07 Jun 2004 | Mart said...

The King is dead. Long live the King.

08 Jun 2004 | Woody said...

So true ... great post

08 Jun 2004 | stubborntinylights said...

Yes, a photo can say so much to so many different people, can't it. I'd have to add to this list "rank hypocrisy", "mythology" and "ignorance of history".

08 Jun 2004 | MH said...

If only we had such an option this coming November.

08 Jun 2004 | Charles Crabtree said...

stubborntinylights:

Ronald Regan, whatever else he might have been, was a man. Try to look beyond your obvious politics and see the photograph for what it is - a shot of a man in his casket, at his funeral.

If you can't approach a photograph like that with respect for the deceased, and a bit of written restraint, I pity you.

08 Jun 2004 | markku said...

Powerful photo.

stubborntinylights: if you have nothing good to say, keep it for another day. Can't you give some respect at all? It has nothing to do with history, or if you disagree with whatever he did decades ago.

Look at the photo: a man is dead, his wife is crying. Can't be any simpler.

08 Jun 2004 | beerzie boy said...

Didn't care for the Gipper, but that's a helluva photo. Thanks.

08 Jun 2004 | OKKO said...

Actually the photo is powerful, its the accompanying text that adds to the insult. This is not a context less photo when you add descriptive text.
God - um ok but how would you know?
Country - Thats quite insulting to many Americans
History - I guess but you did not say good or bad history (I lean towards the latter one)
Love - For who and what?
Loyalty - Uh? to whom?
Life
Death
A man and his wife - Again something I cannot know even if a picture says otherwise.

08 Jun 2004 | Jonny Roader said...

"Try to look beyond your obvious politics and see the photograph for what it is - a shot of a man in his casket, at his funeral."

All very well, but Jason has posted this with a political preface: 'God, Country, History', etc.

Of course it's sad when a man dies, but you can't pretend that the death of Reagan is not a political event of some kind. To say that we should 'see the photograph for what it is' is to attempt to foreclose comment. I imagine that there are plenty of people around the world - especially in South America - who see that photograph very, very differently from you. There are plenty of widows in Grenada and Nicaragua.

But I'm not going to say anymore on that (plenty more though there is to say). As with anyone, I hope he and his family find peace after a difficult period. RIP.

08 Jun 2004 | JF said...

All very well, but Jason has posted this with a political preface: 'God, Country, History', etc.

Political preface? Nope. God - there's a priest (?) in the picture. Country - there's a flag. History - there's an ex-President. No political statements, just fact.

08 Jun 2004 | Jack said...

That looks more like 'The power of a caption' to me.

Without the text, I imagine I would have reacted to the photograph as a moving one; with the text it makes me as angry as the relentless eulogising of Reagan in the press. Yes, it is sad when a man dies leaving loved ones, but when that man has done so much harm, on such a grand scale, and is then lauded in death, it leaves a very sour taste in the mouth. The list of loaded words next to Reagan in his coffin could easily read Astrological Charts, Central America, Reckless Economics, Hatred, etc. etc. - that would be in poor taste, perhaps, but so is the text as it stands, for refusing to acknowledge Reagan's legacy and dressing it up in platitudes.

This reverence for Reagan seems very strange to me here in the UK: when Thatcher dies, I'm pretty sure the reaction across much of the country will be to give a cheer and shout, 'Good riddance!' An unsavoury reaction, sure, but one that better reflects what she did in life than unequivocal praise.

08 Jun 2004 | JF said...

The list of loaded words next to Reagan in his coffin could easily read Astrological Charts, Central America, Reckless Economics, Hatred, etc. etc.

Um, no. The words next to the picture describe the picture as the picture stands. There's no statement of politics, policy, or partisanship in those words -- they just describe the scene. The words you want to add have nothing to do with that picture.

08 Jun 2004 | but that's just me said...

And have nothing to do with Reagan as President. The power of photography...absolutely. The power of blind political hatred seen in some of these comments...definitely. Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and any city or house divided against itself will not stand.

08 Jun 2004 | Jonny Roader said...

Point taken JF, with reservations.

I was just attempting to illustrate that what Charles and markku said ('see the photograph for what it is - a shot of a man in his casket, at his funeral') is unrealistic. Everyone knows who it is in that casket, and everyone will have different opinions on what he stood for and what he did. You can abstract that image as 'a man is dead, his wife is crying', but to say that is the only available narrative is just wrong. You can't take a picture of Reagan's coffin draped in the US flag next to his wife and a priest and say there's no context other than the immediate human relationships.

Now, JF, you can say that the seven words and one phrase that you use to describe that picture are just that - a neutral description. I'm willing to accept that you're not being overtly political here. But others - like Jack - might point out that the words you use don't necessarily tell the story of the man in that coffin. And thus for you to say that the 'words you want to add have nothing to do with that picture' only holds true insofar as any image can be understood apart from its context. Which it can't.

I mean, without being fatuous, how would you describe the famous picture of Kim Phuc Phan Thi, suffering from napalm exposure, running from her burning village? "Child, Smoke, Soldiers, Road"??

And after all, the title of this thread is 'The power of photography'...

08 Jun 2004 | jean zaque said...

jf, the words next to the picture both do not, and do much less than, "describe the picture as the picture stands." you're are attaching very specific, and fairly cliched, associations to the signs in the photo: priest may signify "god" to you, but to others, it signifies "predator"; that flag may mean "country" to you, but to others it means "meddler".

08 Jun 2004 | Scott M. said...

I imagine other presidents (Nixon, Clinton, Bush(es)) in the photo with God, Country, History, etc and think it is just not possible to abstract the image from its content and context. Possibly if it were an anonymous soldier in the casket, but part of the power photo is the fact that it captures the image of a specfic woman on a specfic man's casket. It is true that "a photo can say so much to so many different people" as stubborntinylights said. Unless you're an automaton, I'm not sure it's possible to be completely objective.

Heck, now that I think about it, even if it were an anonymous soldier it would be hard not to think about politics. Perspective will be different given your take on the war. I have a great distate for any sort of nationalism, so even the flag might rub me the wrong way in a given context.

08 Jun 2004 | Don Schenck said...

If you can't be gracious in a person's death, then you can't be gracious in life. For that, I pity you.

Seriously.

08 Jun 2004 | ajr said...

I agree with Don. This is sad.

08 Jun 2004 | but that's just me said...

And the conservatives are the ones who are supposed to be heartless and uncaring, right?

08 Jun 2004 | Jonny Roader said...

"If you can't be gracious in a person's death, then you can't be gracious in life. For that, I pity you."

I hope I haven't come across that way, Don. But debate doesn't stop because someone dies. I respect Reagan's achievements in life and his family's grief in death, but that doesn't mean that I should keep my mouth closed if I disagree with an analysis of a political event.

Free speech and all that. I thought that's what US presidents stood for above all else? Freedom?

08 Jun 2004 | One of several Steves said...

So, here's what I see, looking at the picture, the caption, the reaction:

Good photographs do not need captions, explanations, interpretations of any kind. They simply muddy the, um, picture.

What we see here is a wife mourning the loss of her husband.

Whether that husband's legacy is something to be celebrated or criticized is irrelevant. The power and emotion of the picture has everything to do with the relationship between two of the three people involved in the image, and little to do with what either one of them did before that moment.

I'm absolutely no fan of Reagan, but I do not find his death an opportunity to remind of everyone of the damage I think he did. There's the rest of history for that. Let people have their week to reflect and mourn. (Nor do I think it's appropriate at this point to deify the man as many on the other side of the coin are attempting to do.) A man died. Leave it at that, at least for a few days.

08 Jun 2004 | bob said...

It's just not appropriate to discuss the great things he did while ignoring his lesser accomplishments towards freedom, equality, and global good. Seeing the photo I think of the legacy - and honestly, it's these events that leave a lasting impression on me:

Reagan can be remembered for his consideration of ketchup as a vegetable so as to not require additional expenditures for children's lunches. Neither can we forget 'If you've seen one redwood, you've seen em all' to justify the cutting down every standing tree in California. Does anyone want to remember his California Kitchen Cabinet? No thanks. Besides the Beirut loss and the Grenada victory, 52/444 and the Iran-Contra scandal (trading arms for hostages and using the profits from the arms sales to fund the Reagan sanctioned anti-Sandinista CIA death squads)

I'm not trolling, BTW. And I've only posted Anon, because of the reaction that typically follows when someone dredges up what most would rather forget. Somehow having perspective often easily becomes skewed into anti-americanism.

In the end he is just a man, and yet much more. I too hope he finds peace. I hope we all do.

08 Jun 2004 | filchyboy said...

Great photo! I wonder who owns it?

Lousy caption.

08 Jun 2004 | Arne Gleason said...

Don,
While I do believe that its very mean spirited to publicly take swipes at the recently deceased as others grieve, still, to me your statement reads as blatantly specious and your pity seems disingenuous (possibly lacking graceIm just saying).

08 Jun 2004 | John Y. said...

"And the conservatives are the ones who are supposed to be heartless and uncaring, right?"

If you'd like, I could dig up some ugly things some conservatives uttered when Paul Wellstone died. This door swings both ways.

That said, even though I disagree mightily with his politics, etc, etc, I am happy for him that he is released from the unspeakable torment of a prolongued case of Alzheimer's. For Nancy, too, I am relieved that her burden is lifted.

08 Jun 2004 | Don Schenck said...

Arne, Jonny, et al -- No, I was dead serious. There's got to room for *grace* in your life.

Want to argue Reagan's achievements? Go ahead ... but give people a chance to get over his passing. That is what grace is.

Compromising your principle is when you go against what you KNOW is right; GRACE is when you allow *others* to go against what you know is right. Never compromise, but always be graceful.

Life's too short to be TOO upset about politics. Like it or not, in the United States, both the Right *and* the Left have the country's best interest at heart; they just disagree on methods.

Now the Extremists ... *sigh*

08 Jun 2004 | Peecat said...

I have no sympathy for Reagan or his family. There has been too much mourning for one man who turned his back on 70,000 Americans who died of AIDS during his reign of stupidity. Every time I see this photo, I'm reminded of the thousands who died from AIDS and nothing more.

08 Jun 2004 | Agrin said...

700,000,000 people live in freedom today because of the clear and decisive stand this man took against communism. 700,000,000. You can discount, ignore, or stack up his failures against it, but history, nor the free people of the world, will ever forget the way he and Gorby changed the world together. Nothing bigger may happen in your lifetime.

08 Jun 2004 | LNJ said...

Peecat,

Aren't people STILL dying from AIDS? Haven't more people died from AIDS under Clinton than Reagan? I never knew that Ron Reagan introduced AIDS to 70K people and then left them to rot.

Don,

Agreed. 100%

My point of thought-
Maybe the photo didn't need a caption, but why do we agrue it? Political and historical figures are remember both in good and bad. Opinions ALWAYS differ. I know people who disliked FDR and his polotics. I know people who thought that Micky Mantle was a drunk and a womaniser.
When a public person passes, there will be debate on that person's life and the deeds that did. Be that person good or bad, right or wrong, just or wicked the debate will ensue.
Back to what The Don said about Grace. Grace is stilling your tongue in honour of a moment, a man, or a memory no matter if you agree or disagree. I am NOT going to praise Reagan anymore than I will bash him. Next week, next month, and next year is for that.
One thing, ONE THING makes us ALL equal. That thing is death. We will all know it, both in the world and the people around us and in ourselves. We all will see death and then we all will embrace death...
No matter what you think of the man or his legacy, that photo shows one thing... That he is just like you. He, too, can experience death and that death affects those around him. I don't know if I ever want my funeral to be public and I don't know if I love this country enough to have a flag drapped aver my casket, but I DO know that I hope I have touched enough people in this life that there are those who come to mourn my passing.

08 Jun 2004 | Mark said...

Has anyone stopped to think that maybe that the words Jason chose to use in his caption are how he prefers to remember Reagan?

If that's the case, then not only are some of you not being graceful, but also disrespectful to the man who decided to share his thoughts and impressions with you.

08 Jun 2004 | Jonny Roader said...

"If that's the case, then not only are some of you not being graceful, but also disrespectful to the man who decided to share his thoughts and impressions with you."

Maybe, then, posting them on a comments-enabled weblog serving a global audience wasn't such a great idea?

I'm sorry to all of you who see that photo and think graceful, 'neutral' thoughts, but for me I see predominantly what is maybe the closing chapter in the story of 'Reagan the great patriot' - something that Jason's comments I mistakenly took as supporting. And I cannot just switch off my reactions to that, not when I know enough about the history of less fortunate peoples and regions in the world outside (and inside) the USA to believe that Reagan was not, in my opinion, a force for greater good.

Maybe I should just shut up and let this photo pass. I certainly don't mean to intrude upon anyone's grief. But that would be to let yet another powerful image pass into history unchallenged, and to be honest Reagan - the Teflon president whose image could always be wheeled out to discredit opposition - benefitted plenty from that while he was alive.

I'll leave this subject now.

08 Jun 2004 | but that's just me said...

Don, I agree with you except for the comment that the right and the left both have the country's best interest at heart. Unfortunately there are those that would like to destroy this country, who claim that they don't love it or even like it, who say that America is the most evil entity in the universe...but who continue to live here and reap the benefits of freedom and liberty. I'd like to think these are only the extremists you speak of, but it's becoming an all too common theme. Off the topic, I know, but I had to comment.

Back to the definition of gracious...from the dictionary..."being of a merciful or compassionate nature." I think some of the comments here prove that politics can never co-exist with compassion, and that, sadly, politics transcend even death.

08 Jun 2004 | ek said...

Liberals are really way too angry.

People on the far left are always calling people on the far right closed-minded extremists, but they're really no different, except perhaps in their level of bitterness.

I'm no fan of Reagan, but please tell me — what leader of a superpower has not done his fair share of "bad things"?

Does that excuse any of the evils perpetrated, whether willfully or through neglect, by a particular leader? Of course not, but I think the level of vitriol being spewed forth by some in this thread is really disproportionate in its singling out of Reagan as an "evildoer" of singular proportions.

As for JF's caption, I don't understand the inability on the part of some to understand that his caption simply describes what is pictured. The comment about priests representing predators to some was just so idiotic, but the only thing that surprised me about it was that it took so long for someone to post it.

So I supposed your caption would have read...

Predator in Robes
Meddler
Mangling of History
False Display of Affection
Blah, blah, blah

It's a photo of a funereal ceremony for goodness sake!

08 Jun 2004 | ek said...

If you'd like, I could dig up some ugly things some conservatives uttered when Paul Wellstone died. This door swings both ways.

And that would be just such a mature thing to do, wouldn't it?

The "I can be a bigger asshole than you" game is one best left to others as, whoever wins, everyone who plays is still an asshole.

Best of all would be if no one played, but even I'm not naïve enough to think that that's ever going to happen.

08 Jun 2004 | Jonny Roader said...

"It's a photo of a funereal ceremony for goodness sake!"

It's also a photo where nearly 50% of the space is taken up by an American flag, and where the second most prominent (living) person is a priest holding a bible while touching said flag!

Analyse that as a mere 'photo of a funeral ceremony' if you wish, but it undoubtedly has a wider resonance.

(I was going to butt out after my last post, but ek's appearances here are always too good to miss!)

08 Jun 2004 | Glenn McGaha Miller said...

Wonderful summary of the symbolism contained in this one picture!

08 Jun 2004 | ek said...

It's like the good ol' days Jonny! ;-)

08 Jun 2004 | brian said...

For the obviously vision impaired among us. It is a picture of a woman saying goodbye to her husband. They were married for 52 years. 52 YEARS! Her husband died with no memory of her, his children, his life, of being President of the United States. None of it. She had to say goodbye years, YEARS, before he actually died.

"It's also a photo where nearly 50% of the space is taken up by an American flag, and where the second most prominent (living) person is a priest holding a bible while touching said flag!"

Not sure what to do with this, Jonny. Is it a church and state thing? Because church and state are completely separate there in the UK? Right?

08 Jun 2004 | Jonny Roader said...

And for the visually impaired part of you, Brian, can I point again to the gigantic centrepiece of the flag, the priest, and the bible?

I agree that on one level this is a touching personal moment in Nancy Reagan's life, but to say that is the only level the image works on - or is meant to work on - is something we'll just have to disagree on.

Although I'd love to read your opinions on the Mona Lisa: 'Woman, smiling'.

08 Jun 2004 | Darrel said...

I'm no fan of Reagan, but please tell me what leader of a superpower has not done his fair share of "bad things"?

Exactly. All presidents are bad. Personally, they seem to get worse as time goes by. DO THEY get worse? No--I just happen to be more familiar with our current presidents than the ones we had when I was 10 years old. Ie, the older/deader you are, the better you look in hindsight/perspective (hell, we still celebrate Columbus' day)

Which, in many ways, shows us why we SHOULD continue to debate our past. Reagan's term as POTUS was only 20 years ago and as you can see in this thread and countless others everywhere else on the internet that facts are few on both sides. We have a tendency to quickly forget our past and rarely do we learn from it.

Reagan did good. Reagan did bad. It's sad he's dead (although in many ways is was probably a relief to his loved ones given his disease). One should still be able to discuss his politics without accusations of disrespect and/or lack of grace. Afterall, Reagan, more than anything, was a politician.

It's a touching photo, but one can't separate the man, dead or alive, from his public personal and his political position. If anything, he was a man that loved to be in the spotlight, and I have a hunch he'd of appreciated the continued debate of his legacy after his death. Hate me or love me, I'd rather be notorious than forgotten. ;o)

08 Jun 2004 | jean zaque said...

"So I supposed your caption would have read...

ek, i guess i didn't communicate very well. i wasn't trying to suggest any caption of my own. i was disagreeing with jf's assertion that "the words next to the picture describe the picture as the picture stands." i don't think they do. i think the words in that caption describe a series of associations jf - and many others, including me - attach to the elements in that photo (another association, looking at mrs. reagan's aspect in this picture, might be "mournful relief"). but that caption is not, as jf wrote earlier, "just fact." do you see god in that photo? if you do, you're a very special person. the priest is not god, he's a priest. the flag is not country, it's a flag. there's no history in the picture - only, as you say, a funeral ceremony. god, country, history; love, life, death; predator, meddler - that all comes in the looking - all of it. the caption at the top of this thread is as subjective as the one you suggested in your post.

to me, that's the power of photography - that it creates this huge range of associations in viewers. i just don't think those associations should be treated as neutral descriptions.

09 Jun 2004 | One of several Steves said...

There's a bit of an irony - or maybe its prescience - here in that the title of the post is "the power of photography," and here we now have 40-plus posts proving just that.

Take what is objectively the same image, and set it in front of a dozen people, and you'll get a dozen different impressions. We tend to think of photographs as objective representations of fact, but the reality is that each image is viewed through everyone's filter that puts their own interpretation on the facts. If I wanted to be all post-modernist, I'd say it even argues against the existence of objective reality.

Anyway, while JF may have nailed it or screwed the pooch with his caption, depending on one's viewpoint, he certainly got it right with the title. Imagery is powerful. Perhaps more powerful than words. And you see a little microcosm like this, it's not so difficult to see how simple pictures and words have started revolutions and why so many of those holding power try desperately to supress them.

09 Jun 2004 | Scott M. said...

The more I think about it, the more I take issue with JF's caption and not necessarily the photo itself. They just aren't words I would have used had I done a caption. It's completely subjective -- as everyone has different thoughts and feelings about Reagan as a President.

I suppose if the caption had been just "A husband and his wife" I may have thought, yes, after all is said and done, that man and I are not so different: both men, both mortal, both will (mostly likely) precede our wives in death.

But "God" is such a charged word for me in the context of the photo-- in this case representing organized religion--that I immediately have a negative reaction. And it continues with "Country" b/c as I mentioned I have a huge issue (especially at the moment) with nationalism. "History" well, yes, this year will become a four digit number in history books. How will Reagan be viewed in 100,200,500 years? Who can say? "Loyalty" -- are we talking about Nancy's loyalty? Reagan's loyalty? "Life and Death" -- well that's stating the obvious. "A man and his wife" -- I like this one, see above.

But, yes, it's certainly a powerful photograph. I had seen it prior to JF's post and thought it was a great photo then and still is. Just not crazy about the caption. Who took the photo?

09 Jun 2004 | Jimmeny said...

EK is right. Liberals are way too angry. The blogs are full of anti-Reagan vents these past few days, and frankly they're uncalled for. The man carried 44 states in '80 and 49 in '84. You might not like him but most Americans did. And for all the heat about his military spending and Cold War strategy - he ended up being right. He gave countless souls the gift of freedom.

All presidents are responsible for life and death decisions, and nobody will make all the right choices. He saved us from the brink of nuclear war but didn't react to AIDS. Bush 1 should have saved the shiites in Iraq and Clinton should have done something in Rwanda. No president will ever get it all right.

This is a powerful photo. No matter who you are or what mistakes you make, we all end up dead some day while our deeds live on. Some will say you've done bad, some will say you've done good, but God will judge us all (at least that's what I believe). And our loved ones will mourn. There is no question the love between Nancy and Ronald was true. Her crying on the casket is not a photo-op. She is in the twilight of her life and I doubt she cares much for politics anymore.

God bless you President Reagan. Cheer up, liberals.

09 Jun 2004 | JF said...

They just aren't words I would have used had I done a caption. It's completely subjective -- as everyone has different thoughts and feelings about Reagan as a President.

I remain amazed by how so many people want to read between the lines. The words I added were not political thoughts or feelings about Reagan -- they were just words used to describe the scene. Why is this so hard to understand?

09 Jun 2004 | Darrel said...

Why is this so hard to understand?

Why is it so hard for you to understand that people put their own meaning into photos and words? ;o)

09 Jun 2004 | dmr said...

I don't really know enough about his policies or the history of that time to put out some kind of insightful comment about any of that, but I don't know why I'm some kind of bad person if I don't respect someone who I never met that just died. It's a single person, and so many others die every day, why should I respect them all? Then again, why shouldn't I respect them all? How can I respect people I had no interaction with? Is this a human law of mutual and absolute respect? It's also tough to have a real concrete grasp of respect for life and death in times of war, no? Should we respect dead soldiers and terrorists alike?

I'm both naive and confused about a subject (death) I never had an immediate experience with.

09 Jun 2004 | dmr said...

another note...

On respect; how respectful is it to be at a person's funeral shooting pictures? Shouldn't a wife be entitled to a bit of respect for mourning (as others have mentioned) without a bunch of photographers shooting pictures for the morning papers? Was respect core to the photographer's concept while pointing a camera at the back of a crying womans head over her dead husband's casket?

Uh oh, I think that's some kind of post-modern art speak about "orientalism" and the photographer as artist creeping in to my text...damn that art speak, damn it!

09 Jun 2004 | honky tooth said...

Okay you foolios....how about this?
You all need to seriously get out and actually DO something with your passions about the state of the world and your feelings about it all.
Sitting at your computer trying to influence somebody elses opinion on such a flighty subject ain't gonna do anything. Ever had a Jehova's witness come to your door?...were you influenced at ALL by their arguments?...I thought not.
Truth, the world is complicated, but the most evil and irresponsible thing is apathy and inaction. If you all have such powerful feelings about this subject, get out of your cyber-caves and actually friggin DO something about it. Your opinion matters, but only if you get into the real world and experience the REAL truths of humanity. I've lived with the poor in a Jamaican shanty town, eaten dinner with a family in Egypt at the height of the Iraq war. Getting out and seeing that people are people everywhere and that white house decisions aren't black and white helpes us all out, not just your experience-starved minds. All I will say for my little soap box moment is that any leader that doesn't make weening America off of it's dependence on fossil fuels is a complete criminal because the only reason for not doing so is because they're caving to the energy industries....pure evil. Destroying the history of our planet and our children for money.
That's all....continue chatting cyber-freaks!

09 Jun 2004 | Jonny Roader said...

Without wanting to cause insult, you should maybe have never got on that soap box, honky tooth.

Aren't you being just a little presumptious in your view that the people contributing to this forum can't possibly be as wonderfully travelled and politically active as yourself? Your strident, patronising tone is all too typical of many activists, and in my experience that kind of thing can put people off from activism.

It *is* possible to spend a few minutes each day discussing an issue on an internet forum and lead a useful, practical life too, you know?

09 Jun 2004 | p8 said...

If you can't be gracious in a person's death, then you can't be gracious in life.

"They are our brothers, these freedom fighters . . . They are the moral equal of our Founding Fathers and the brave men and women of the French Resistance. We cannot turn away from them, for the struggle here is not right versus left; it is right versus wrong." --Ronald Reagan on the Nicaraguan Contras.

Replace Contras with Al-Quida to get an idea of how 'gracious' Reagan was to the victims of the contras.

They go into villages. They haul out families. With the children forced to watch, they castrate the father. They peel the skin off his face. They put a grenade in his mouth, and pull the pin. With the children forced to watch, they gang-rape the mother, and slash her breasts off. And sometimes, for variety, they make the parents watch while they do these things to the children." -- John Stockwell, 13-year veteran of the CIA and former U.S. Marine Corps major, on the Nicaraguan Contras."

09 Jun 2004 | One of several Steves said...

Who took the photo?

It's an LA Times photo. Not sure of the photographer's name. I'd have to check the paper sitting at home from the other day.

I don't know why I'm some kind of bad person if I don't respect someone who I never met that just died. It's a single person, and so many others die every day, why should I respect them all? Then again, why shouldn't I respect them all? How can I respect people I had no interaction with?

I guess it all depends on how one defines respect. But, yes, I believe we owe other human beings a base level of respect, living or dead. It's as simple as treating people with basic dignity when you interact with them in life. In death, it's as simple as stopping for the funeral procession or allowing friends and family their time to grieve. Just like I'm not going to go run to someone's funeral who I hated in life and tell everyone what an asshole he was, I'm not going to stand up and shout about how awful a public figure was. In the case of presidents, there's plenty of time to assess their record and their impact on history. And just because there's the natural outpouring of "what a great person he was" immediately after death, it typically doesn't tend to stick real long. If you had listened to people right after Nixon died 10 years ago, you would have thought the man was one of the greatest presidents ever. That's not an opinion that stuck around more than a couple weeks after he died.

On respect; how respectful is it to be at a person's funeral shooting pictures? Shouldn't a wife be entitled to a bit of respect for mourning (as others have mentioned) without a bunch of photographers shooting pictures for the morning papers?

The Reagan family chose to have most everything public. Many families of public figures have public and private services, allowing the family their own private time to grieve.

09 Jun 2004 | but that's just me said...

I really like this ek person. :-)

09 Jun 2004 | dean said...

Jason,

You of all people (one who's vocation necessitates that you be intimately aware of the power of icons, images, symbols, text, and their corresponding inter-realtionship) should know that to label an image, any image, can never be a mere description of "the picture as the picture stands". Any communications 101 class, and innumerable phd thesis have expounded on the fact that basically, 'a picture is worth a thousand words'. So any attempt to try and distill an image, especially one as portent as this, to a few words without political, cultural, historical, personal bias, is impossible.

The French painter Rene Magritte eloquently illuminates this conundrum in his painting The Key of Dreams.

09 Jun 2004 | jimmeny said...

Why should you respect Reagan?

Because without him we'd have 60% taxes. We'd have a much weaker military. We probably wouldn't be the richest nation in the world and there would probably be a nuclear missile pointed at your town right now.

And that's just for starters.

09 Jun 2004 | Darrel said...

Because without him we'd have 60% taxes.

Says who?

We'd have a much weaker military.

He did spend a lot of money on our military.

We probably wouldn't be the richest nation in the world

He put us in massive debt.

and there would probably be a nuclear missile pointed at your town right now.

There are nuclear missles pointed at us. Except there is no longer stable government surrounding these missles.

09 Jun 2004 | One of several Steves said...

You of all people (one who's vocation necessitates that you be intimately aware of the power of icons, images, symbols, text, and their corresponding inter-realtionship) should know that to label an image, any image, can never be a mere description of "the picture as the picture stands".

It's tough to even figure out what is "the picture as the picture stands," without any labeling.

Case in point: Several people here have noted that Nancy is crying over the casket. That's not how I saw it from the start. I figured she was kissing the casket. Vastly different interpretations. And both equally valid, given the composition of the photo.

If it's tough to reach consensus even on a simply, seemingly objective point as that, it's no wonder that any other labels become that much more fuzzy and contentious.

09 Jun 2004 | maxcohen said...

According to CNN, Nancy is laying her cheek on the coffin.

09 Jun 2004 | dean said...

one of several Steves,

It's tough to even figure out what is "the picture as the picture stands," without any labeling.

Yeah, that's exactly it, the words, the text, the description, acts as the frame for the image, it is telling you what to see - and it is telling you what the author sees and how he sees it.

So to expect this label to be merely a description, void of any potential bias, is nigh impossible, and you could say, somewhat naive.

09 Jun 2004 | dean said...

To add, my personal interpretation of what Nancy and the priest (and the flag, because it is an active participant here) are doing is posing for the camera. They are both well aware that they are on stage, and that their performance is being marked for posterity. What they are doing is being good symbols/representations for the media to iconize.

09 Jun 2004 | Bob H. said...

*thud* *thud*

*sniff* *sniff*

What's that smell?

Oh, the dead horse.

09 Jun 2004 | Darrel said...

Wait...let me have a whack at it...

*thwack!*

ah...good ol' fun!

09 Jun 2004 | Carl said...

To add, my personal interpretation of what Nancy and the priest (and the flag, because it is an active participant here) are doing is posing for the camera. They are both well aware that they are on stage, and that their performance is being marked for posterity. What they are doing is being good symbols/representations for the media to iconize.

Wow, that's cold. Posing for the camera. No love, no personal moment. It's always a pose for someone else. You heartless human being. Unreal.

09 Jun 2004 | jimmeny said...

He put us in massive debt

The "massive debt he put us in" also put our private sector very profitable. And look! :0 Our society didn't crumble after all!

'Tis much better to have the government run a deficit than the private sector. We could live without the gov't. We couldn't live without commerce.

09 Jun 2004 | but that's just me said...

To add, my personal interpretation of what Nancy and the priest (and the flag, because it is an active participant here) are doing is posing for the camera. They are both well aware that they are on stage, and that their performance is being marked for posterity. What they are doing is being good symbols/representations for the media to iconize.

Wow, everything Republicans do is apparently centered around conspiracy and agenda...even when it's a woman who just went through hell taking care of her very ill husband and could likely give a crap about politics and the media right now. *A very sarcastic roll of the eyes* Amazing.

09 Jun 2004 | Arne Gleason said...

We could live without the gov't. We couldn't live without commerce.

WowI could have never have captured that popular but ill-conceived creed I see floating around so well (did you get that from the radio?).

Maybe youd like to write a little fairy-tale on how commerce can function without government (or may its just the republic forms that cause you such suffering). Apparently it would be a best seller.

10 Jun 2004 | Darrel said...

Wow, that's cold. Posing for the camera. No love, no personal moment. It's always a pose for someone else. You heartless human being. Unreal.

That's what a state funeral *is*. It's a very public, symbolic iconization of a former leader. That doesn't mean it's bad...but that is what it is. I'm sure nancy *is* grieving as well. It's not an either/or thing.

10 Jun 2004 | Jack said...

The words next to the picture describe the picture as the picture stands. There's no statement of politics, policy, or partisanship in those words -- they just describe the scene. The words you want to add have nothing to do with that picture.

I'll just echo jean zaque's above comment here.

I remain amazed by how so many people want to read between the lines. The words I added were not political thoughts or feelings about Reagan -- they were just words used to describe the scene. Why is this so hard to understand?

I really can't tell if you're being disingenuous, wilfully naive or having a joke at our expense here, jf! The choice of those words, whatever the intent, is undeniably political. I don't know your political views, obviously, but I just can't imagine a person who, say, wasn't particularly patriotic or religous selecting them as a 'descriptive' caption. (Maybe it's living in close proximity to Northern Ireland - makes it hard to see the words 'God' and 'Country' side by side without starting to wonder who's written them and why!)

10 Jun 2004 | JWM said...

It is pretty funny watching the lib's have to say nice things about the man that destroyed their hopes in Communism they were so close to the ultimate victory when he had to come along and ruin it all and now there are all these new annoying applicants to their country clubs.

So long and a fond farewell to the greatest President of the 20th century, you are missed.

10 Jun 2004 | Jonny Roader said...

"the man that destroyed their hopes in Communism"

Of course, that's not an exaggeration.

11 Jun 2004 | Hagbard said...

"So long and a fond farewell to the greatest President of the 20th century,..."

Were you referring to JFK, Truman, Eisenhower, FDR, Wilson, or Teddy Roosevelt?

11 Jun 2004 | Mart said...

I was a raving leftie in my mother country of old England when Ronnie was elected, and likewise Maggie Thatcher. The palpable leftie fear was that these were raving nuclear button pushing war mongers, and I truly felt that way myself. (Don't forget - we're talking Britland here. A common or garden American leftie would be regarded there as a rabid member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.) We truly believed his motive for election was to get near that button, lovingly stroke it, and on a whim, one day, to push it in a fit of spittle-flecked righteous rage.
Instead what happened was that he had a different agenda - smacks head - and it turns out he cared far more about eliminating the threat of nuclear annihilation than we did. He did a lot of other stuff - some of which you can legitimately condemn, but if you are olde enough I think you and I both remember that pervasive fear of mutually assured destruction, and hopefully agree that today we have the benefit of not having that cloud hang over us anymore. Give the guy some credit for that at least.

11 Jun 2004 | spk said...

it's too bad the innocents in el salvador and guatemala killed by the death squads supported by the reagan and those in his administration never had the chance to have such pretty photo ops when they met their maker ... one would assume things went better for them than they are for the gipper right now at judgement time.

11 Jun 2004 | Jonny Roader said...

"Give the guy some credit for that at least."

This I do agree with. He went into the Reykjavik meeting with Gorbachev with a plan to ditch *all* nuclear weapons. Unfortunately it was tied to his dreams of the 'Star Wars' defence system and so it never came to fruition. But history will judge the relationship between Gorbachev and Reagan in a positive light, indeed one of the key moments of the twentieth century.

The important word there, though, is 'relationship'. The right seem to want to claim it as Reagan's personal triumph, which is horseshit.

11 Jun 2004 | Richard said...

I don't think its disrespectful to make sure that every American is forced to re-think what Reagan did during his presidency and how history has "spun" it. He was a great model for Bush Jr. in that he set environmental laws back, messed up the economy (not just with taxes cut and then raised but also with an S & L scandal and crisis), Iran Contra... the list goes on.

All of this went on and he ate jelly beans and rode around his ranch smiling.

People called him "the great communicator" but it was so much spin.

We've got the same thing going on now and the problem is not Bush, it is us. We perpetuate spin and misinformation and pass on myths like the idea that Reagan was the greatest President of the 20th century. Says who?

Pictures have context, even without captions.

One can't look at a picture of Reagan, even of his casket, and not think about the damage he did to this country.

One can't look at a picture of, say, one of the now dead 9/11 hijackers and not connect them to the event that killed them (and many others). No, I'm not equating Reagan with a hijacker (although some might) but those who say we ough to respect the picture and the man without bringing up the context of what he did have a double standard, or just don't really know what he did, or, like what he did.

11 Jun 2004 | but that's just me said...

So if a friend showed you a picture of his dead grandfather in a casket and you knew that his grandfather had done something in his life that you didn't agree with, you couldn't help but bring it up to your friend? You couldn't just look at the picture and give your condolences for his loss?

I think the more appropriate title of this subject is "The Power of Politics."

11 Jun 2004 | Carl said...

messed up the economy

Do you have *any idea* how messed up the economy was before Reagan got in office (80% tax rates, inflation in the double digits, soaring interest rates, etc)? Reagan *saved* the US economy. Look at the recovery in the mid-late 80s compared to where it started in the early 80s.

11 Jun 2004 | Brad Hurley said...

I think part of the problem is that there's a natural tendency to dehumanize public figures, whether they be politicians, actors, musicians, or sports stars, because most of us only ever see them in the media rather than real life.

In 1990 I was at a conference where Margaret Thatcher spoke, and I remember feeling a wave of unexpected compassion come over me as I watched her totter, with obvious arthritic pain, up to the podium. Seeing her in person made her seem human to me; I think before that I assumed I would have been right there with Elvis Costello "stamping the dirt down" on her grave for all the terrible things she did, but seeing her standing there, looking like somebody's granny, made me see her as a flesh-and-blood human being rather than an icon.

Most of us only ever see the icon, not the person, so in a way it's understandable when people fail to feel compassion for a public figure when something bad happens to them or they die.

11 Jun 2004 | Mart said...

You Reagan hating lefties were on the wrong side of history, just like the Bush haters are today.
When I was younger, left leaning and full of piss and vinegar I had a lot of the same hate and rage, and today I'm ashamed of that. One day, with any luck you'll feel ashamed of this repulsive hatred and see it for what it is.

11 Jun 2004 | alexxie said...

i think some of you people are discusting... Regan was a great man and the people who dont like them should take a look at who they are voting for this november...and i pity you if you vote for kerry. I think Regan was a great influence on people of all ages. He is a president and i think he should be given respect by every person even if you did not like him or how he ran HIS goverment. And if you have something to say about the way were when he ran his goverment tough luck buddy cause he was the president and a great one i might add. so all you people who keep sayin bull about him juss keep it to your self...
Oh and i love the picture it really touched me..good job

11 Jun 2004 | jean zaque said...

alexxie, if you want to show the man some respect, learn how to spell his name.

11 Jun 2004 | Mark said...

It'll be very interesting to see how this conversation would twist when Clinton or Carter have their turn at a State funeral.

Hopefully SVN, the archive of this thread, and most of the contributors will still be around.

11 Jun 2004 | Richard said...

He is a president and i think he should be given respect by every person even if you did not like him or how he ran HIS goverment.

I beg to differ. The government does not belong to the president, that's a monarchy and if memory serves, we had a revolution to break away from that form of government.

Our government belongs to us and Reagan and every other President are public servants. They work for us. We pay them with our taxes.

I actually think Ronald Reagan respected that to some degree although I'm quite sure that G.W. Bush does not being a spoiled brat who's dad bailed him out of jail (DWI), got him into college, got him out of Vietnam (while both supported the war), gave him an oil company (whos stock he traded illegally), etc.

Reagan was a self-mad man and that I can admire without admiring his Presidency.

11 Jun 2004 | David Clark said...

In reality, he "died" well over 10 years ago. Get over it. Move on.

11 Jun 2004 | Birdman said...

It saddens me. How so many can find so much hate in a simple expression.

11 Jun 2004 | Anon said...

Everyone: Learn how to spell.

12 Jun 2004 | alexxie said...

get over the spelling situation.
ok so um..bush had a DWI big frickin DEAL and your to say youve never done anything horrible in your life. thats stupid...im 18 and ive been convicted of a crime chill out not everybodys perfect

12 Jun 2004 | Jose said...

I almost agree with everyone.
That's a stage because he was a prominent figure. That's not a republican thing. It's hard to keep things private at this level, so if Nancy Reagan is acting I believe there's no other choice and her feelings must be respected.
Regarding the photo, powerful and symbolic, but that's a powerful and symbolic ceremony.
The man: I have mixed feelings. I don't think he was a great man, but probably was in the right place at the right time.
I still dislike Bush.

12 Jun 2004 | Richard said...

ok so um..bush had a DWI big frickin DEAL and your to say youve never done anything horrible in your life.

Well, it is a big deal for three simple reasons (among others):

1. It was the very people who spent millions, maybe billions on investigating Bill Clinton's totally legal afair and impeaching him who said that they brought a higher standard to the office.

2. It's not a big deal that he had drinking and cocain problems. It is a big deal that he lied about it, just like it was not a big deal that Clinton had the afair(s) but it was a big deal that he lied about it.

3. I've done plenty of regretable stuff in my life, but I'm not running for nor am I President, and I don't hold myself up as a standard for others to emulate.

12 Jun 2004 | Jimmeny said...

I like Bush because of his past. Here is a guy, who in his younger years had no plans on becoming president. So he lived his life and learned from his mistakes.

I believe Bush Sr, Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry all had their eyes on the White House since college. To me, that is not an admirable attribute.

I don't like all the partisianship because I believe we should be able to choose one leader rather than a leader of a party. For me, that leader is Bush, and I'm quite satisfied with that choice about now.

13 Jun 2004 | Guan Yang said...

Imho Paul Volcker saved the US economy.

Guan

13 Jun 2004 | Neil said...

Whatever your opinion, there is no denying that the man had an impact, and obviously still does if this thread is any proof whatsoever.

The amount of semantic discourse on what was meant to be a simple observation is amazing; as the divide between the left and the right deepens, so does the divide in perception, it seems.

13 Jun 2004 | dmr said...

All the comments on "respect" and still no one addresses issues of why respect isn't earned, but instead given to anyone and everyone, just because. I didn't know Reagan, didn't vote for him, never met him, and didn't know his family, so why should I respect him?

Why is everyone demanding we respect Reagan (or anyone) when respect is earned?

14 Jun 2004 | LNJ said...

So, Ron Reagan dies and this thread turns into a political debate about GW, why the Asses are better/worse than the Elephants, and who had a DWI.

People...
SOMEONE THAT USED TO BE A WORLD LEADER DIED!
THE PHOTO IS ABOUT SAID INDIVIDUAL!
THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES!
GET OVER YOURSELVES!
YOU DON'T LIKE IT... VOTE!

Come on, stick to topic. The topic was the photo, not the man. Everyone that is here arguing for which side is better or who has the better politics... You people need to run for Congress; cuz lord knows you all are blind and hard-headed enough to miss the point and beat a dead horse.

LET IT GO!

14 Jun 2004 | Richard said...

... and that brings us back to: does the photo represent the man or an idea or what? And what about that caption? If not, what does it represent? If it does represent the man and what he did, then I'd say, given the incredibly revisionist history being spun about him that it's a simple connection between him and Bush as incredible spin is going on right now, and having lived through Reagan I can tell you that there is similarity.

Decontextualizing the photo is possible too but everyone views these things differently. Some view the American flag one way, some another. Why? Because one group, recently has taken the display of it to mean "I'm a good, patriotic American and if you're not with me, you're against me." I don't like that. There's a flag in the photo and even though Reagan never uttered those words, there's enough of a connection between him and Bush so that the spin, the flag, all give it a context.

And then there's that caption. Are we allowed to view that as part of the post? If so, I'd say we all have a right and I'd say a patriotic duty to question the warped reality some would spin on what this man did and stood for.

14 Jun 2004 | Colin said...

I am so sorry to add another whack to this horse, but I hadn't really read this opinion yet.

The photograph is aesthetically pleasing, the minimalist caption is meant to be poignant and powerful, though the word choice is a little arbitrary and broad. Pictures without captions are art, or are trying to be art. There are many other pictures which I am sure are not as visually striking, but which are probably better documents of the moment, in the James Agee/Walker Evans tradition, meaning aesthetic concerns take a back seat to the content and are accurate to the story. JF's reverence for the man and the moment is clear. The photograph JF chose (and there were certainly many to chose from, even on the 7th) is as reverent and respectful as one of Ron Jr. in the background picking his nose or adjusting himself while at the coffin would be irreverent and disrespectful. I don't know JF, so this reverence could have been long-standing, dormant, or a result of being swept up in the moment, so no matter my personal feelings about Reagan, it would be as wrong for me to say "Yeah, you said it brother, wasn't he fantastic," as it would be to say "I can't believe you like that son of a bitch." I am certainly more liberal than conservative, but death of a person who had the power to shape history and did, for the better in some ways, for the worse in others, is something to reflect on.

Reagan was obviously a very public and very political figure. And he chose his roles, they didn't choose him, so he must submit himself to scrutiny, praise, and criticism not of his own choosing. While I cringe reading so much and such acidic criticism in the comments, those feelings are no less valid than the same type of blind genuflection for those that loved or admired him that appears here and elsewhere. Like the hammer hitting the knee, both responses so close to his death are knee-jerk, and responses are likely to change over time, assuming people read the well-researched and well-written things historians write about him.

14 Jun 2004 | One of several Steves said...

All the comments on "respect" and still no one addresses issues of why respect isn't earned, but instead given to anyone and everyone, just because. I didn't know Reagan, didn't vote for him, never met him, and didn't know his family, so why should I respect him?

So, you treat everyone you encounter without respect, just because they haven't "earned" it yet? Because that's the logical conclusion of whta you've written here.

Respect is a given, until someone shows they aren't worthy of it.

It's *trust* that's earned, in my book. Every human being deserves respect until they prove otherwise.

Even presidents I didn't like, at all.

14 Jun 2004 | beto said...

Lesson from the picture and this thread:

If you don't want to be hated, maligned and dissed throughout your entire life and way beyond, never, ever, ever get into politics.

15 Jun 2004 | Mupa said...

beautiful touching sincere photograph but it needs no description especically a man and his wife. HOW ABOUT A HUSBAND AND A WIFE? People don't own each other.

15 Jun 2004 | Centurion said...

100! Respect that beotch!

21 Jun 2004 | Colin said...

From the Progressive Review:
http://prorev.com/reagan.htm