Reply #33: A bizarre misreading [View All]

[markses]

First of all, it is not my contention that images in LIFE had *nothing* to do with turning the "American people" against the war, so you can file that with other strawmen. I never made such an absolutist claim, nor would I. I think you give LIFE an unwarranted overdetermination. You make it seem like it did more than it actually did.

(One could note that the image you refer there was published in February 1966 - hardly a turning point in American public opinion).

At the same time, we should agree that the images in and of themselves do nothing, that they only take on a positive or negative meaning in conjunction with social forces. Second, one could just as easily take a slew of pics from LIFE magazine that reinforced the legitimacy of the Republic of Vietnam, or gave people confidence in the puppet government, or portrayed our forces as saviors against the evil "VC" insurgency, and thus come to the opposite conclusion. Moreover, the same picture during a different war (say, World War II) could inflame hatred for the enemy rather than the war. What's to say that wasn't its effect in 1966? Your ahistorical opinion? Your atemporal view of human nature? The picture is a social artifact that enters into a social configuration. It does nothing by itself; it means nothing without that social grounding.

As for your claim that LIFE was deliberately killed because of its imagistic power, that is simply nonsense and contrary to any evidence (conveniently, you don't produce any but strained analogy; one notices the passive voice "was killed" and simply wonders whether you know anything at all about LIFE Magazine). Read the minutes of the meetings at TIME INC and the LIFE discussions by editors in their archives, and you'll see serious discussions about profitability beginning in 1970. It was a business decision. Furthermore, LIFE continues (to this day) to publish powerful photographs in special issues.

On a brighter note, I definitely dig the LIFE covers you're displaying here. I have read, as I said, every issue from 1951-1973, and my analysis was focused primarily on the interplay between the visual and the verbal. I own all three issues that you've displayed here, but I do try to colect more where I can, so if you know a good source, please let me know. Thanks.