A brief history
Visual frames of the dark side as a form of witnessing can be distinguished from linguistic frames (i.e. oral or written testimony) in respect to the fact that the visual appears to replicate that which is actual lived experience through its rendering. Yet the “framing”—whether in art, film, or photography—is by definition a rhetorical manner of witnessing. The visual frame impresses upon the viewer a means of experiencing—or rather, re-experiencing—a moment in time privy to the first, second, or third person witness. In the case of photography, the photographer-as-bystander both witnesses and bears witness simultaneously—a passive, ontological experience in addition to a rhetorical act—that distinguishes this particular genre of visual testimony from other artistic modes of expression. Unlike linguistic frames as testimony, this form of bearing witness does not come from the victim as part of a process whereby s/he attempts to restore subjectivity through expression and recognition from oppressors. Photography-as-testimony supplants victims in a subject position that is less about subjectivity and more about object-being from the standpoint of the viewer. When these images permeate the rhetorical culture and become a form of media witnessing, it runs the risk of becoming more about politicizing than restoring the subjectivity of the victim(s), despite whatever benevolent intent on the photographer’s part.
In terms of artistic renderings, viewers witness a vision of the rhetorician that is transposed through the mind’s eye: an illusion that attempts to replicate the truth of experience. The artistic rendering represents the truth but is not mimetic, therefore every creative attempt to convey tangible experience serves a rhetorical purpose. Differently, the photographer or documentary filmmaker allows viewers to see firsthand experience through the lens of a camera that is intended to replicate the functions of the eye. The power of the camera holder’s gaze transfers over to the viewer, who experiences the event through the lens of the camera. This rhetorical act creates the illusion of ontological witnessing despite the obvious separation of time and space.
The framing of events through visual means involves a complex system: 1) the eyewitness or witnesses who saw, first hand, what occurred (which could be victims or bystanders); 2) the artist, filmmaker, or photographer who bears witness to the event by composing the image in question; 3) the technologies that document events (apparatuses of control which transform experience into representation); 4) the institutions that produce and disseminate images into the public sphere for consumption by viewers (Kozol 6). Visual testimonies are wide-ranging and while each suffers from what Peters refers to as “a veracity gap,” some genres (e.g. photography, live broadcast news, documentary film) are considered more reliable than others (e.g. narrative film, murals, other artistic renderings) (711).
We witness, visually, in very distinct ways from the linguistic act of bearing witness. Usually, testimony functions as a form of rhetorical witnessing—an active engagement that involves the triad of rhetorician, audience, and text. Only un-doctored photographic depictions and film recordings function as a means of both ontological and rhetorical witnessing. For these reasons, witness photography has become a genre of interest central to the design of the course. However, we examine a wide range of visual testimonies that are reproduced by the media.
Visual witnessing functions as a form of societal witnessing: it requires media channels of communication, agency, and recognition from the masses. The media as a channel of communication remains crucial to recognition: without mass media the reproducibility of photographs as evidence of atrocity—these events would cease to exist in our minds as a society. “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it really make a sound?” This metaphysical question lies at the root of the challenge to witnessing, the demand that one must see in order to believe. In many ways, visual witnessing is of higher value than oral or written testimony. If a moment in time is not documented in some way—whether referring back to ancient oral traditions, then society treats it as though it never happened. Testimony constructs the reality. Photojournalism remains the fundamental mode of visual witnessing: it must be publicly acknowledged as part of a performative, engaged process—recognized—in order for the first witnesses—the victims—to find some peace and move forward.
In terms of artistic renderings, viewers witness a vision of the rhetorician that is transposed through the mind’s eye: an illusion that attempts to replicate the truth of experience. The artistic rendering represents the truth but is not mimetic, therefore every creative attempt to convey tangible experience serves a rhetorical purpose. Differently, the photographer or documentary filmmaker allows viewers to see firsthand experience through the lens of a camera that is intended to replicate the functions of the eye. The power of the camera holder’s gaze transfers over to the viewer, who experiences the event through the lens of the camera. This rhetorical act creates the illusion of ontological witnessing despite the obvious separation of time and space.
The framing of events through visual means involves a complex system: 1) the eyewitness or witnesses who saw, first hand, what occurred (which could be victims or bystanders); 2) the artist, filmmaker, or photographer who bears witness to the event by composing the image in question; 3) the technologies that document events (apparatuses of control which transform experience into representation); 4) the institutions that produce and disseminate images into the public sphere for consumption by viewers (Kozol 6). Visual testimonies are wide-ranging and while each suffers from what Peters refers to as “a veracity gap,” some genres (e.g. photography, live broadcast news, documentary film) are considered more reliable than others (e.g. narrative film, murals, other artistic renderings) (711).
We witness, visually, in very distinct ways from the linguistic act of bearing witness. Usually, testimony functions as a form of rhetorical witnessing—an active engagement that involves the triad of rhetorician, audience, and text. Only un-doctored photographic depictions and film recordings function as a means of both ontological and rhetorical witnessing. For these reasons, witness photography has become a genre of interest central to the design of the course. However, we examine a wide range of visual testimonies that are reproduced by the media.
Visual witnessing functions as a form of societal witnessing: it requires media channels of communication, agency, and recognition from the masses. The media as a channel of communication remains crucial to recognition: without mass media the reproducibility of photographs as evidence of atrocity—these events would cease to exist in our minds as a society. “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it really make a sound?” This metaphysical question lies at the root of the challenge to witnessing, the demand that one must see in order to believe. In many ways, visual witnessing is of higher value than oral or written testimony. If a moment in time is not documented in some way—whether referring back to ancient oral traditions, then society treats it as though it never happened. Testimony constructs the reality. Photojournalism remains the fundamental mode of visual witnessing: it must be publicly acknowledged as part of a performative, engaged process—recognized—in order for the first witnesses—the victims—to find some peace and move forward.