrayals? Probably not. Maybe reinforce our feelings of past heros. Thats it. Like another poster suggested, death on the battlefield has been depicted through art/photographs since recorded time. It's in our nature. Some of us "read" it differently.

Jason Whitman

Retired "reenactor"-
24th Michigan
"Burgoo Boys"
Rather do a preservation march or picket post, Mess

[PetePaolillo]

Re: Realistic portrayal of war dead in images

Is it a disturbing image? Certainly. It should be.

Did I vote for it as accurately depicting one facet of life in the mid-19th century? Yes.

This quote sums it up for me.

Johnny, Thanks for your service and for starting this thread. Wendell Decker should be proud that his work has stirred so much thought, emotion as well as admiration. That is what an artist strives for.

[Pvt Schnapps]

Re: Realistic portrayal of war dead in images

Imagine blending the realism of the wetplate photo with real-life reenacting. Imagine a reenactment that seems as real as the photo, not necessarily including dead soldiers, but that blends reenacting with reality--not just realism, but actual reality. Imagine stepping into that scene for example, with the sights, sounds, smells, activities, and with no known ending. Any reenactment would still have a measure of illusion of course, but in what I'm talking about, the illusion would be much, much deeper--as real as the illusion of reality in the wetplate photo. That's where I think one would venture into an area that I'd find either horribly offensive or absolutely powerful performance art, depending how it was done.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

I just wanted to save that thought from the back and forth that followed.

I see the cover picture as a bit daring -- but it pays off because it's so well done; it works at evoking some sense of what actually happened in the war. The illusion is tastefully accomplished and has, I think, socially redeeming value.

The newspaper picture, on the other hand, is just another shot of reenactors taking hits and, from the little of the article I read, was shortly followed by everyone getting up and walking off the field. No disrespect toward the folks involved, but I find the taste there more questionable than in the first example.

I'm reluctant to portray a real battle casualty in the second kind of scenario -- I like the concept at those demonstrations where "casualties" take a knee. But my reluctance has more to do with my own aesthetic shortcomings and my doubts about the overall effect in most venues. I can run away, or walk away, or simply go to ground, but I somehow don't feel the right to take it any further. Some of that may have to do with the fact that I have never been a real soldier.

That reluctance would fade if the event itself had a scripted battle with a scripted conclusion involving one army actually having to leave the field and the ambulance corps moving out among the wounded afterwards, with no "resurrections" until the spectators had left.

In short, I think I get your point, and I think it's an excellent one.

[Tom Dodson]

Re: Realistic portrayal of war dead in images

I have just looked at the modern photo in post #8 of this thread. I have one question: Where in the world did that boy get those blue striped pants??!?
Tom Dodson
47th Ga

[Johnny Lloyd]

Re: Realistic portrayal of war dead in images

All:

I guess you'd have to be a combat veteran familiar with real war death to see what I see in this picture.

I was a reenactor (mainstream mostly) from 1997-2003. Then I signed-up to go overseas to fight in Iraq. (No bravado there for me... just doing what I thought was right. Many others have done way more.) When you come back from real death and the adrenaline of real war, you are forever changed about your former viewpoints in ways you couldn't imagine. I can explain this no further, please trust me.

Curt/Hank... yep, understood and agreed, our hobby deals strongly with mock death. No surprise there. I don't have a problem with this because most 'mock death' I've seen at events or depicted in simulation doesn't look a thing like the stuff I saw in reality (and have a difficult time not remembering on occasion just when I thought I got over it, as Dale poingntly said). The sight, the surreal feeling, the smell...

Add to this that when I'm at an event, if someone takes a hit in a semi-realistic way and makes the attempt to show realism, then one could make the case that this is a fitting commemoration or representation of those that truly paid the price for freedom or fought for what they believed was right.

If I were an ancestor that fought in the Civil War, then I'd be very happy that someone were attempting to understand and remember what I did so long ago, even if the attempt was superficially realistic at best. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, after all. I'd imagine some of the ancestors would have just the opposite reaction as the above. (Mixed bag here, but I'd personally side on the former rather than the latter if I was one of them.)

Where I draw my line on such representations is when I see people not taking hits at events solemnly or taking the history of the period seriously. It does no justice, I feel, to the people of this tragic era to make a mockery of their memory by using excuses of 'if they'd have had it, they'd have used it' or catch phrases of the like we've all heard spouted at some lesser-quality events. A small part of me... albeit a small one... gets a bit frustrated when I see people laugh at taking hits at events. I hope they are laughing at the eccentricity of our hobby and not actual war dead... I trust in God that this is so when I see this. I keep my opinions to myself.

50+ years from now, if someone wants to reenact the Iraq War for some reason, I'll be the first vet in line to get tickets and give them advice on how we lived, what we felt, and how we fought and what other strangeness we experienced. I'm sure others might protest the idea if or when that day comes. Iraq is my war amid many others' war. I can only hope to do justice to our ancestor's war in all I do in the hobby we care for so much. That's why I take this hobby so seriously. Look at it this way... We have fun at events, and we had fun sometimes in the boredom of real war too. There is a certain humor when you are in war that gets you through the bad times back into the good. A vet must try to remember that when we come home to 'the real world'.

Agreed Hank, Curt et al. ... if one does it right, this hobby cannot be, and rightfully shouldn't be, disassociated from the negative connotations such as death, slavery, etc. I also agree that Mr. Decker's artwork has surpassed itself to evoke such raw emotion and this picture is well-worthy of enriching this website. Bravo to Mr. Barnett for submitting it. If we as living historians are going to do this 'right', then we'd better do it to the fullest... and here it is done so. Big kudos to all.

This has been a worthy and human subject to pause and reflect within ourselves about. No need for any conflict. I truly see all aspects of this and I hope you do too.

To debate such emotion captured in the realism of recreated images, I feel, is not actually modern politics. It's just the human thing to do if there is a small feeling withing us individually for the realities and actualities of what we portray and try to commemorate in our hobby... just because a war occurred long ago doesn't mean real people weren't affected by its outcome. The Civil War made our country stronger and a beacon of freedom for us of today... but that's just how I feel.

But when you look at this month's cover image, please ask yourself what feelings it evokes within you, whether it be awe at such an image, revulsion at what it represents or anything else. I'd suggest asking oneself why you feel the way you do and do what I did: If you are faithful, say a little prayer for the human beings that the image represents in reality.

This discussion and the varying viewpoints presented have been quite good therapy to think on. Thanks.

All the best to all of you. See you at Bummers 09.

- Johnny Lloyd :wink_smil

[flattop32355]

Re: Realistic portrayal of war dead in images

But when you look at this month's cover image, please ask yourself what feelings it evokes within you, whether it be awe at such an image, revulsion at what it represents or anything else.

How about all of the above, and more?

Disclaimer: Never been in the military, rarely seen a dead person who wasn't embalmed, never been with someone as they died, particularly from wounds received in combat.

The spectrum of emotion upon viewing the picture, in no particular order:

Sadness, at the loss of life.
Respect, for the quality of the work.
Quiet, for the solomn nature of the setting.
Resignation, because when there is fighting, people unavoidably die.
Acceptance, because it will always thus be so.
Disturbed, by its clarity and immediacy.
Shock, initially, at the starkness and subject of the setting.

We must be careful that we do not add our modern sensibilities to period images/writings, etc. Their view of death and dying was somewhat different than ours: Life was generally shorter and more hazardous, with death more present at the door on a daily basis, depending upon how and where you lived.

Today, we tend to think of death as a far off thing, even though we know it happens all around us, all the time. Sudden, unexpected death is a mystery to us; it only happens to someone else. We're much more insulated to it than our ancestors were.

We look at combat deaths today as an anomaly rather than an expected sequella. And we who are not there are so far removed from them by space that they appear merely as either other-worldly or simple statistics.

We still have a hard time remembering that the people in those long-ago images were real people, just like the casualties of today, and when they passed left other real people to carry on.

One thing we do share with all previous generations: Except possibly those who have been there and seen it up close and personal, we tend to shy away from images of those killed, dying "before their time", as it were. It rudely shocks us with thoughts violence inflicted and of our own mortality, and removes the veneer of safety in which we wrap ourselves within normal/routine life, where we all die peacefully and painlessly in our sleep.

Our nation has generally sought to withhold images of Americans killed in battle from us, sometimes believing that we would become too revolted and lose resolve to continue the fight. It wasn't until late in WW2 that such images were begun to be shown. I'm not so sure they do us any favors, as it removes us from what is real and replaces our ideas of warfare really is with a sterile myth of separation.