Critical Evaluation
“The Movementof Vulnerability: Images of Falling and September 11”
(Andrea Fitzpatrick, 2007)
"The Movement of Vulnerability: Images of Falling and September 11" was written byAndrea Fitzpatrick and published in the No.4 of the Art Journal in Winter 2007.The article is a reflection about the relationship between art and death, focused on the perception of the concept of vulnerability. Starting from September 11, the author puts forward the argumentthat the viewing of images that represent the fall of men and women could, somehow, alter the perceptionoftheir vulnerability.
The authorstrongly believes that this gives rise to an ethical problem and she decidesto begin with the Drew's photography (2001), that represents the fall of aman from the Twin towers in the United States (U.S.) after the attack ofSeptember 11; From this picture, Fitzpatrick decides to make reference toButler's theory about the concept of global vulnerability. Butler (2004) arguesthat loss and vulnerability are essential components of our experience as humanbeings and social animals. Therefore the amount of images that show thevulnerability of others becomes relevant for our perception of vulnerability.
Finally,after having listed several works by other authors dealing with the same theme, shetouches on issues such as the difference between film and photography, anddraws the conclusion that falls into two main parts. In the first part she draws attention to themental condition that the observer lives in front of the representation of humanfalls: he, being almost blinded by the excessive vulnerability of the subjectswho falls, becomes impassive and he cannot perceive the suffering of thesubject represented. The second part shows that vulnerability has also to dowith the limitations of the medium trough which it is presented: The subjects represented are penalized and they become victims even after death. For these reasons the diffusion of this kind ofpictures leads to a different result than what the artist had decided at the beginning.
The main purpose of this article seems to be to convince the reader that the relationship between art and death could be dangerous and therefore should be avoided. To achieve its purpose the author provides a list of significant references that support her point of view. Inaddition, although it is a very difficult subject to be treated, Fitzpatrick tries to keep the proper detachment but at the same time she demonstrates a proper sensitivity respecting the victims of the tragedy of the Twin Towers. The author's point of view seems to emerge from the beginning to theconclusion of the work, making it clear to the reader what is the thesis that she intends to argue at the end of her article.
However, the academic value of the article can beaffected by the lack of fluency and coherence, caused by an excessive presence of academic terms not always easy tounderstand. The author, in order to explain her position, decides, in fact, touse concepts stolen from theworld of art and philosophy without explaining their meaning. For example, Fitzpatrick uses several times in the first part, the term "vulnerability",andthe term "agency", without explain theirconcepts. The following passage may be taken as typical of thiskind of evidence: “One stumbles when trying to address those who died, thosewhose vulnerability was exposed by the visibility each image allows, torecognize well as one’s own, to find words to call them … This conception ofsubjectivity as a double-edged process is a central insight to arise from thecontroversy of falling people and how they are to be respected: their acts,visceral responses to the pain of extreme heat … show movements where agency andvulnerability are inextricable” (Fitzpatrick, 2007). Moreover, the problem of the fluidity of the article is worsened by the presence of unnecessary digressions and descriptions. For example, disproportionateattention has been given to the detailed description of some works that attest the presence of a relationship between art and death before 11 September, whereas shedevotes few pages to support the thesis of the article that certainly should deservefurther space.
In addition to these formalissues, there are several conceptual problems. One of these problems is definitely the lack of opposing points of view to those of the author. In fact, throughout this article, the author presents various evidence to defend her thesis, such as that of Judith Butler in reference to the concept of “mutual mourning " (2004) or that of Barthes regarding the Drew’s photograph, who deserves further explanation.
However, Fitzpatrick dedicates just a paragraph tothe defense of Richard Drew’s photograph, so he has to defend the meaning and interpretation of his photos, without thesupportof any other theory that could confirm his words to an academic level. Consequently, instead of the intended use, providing only research ideas related to his thinking,Fitzpatrick potentially increased the resistance of the reader towards her position.
Nothing candetract from the central fact that often the spread of such images could somehow wound the sensibility of the spectators. However, what is even more surprising is that some types of photographs, taken and spread with the express purpose of terrorizing or block the sensitivity of the viewer, in some cases have opposite effects. The evidence of this kind of result is obvious in the case of a picture called "FemmesAlgeriennes” (1960) taken by Marc Garanger. In that time the French Authorities forced the Algerians to carry their identity cards with
The face uncovered that would have made them visibile. Garanger worked as photorapher in the French army,where he was assigned to photographAlgerian’s identification cards. If his photographs changed Garanger to a criticof French policy, they also presented atool to record his disagreement to colonial practice (Eileraas, 2007)
During these last years, in fact, Garanger'sphotographs of shamed and angry Algerian women has become a symbol of Frenchoppression over its Northern African colony and it makes acase for re-viewing the concept expressed by Fitzpatrick in her work.
In addition, besides the lack of opposing points of view, the author doesn’t interpretcorrectly the research provided to support her point of view. To understand more clearly the argument it’s necessaryto make reference to the Barthe’s Theory.
Barthes states that every photo consists of two parts(1980): stadium and punctum. “The punctum is the result of a subjective and unpredictable interaction between a spectator and an image, anaccidental effect or a ‘supplement thatis at once inevitable and delightful’ beyond the intention of the photographer” (Rau, 2006,p. 297).
In contrast, the studium is what that makes a photograph interesting; it is chosenby the photographer and it is the same for all viewers (Bordini, 2006).
In this article the author attacks the punctum ofDrew’s photography claiming that this could be dangerous for the perception ofthe vulnerability; However she forgot that the punctum, as Barthes stated, isdifferent in every picture. Consequently we could not predict what will be thepunctum neither in the Drew’s photograph.
A final topic that deserves more consideration is themain thesis of the article. As has been mentioned at the beginning ofthe critique, Fitzpatrick puts forward the argument that these kinds ofphotographs are dangerous and should be avoided. However, the author doesn’t take into accountan opposite theory stated by Susan Sontag. This theoryland support to the view that is the Medium that should give the proper contextfor interpreting well each photograph. ``While a painting, even one thatachieves photographic standards of resemblance, is never more than the statingof an interpretation, a photograph is never less than an emanation … materialvestige of its subject in away that no painting can be'' (Sontag, 1977,p.154).
As a result, as pointed out by Susan Sontag, thatphotographs have the capacity to move us momentarily, but that they do not havethe power to create an interpretation. If a photograph becomes active in informingus, it is only because the photograph is received within a context of arelevant political awareness. (Butler,2007).
If these photographs were deleted, there would be a loss of informational purpose. So it is important to keep in mind, as Butler says in her article that: “Theproblem is not to establish that the public viewing of the photographs led to asignificant decline in popular support for the war… I want to suggest that thephotographs do not necessarily numb our senses nor do they necessarilydetermine a particular response. They are shown again and again, and thishistory of their differing framing and reception structures, withoutdetermining, the kinds of public interpretations of torture that we have”.(2007, pag 956).
Summing up, the author presented convincing evidence tosupport her point of view. Moreover, she can handle a difficult subject with the necessary coldness and objectivity. It appears,though, that Fitzpatrick's primary objective is to convince the reader that herpoint of view is the only acceptable. Because she focused primarily on thenegative value of these photographs, the work is subjected to being considered asmistaken rather than being accepted as an objective, scholarly of a legitimateprofessional research.
References:
Barthes, R(1980). Camera Lucida. London: Vintage.
Bordini, D (2008). Immagine e oggetto. Milano:Einaudi.
Butler, J (2004). Precarious Life: The Powers of Mourning and Violence. London: Verso
Butler, J (2007). Torture and ethics of photography. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space25, 951-966.
Drew, R (2001). TheFalling man. Photograph. WideWorldPhotos
Eileraas, K (2007). Between image and identity: trasnationalfantasy, symbolic violence, and feminist misrecognition. London: Lexingtonbooks.
Fitzpatrick, A (2007). The Movement of Vulnerability: Images ofFalling and September 11. Art Journal 4, 135-150.
Garanger, M (1960). Femmes Algeriennes. Photograph.
Oxford Dictionary(2004). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rau, P (2006). Beyond punctum and stadium. Journal ofEuropean Studies 36.
Sontag, S (1977). OnPhotography. London: Penguin.
“The Movementof Vulnerability: Images of Falling and September 11”
(Andrea Fitzpatrick, 2007)
"The Movement of Vulnerability: Images of Falling and September 11" was written byAndrea Fitzpatrick and published in the No.4 of the Art Journal in Winter 2007.The article is a reflection about the relationship between art and death, focused on the perception of the concept of vulnerability. Starting from September 11, the author puts forward the argumentthat the viewing of images that represent the fall of men and women could, somehow, alter the perceptionoftheir vulnerability.
The authorstrongly believes that this gives rise to an ethical problem and she decidesto begin with the Drew's photography (2001), that represents the fall of aman from the Twin towers in the United States (U.S.) after the attack ofSeptember 11; From this picture, Fitzpatrick decides to make reference toButler's theory about the concept of global vulnerability. Butler (2004) arguesthat loss and vulnerability are essential components of our experience as humanbeings and social animals. Therefore the amount of images that show thevulnerability of others becomes relevant for our perception of vulnerability.
Finally,after having listed several works by other authors dealing with the same theme, shetouches on issues such as the difference between film and photography, anddraws the conclusion that falls into two main parts. In the first part she draws attention to themental condition that the observer lives in front of the representation of humanfalls: he, being almost blinded by the excessive vulnerability of the subjectswho falls, becomes impassive and he cannot perceive the suffering of thesubject represented. The second part shows that vulnerability has also to dowith the limitations of the medium trough which it is presented: The subjects represented are penalized and they become victims even after death. For these reasons the diffusion of this kind ofpictures leads to a different result than what the artist had decided at the beginning.
The main purpose of this article seems to be to convince the reader that the relationship between art and death could be dangerous and therefore should be avoided. To achieve its purpose the author provides a list of significant references that support her point of view. Inaddition, although it is a very difficult subject to be treated, Fitzpatrick tries to keep the proper detachment but at the same time she demonstrates a proper sensitivity respecting the victims of the tragedy of the Twin Towers. The author's point of view seems to emerge from the beginning to theconclusion of the work, making it clear to the reader what is the thesis that she intends to argue at the end of her article.
However, the academic value of the article can beaffected by the lack of fluency and coherence, caused by an excessive presence of academic terms not always easy tounderstand. The author, in order to explain her position, decides, in fact, touse concepts stolen from theworld of art and philosophy without explaining their meaning. For example, Fitzpatrick uses several times in the first part, the term "vulnerability",andthe term "agency", without explain theirconcepts. The following passage may be taken as typical of thiskind of evidence: “One stumbles when trying to address those who died, thosewhose vulnerability was exposed by the visibility each image allows, torecognize well as one’s own, to find words to call them … This conception ofsubjectivity as a double-edged process is a central insight to arise from thecontroversy of falling people and how they are to be respected: their acts,visceral responses to the pain of extreme heat … show movements where agency andvulnerability are inextricable” (Fitzpatrick, 2007). Moreover, the problem of the fluidity of the article is worsened by the presence of unnecessary digressions and descriptions. For example, disproportionateattention has been given to the detailed description of some works that attest the presence of a relationship between art and death before 11 September, whereas shedevotes few pages to support the thesis of the article that certainly should deservefurther space.
In addition to these formalissues, there are several conceptual problems. One of these problems is definitely the lack of opposing points of view to those of the author. In fact, throughout this article, the author presents various evidence to defend her thesis, such as that of Judith Butler in reference to the concept of “mutual mourning " (2004) or that of Barthes regarding the Drew’s photograph, who deserves further explanation.
However, Fitzpatrick dedicates just a paragraph tothe defense of Richard Drew’s photograph, so he has to defend the meaning and interpretation of his photos, without thesupportof any other theory that could confirm his words to an academic level. Consequently, instead of the intended use, providing only research ideas related to his thinking,Fitzpatrick potentially increased the resistance of the reader towards her position.
Nothing candetract from the central fact that often the spread of such images could somehow wound the sensibility of the spectators. However, what is even more surprising is that some types of photographs, taken and spread with the express purpose of terrorizing or block the sensitivity of the viewer, in some cases have opposite effects. The evidence of this kind of result is obvious in the case of a picture called "FemmesAlgeriennes” (1960) taken by Marc Garanger. In that time the French Authorities forced the Algerians to carry their identity cards with
The face uncovered that would have made them visibile. Garanger worked as photorapher in the French army,where he was assigned to photographAlgerian’s identification cards. If his photographs changed Garanger to a criticof French policy, they also presented atool to record his disagreement to colonial practice (Eileraas, 2007)
During these last years, in fact, Garanger'sphotographs of shamed and angry Algerian women has become a symbol of Frenchoppression over its Northern African colony and it makes acase for re-viewing the concept expressed by Fitzpatrick in her work.
In addition, besides the lack of opposing points of view, the author doesn’t interpretcorrectly the research provided to support her point of view. To understand more clearly the argument it’s necessaryto make reference to the Barthe’s Theory.
Barthes states that every photo consists of two parts(1980): stadium and punctum. “The punctum is the result of a subjective and unpredictable interaction between a spectator and an image, anaccidental effect or a ‘supplement thatis at once inevitable and delightful’ beyond the intention of the photographer” (Rau, 2006,p. 297).
In contrast, the studium is what that makes a photograph interesting; it is chosenby the photographer and it is the same for all viewers (Bordini, 2006).
In this article the author attacks the punctum ofDrew’s photography claiming that this could be dangerous for the perception ofthe vulnerability; However she forgot that the punctum, as Barthes stated, isdifferent in every picture. Consequently we could not predict what will be thepunctum neither in the Drew’s photograph.
A final topic that deserves more consideration is themain thesis of the article. As has been mentioned at the beginning ofthe critique, Fitzpatrick puts forward the argument that these kinds ofphotographs are dangerous and should be avoided. However, the author doesn’t take into accountan opposite theory stated by Susan Sontag. This theoryland support to the view that is the Medium that should give the proper contextfor interpreting well each photograph. ``While a painting, even one thatachieves photographic standards of resemblance, is never more than the statingof an interpretation, a photograph is never less than an emanation … materialvestige of its subject in away that no painting can be'' (Sontag, 1977,p.154).
As a result, as pointed out by Susan Sontag, thatphotographs have the capacity to move us momentarily, but that they do not havethe power to create an interpretation. If a photograph becomes active in informingus, it is only because the photograph is received within a context of arelevant political awareness. (Butler,2007).
If these photographs were deleted, there would be a loss of informational purpose. So it is important to keep in mind, as Butler says in her article that: “Theproblem is not to establish that the public viewing of the photographs led to asignificant decline in popular support for the war… I want to suggest that thephotographs do not necessarily numb our senses nor do they necessarilydetermine a particular response. They are shown again and again, and thishistory of their differing framing and reception structures, withoutdetermining, the kinds of public interpretations of torture that we have”.(2007, pag 956).
Summing up, the author presented convincing evidence tosupport her point of view. Moreover, she can handle a difficult subject with the necessary coldness and objectivity. It appears,though, that Fitzpatrick's primary objective is to convince the reader that herpoint of view is the only acceptable. Because she focused primarily on thenegative value of these photographs, the work is subjected to being considered asmistaken rather than being accepted as an objective, scholarly of a legitimateprofessional research.
References:
Barthes, R(1980). Camera Lucida. London: Vintage.
Bordini, D (2008). Immagine e oggetto. Milano:Einaudi.
Butler, J (2004). Precarious Life: The Powers of Mourning and Violence. London: Verso
Butler, J (2007). Torture and ethics of photography. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space25, 951-966.
Drew, R (2001). TheFalling man. Photograph. WideWorldPhotos
Eileraas, K (2007). Between image and identity: trasnationalfantasy, symbolic violence, and feminist misrecognition. London: Lexingtonbooks.
Fitzpatrick, A (2007). The Movement of Vulnerability: Images ofFalling and September 11. Art Journal 4, 135-150.
Garanger, M (1960). Femmes Algeriennes. Photograph.
Oxford Dictionary(2004). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rau, P (2006). Beyond punctum and stadium. Journal ofEuropean Studies 36.
Sontag, S (1977). OnPhotography. London: Penguin.
