Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Dave (Isle of Skye) on August 01, 2014, 07:45:21 am
-
(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1468782.1380237448!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/gallery_1200/pakistan-1984.jpg)
This does not mean that I don’t think this image is an amazing image, I do and it is, it is just that for me, it has now become like one of those grating Christmas songs from the 80’s, that I seem to have to endure each and every year, to the point where ramming the pointed end of sharpened pencils into my ears seems like a well thought out and reasonable solution. This image of the Afghan Girl does that for me now and in spades, which I can only assume is because I have seen it just too many times, on the net and in magazines and on TV and billboards etc, to the point where if I never ever see this image again for the rest of my life, I could and would die a happy man.
Here is an interview with Steve discussing his ‘Afghan Girl’ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaKaJhsdndo) photograph, the interview proper starts around 16 minutes into the video.
I apologise profusely Steve if you happen to read this, because I am sure you did not create this amazing image just to make my eyeballs melt and who knows, in maybe a hundred years or so, this image will be justifiably classified in the same league of artistic endeavour as the Mona Lisa, but for now and for me, Aaarrrggghhh! Pleeeease make it stop!!!! :o
Dave
-
Famous photographs you have grown really tired of seeing.
Your avatar Dave. ;) :)
-
Dave
I take my hat off to you for having the courage to suggest eating steak from the sacred cows.
For what ever reason, I have not been bombarded with this particular image - so don't have the image fatigue you are having.
I do however tire of the chocolate box landscapes which are just so pretty and sweet I almost feel sick. These images are usually technically excellent and are loved by many - however somehow they often just irk me for some reason.
I must give that some further reflection.
Mal
-
Famous photographs you have grown really tired of seeing.
Your avatar Dave. ;) :)
Message received and understood, I will see if I can't dig out some other mug shot, I suppose this one is a few years old now :)
Dave
I take my hat off to you for having the courage to suggest eating steak from the sacred cows.
For what ever reason, I have not been bombarded with this particular image - so don't have the image fatigue you are having.
I do however tire of the chocolate box landscapes which are just so pretty and sweet I almost feel sick. These images are usually technically excellent and are loved by many - however somehow they often just irk me for some reason.
I must give that some further reflection.
Mal
Yes Mal I know what you mean.
Perhaps it is her haunting staring eyes that I find unsettling or something.
Dave
-
I know what you mean, Dave. It's a great picture, but it's been pushed a bit too often and too hard. I sometimes give a lecture on photographers in which I use this picture to illustrate a point. I'll ask my audience: "What is it that makes this picture so striking?" Almost always the answer comes back: "The girl's green eyes." So then I pop up a version of the picture with brown eyes. It's equally effective. Finally, I pop up a B&W version, which, it turns out, is most effective of all. Eventually we get into a discussion about why the picture's so effective with or without green eyes. It's an interesting question.
-
I know what you mean, Dave. It's a great picture, but it's been pushed a bit too often and too hard. I sometimes give a lecture on photographers in which I use this picture to illustrate a point. I'll ask my audience: "What is it that makes this picture so striking?" Almost always the answer comes back: "The girl's green eyes." So then I pop up a version of the picture with brown eyes. It's equally effective. Finally, I pop up a B&W version, which, it turns out, is most effective of all. Eventually we get into a discussion about why the picture's so effective with or without green eyes. It's an interesting question.
Thank goodness someone agrees with me to some extent and as I said above, it is a really stunning image, so perhaps it's just me.
Dave
-
I was in a remote part of Thailand about 15 years ago, and in the local market, there were several vendors selling hand-painted copies of that image. There were varying degrees of skill involved in their execution, of course. I decided right then and there that I'd had enough.
Don't get me wrong; I think it's a spectacular photo. Nothing about what others have done with/to the work diminishes the original in any way. I just don't want to see it a lot more.
I could mention many others too.
-
…for me, it has now become like one of those grating Christmas songs from the 80’s, that I seem to have to endure each and every year, to the point where ramming the pointed end of sharpened pencils into my ears seems like a well thought out and reasonable solution. This image of the Afghan Girl does that for me now and in spades, which I can only assume is because I have seen it just too many times…
You need a visit back to the north of England, where there'll be no shortage of people ready to tell you to get over yourself.
-
None I can think of.
-
Hi,
Lot of good points…
In my view it is a great picture, with a story to tell. Interestingly enough, the story told has changed, at least a bit, now that we know that the young lady has survived and is still around.
As a side note, would we pay royalty to her she would be a rich woman…
Best regards
Erik
I know what you mean, Dave. It's a great picture, but it's been pushed a bit too often and too hard. I sometimes give a lecture on photographers in which I use this picture to illustrate a point. I'll ask my audience: "What is it that makes this picture so striking?" Almost always the answer comes back: "The girl's green eyes." So then I pop up a version of the picture with brown eyes. It's equally effective. Finally, I pop up a B&W version, which, it turns out, is most effective of all. Eventually we get into a discussion about why the picture's so effective with or without green eyes. It's an interesting question.
-
In my view it is a great picture, with a story to tell. Interestingly enough, the story told has changed, at least a bit, now that we know that the young lady has survived and is still around.
I've met Steve...he's a really good photographer. It's not his fault that National Geo has leveraged and exploited his image. That's the nature of being a National Geo photographer. In essence, National Geo "owns" the image...the further story of Steve going back into Afghanistan and finding the original girl who turned into a woman was very interesting to me at least. That second shot means a lot to Steve.
Sorry, but this is much ado about nothing...it's an iconic shot that at the time was pretty interesting to the extent that National Geo jumped on and pushed out there. None of the exploitation was Steve's fault. You should see the contract he was working under...
So here' an idea...when you see the image, quit looking. It's not on Steve but on you that you've seen it too much. Quit looking!
-
So here' an idea...when you see the image, quit looking. It's not on Steve but on you that you've seen it too much. Quit looking!
Good points Jeff and believe me I have tried to avoid seeing it.
It reminds in a way of the story I heard, although I don’t know if it is true, about Paul McCartney from a few years back, who tried to use his copyright of the song ‘The Long and Winding Road’ in an attempt to stop people crucifying it with their tuneless karaoke versions, he argued that we were all becoming so used to only hearing the strangled cat version backed by electronic muzak, that it was undermining sales of all his work, as we all grew so tired of hearing it. So a classic piece of music ruined by overexposure and derivation. So I suppose all I am saying is that the same thing has happened to Steve’s picture - for me at least, where NG has used and leveraged this image so much and for so long and with so many derivative versions (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=afghan+girl&client=firefox-a&hs=0XC&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&channel=sb&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=fazcU-2JOYPX7Abr4ICICQ&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=677) of it all over the place, to the point of viewer fatigue.
Not his fault in any way and as I keep saying, it is a stunning image.
Dave
-
Hi,
Yes, I really appreciate that! I also got the impression that Steve got her a sewing machine, so she can do some work for living.
Best regards
Erik
...the further story of Steve going back into Afghanistan and finding the original girl who turned into a woman was very interesting to me at least. That second shot means a lot to Steve.
-
…believe me I have tried to avoid seeing it.
How do you think your "suffering" from repeatedly seeing this picture compares to what the girl shown in the picture had already experienced when the photograph was taken?
Once upon a time, a ubiquitous image -- Guerrillero Heroico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerrillero_Heroico)
-
It's a perfectly composed photo a beautiful but frightened young girl with eyes that appear non-human. How could you not keep admiring it?
-
Exactly, Alan. I agree it's been pushed too hard, but there's a reason for that. As Jeff points out, it's an iconic shot. To me, the interesting question is why is it iconic? Clearly, it's iconic because it's powerful. But why is it so powerful? When you say the girl's frightened you're making an assumption. We know enough about the picture, outside of the picture, to know she was uprooted and in a refugee camp. We also know that Steve didn't see this as an iconic picture when he made the shot. According to the NGM magazine story he said: "I didn’t think the photograph of the girl would be different from anything else I shot that day." We don't really know much more than that -- outside the picture
But inside the picture we know something that moves us deeply. It's not just what you call the non-human eyes, Alan, and it's not the composition or the light. What's fascinating to me is to convert the picture to B&W so you get away from the compositional enhancement produced by the complementary colors. B&W removes the color as a distraction, and in my own opinion increases the power of the picture.
I'm not going to beat the thing to death. It's a discussion you need to have verbally because there's too much to be said to try to write it all in a forum thread. But the bottom line is that what you know about this picture you know only in the picture. No outside information can enhance or detract from the transcendental experience you get from it. It's like a great piece of music or a great poem. What you know about them you know only in them. You can rattle your head all you want about what's there, but nothing you say in words can begin to explain what it is that moves you in a great work of art.
I'd suggest that what's happening to Dave and others who are so "tired" of seeing this picture is that the power of the picture keeps beating them over the head. That can be tiring.
-
RSL: My post didn't say anything about color. My comments would be the same and would work with a monochrome of the shot. Her eyes are other worldly with or without color.
Also, her expression does appear to be apprehensive to me, if not frightened. Her eyes are slightly opened adding to this effect. Her face is dirty and her clothes are torn and she's disheveled. Not someone who has their act together but rather appearing stressed.
-
Oh, her head is dropped a little, also adding to the appearance of fear and apprehension.
-
I'd suggest that what's happening to Dave and others who are so "tired" of seeing this picture is that the power of the picture keeps beating them over the head. That can be tiring.
Hallelujah!!!!!!
Russ, I think you have completely and utterly hit the nail right bang in the centre of the head for me and is probably the reason why I don't want to look at it any more. The image is just so powerful and so attention consuming, it has become painful.
Thank you Russ ;)
Dave
-
Good points Jeff and believe me I have tried to avoid seeing it.
It reminds in a way of the story I heard, although I don’t know if it is true, about Paul McCartney from a few years back, who tried to use his copyright of the song ‘The Long and Winding Road’ in an attempt to stop people crucifying it with their tuneless karaoke versions, he argued that we were all becoming so used to only hearing the strangled cat version backed by electronic muzak, that it was undermining sales of all his work, as we all grew so tired of hearing it. So a classic piece of music ruined by overexposure and derivation. So I suppose all I am saying is that the same thing has happened to Steve’s picture - for me at least, where NG has used and leveraged this image so much and for so long and with so many derivative versions (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=afghan+girl&client=firefox-a&hs=0XC&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&channel=sb&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=fazcU-2JOYPX7Abr4ICICQ&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=677) of it all over the place, to the point of viewer fatigue.
Not his fault in any way and as I keep saying, it is a stunning image.
The karaoke versions can't be much worse than McCartney's vocal on the original.
Dave
-
The odd thing with the eyes is that her pupils are constricted, suggesting a lot of light falling on her, yet her eyes are wide open - I'd say that we don't often see the two together. Those constricted pupils also suggest that she's not afraid; fear stimulates a fight/flight/freeze response, and floods the body with adrenaline, which causes pupils to dilate. She's also looking directly at the viewer. This suggests interest, but an accompaniment to interest is dilated pupils (again), and of course her's are constricted. I'd say there is enough confusion in the non-verbal communication here to cause the viewer a certain amount of unease.
That's this psychologist's tuppence worth. YMMV
-
I know what you mean, Dave. It's a great picture, but it's been pushed a bit too often and too hard. I sometimes give a lecture on photographers in which I use this picture to illustrate a point. I'll ask my audience: "What is it that makes this picture so striking?" Almost always the answer comes back: "The girl's green eyes." So then I pop up a version of the picture with brown eyes. It's equally effective. Finally, I pop up a B&W version, which, it turns out, is most effective of all. Eventually we get into a discussion about why the picture's so effective with or without green eyes. It's an interesting question.
I agree both that the picture is excellent and that it is seen too often. Why is it so striking? That's easy in my opinion - the girl is incredibly beautiful and that combined with being dressed in ragged clothing and living a life that makes her very existence seem in jeopardy is enough to strike home to any viewer. The eyes and expression - slightly fearful and yet fiercely determined add to the image. Great picture.
Jim
-
Personally I never get tired of seeing beautiful and powerful photos, like the one being discussed here. This photo embodies the Afghan war and the whole country at the time, and carries on doing that after 3 decades. It's an icon, and as all icons, it was not chosen as such by its creator.
It comes from an era where photographers shot film, and connectivity and social networking on the www were non-existent.
What I do get tired of is being bombarded by countless and mindless news streams with poor quality imaging and poor quality editing and content. I get tired, because I have to spend time filtering out all the rubbish and setting up filters to block such content.
-
I think you know that a photograph is really an icon when people start painting it.
You're going to hate me but..
(http://i.imgur.com/pN6Kyksl.jpg)
This was an original work hanging in a friend's house in Communitat Valenciana. I'd also grown tired of the original photograph, I don't know how anyone couldn't over time with such massive exposure.
But seeing it in a different format, well it's just something you want to capture, even if it's not original. It definitely has some serious pulling power.
Plus I liked the idea of 'a portrait of a portrait of a portrait' :)
Cool painting. Here's a close-up in colour:
(http://i.imgur.com/oLiU5Wol.jpg)
-
For me, it's the "thousand-yard stare", sometimes seen in photos of combat troops. Eyes that have seen too much.
Regards,
Dale
-
I know what you mean, Dave. It's a great picture, but it's been pushed a bit too often and too hard. I sometimes give a lecture on photographers in which I use this picture to illustrate a point. I'll ask my audience: "What is it that makes this picture so striking?" Almost always the answer comes back: "The girl's green eyes." So then I pop up a version of the picture with brown eyes. It's equally effective. Finally, I pop up a B&W version, which, it turns out, is most effective of all. Eventually we get into a discussion about why the picture's so effective with or without green eyes. It's an interesting question.
I hate to think that you and I agree so totally on something!
-
Once upon a time, a ubiquitous image -- Guerrillero Heroico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerrillero_Heroico)
Still is... I see that image on a thousand t-shirts here in Russia where Che is still considered a hero, not only among so-called counter-culture teens, and on the walls of dozen or more restaurants, not to mention the souvenir cups and posters ad nauseum.
-
Cool painting. Here's a close-up in colour:
(http://i.imgur.com/oLiU5Wol.jpg)
I'm sorry, but this is anything but cool. In fact, I find it absolutely disgusting!
-
It's a perfectly composed photo a beautiful but frightened young girl with eyes that appear non-human. How could you not keep admiring it?
-
(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1468782.1380237448!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/gallery_1200/pakistan-1984.jpg)
Since I first saw this image so many years ago, I have always wondered how the photographer just happened to find a tent and an undergarment that so exactly matched the girl's eyes.
-
Each to their own ripgriffith :)
Good thing art is subjective ;)
Interesting comment though about the background/clothing. I wouldn't dare suggest it was a staged photo a la 'Drop the Dead Donkey' (remember the photographer in that? Classic!), but those colours do match pretty nicely. Maybe that's what makes it so striking. Wouldn't be such a compelling image if the background was pink and the undergarment was orange.
-
I'm tired of seeing the old, grainy B&W of the guy in the dark suit and hat about to step into the huge puddle.
-
On the other hand....
-
Those who are tired of seeing iconic photographs are tired of life (or seeing). Every time they are published they are seen by thousands of people for the first time. This is why people need to die eventually - leave the world to those who can see through fresh eyes. I bet if the ancients were still alive they would be saying - "not that damned statue of David again", or "why don't they throw the Mona Lisa on the bonfire - Ive been seeing it for hundreds of years......"
To stop seeing the same thing over again you need to shut your eyes, and that's what lots of old people do eventually. Not all, thank goodness.
Jim
-
Those who are sanctimonious and have no sense of humor are...tiresome. ::)
Did anyone suggest that anything should be no longer published, or thrown on the bonfire (even the metaphorical bonfire)?
Because of my experiences, I'm hungry to move on to new images, and new art and artists, which reflects not at all on the value of the Mona Lisa or anything else. These days I'm quite taken by 19th century and early 20th century Mexican photographers, vs staring at Paul Strand and HCB over and over again....except of course for Martine's legs. To me, there's no sexier photograph that's ever been taken.
-
Those who are sanctimonious and have no sense of humor are...tiresome.
What he said... +1
-
Those who are tired of seeing iconic photographs are tired of life (or seeing). Every time they are published they are seen by thousands of people for the first time. This is why people need to die eventually - leave the world to those who can see through fresh eyes. I bet if the ancients were still alive they would be saying - "not that damned statue of David again", or "why don't they throw the Mona Lisa on the bonfire - Ive been seeing it for hundreds of years......"
To stop seeing the same thing over again you need to shut your eyes, and that's what lots of old people do eventually. Not all, thank goodness.
Jim
Sanctimonious and lacking sense of humour are two terms that have never been applied to me before (to my knowledge) - but maybe that comes with getting past 50 and being a grandfather!
My point was a general one and responding to the title of the thread. And seeing as a great many of my friends and neighbours are in their 70's and 80's I think well-observed. We see lots of responses to questions on these forums too, along the lines of "we have discussed this before blah, blah, blah........" The point being that new people are being born and growing up who are coming to these pictures and concepts for the first time. I thought my post was relevant and with the quip about Mona Lisa and bonfire showed a little humour too. ???
Jim
-
Sanctimonious and lacking sense of humour are two terms that have never been applied to me before (to my knowledge) - but maybe that comes with getting past 50 and being a grandfather!
Trust me, you will absolutely need your sense of humor with grandchildren (even more, in my case, with great-grandchildren). However, sanctimonious won't play, either with them or on this forum.
-
Sanctimonious and lacking sense of humour are two terms that have never been applied to me before (to my knowledge) - but maybe that comes with getting past 50 and being a grandfather!
My point was a general one and responding to the title of the thread. And seeing as a great many of my friends and neighbours are in their 70's and 80's I think well-observed. We see lots of responses to questions on these forums too, along the lines of "we have discussed this before blah, blah, blah........" The point being that new people are being born and growing up who are coming to these pictures and concepts for the first time. I thought my post was relevant and with the quip about Mona Lisa and bonfire showed a little humour too. ???
Jim
Jim,
There's an aspect of what you've said that I do indeed agree with completely, and that's the tendency for cynicism and negativity to creep into the aging psyche. I watched my parents become increasingly critical and negative...and isolated. I'm 54, and my first grandson just now 3 months. I'm going to work very hard to see the world through his eyes. I'll show him the masters, and I hope he helps me see them anew.
-
There's a simple solution for those who are tired of seeing iconic pictures: Stop looking. I'd also suggest that if you're tired of iconic pictures and actually do stop looking you'll also stop looking when you're out with a camera. As HCB famously said, "Photographing is nothing. Looking is everything."
-
There's a simple solution for those who are tired of seeing iconic pictures: Stop looking. I'd also suggest that if you're tired of iconic pictures and actually do stop looking you'll also stop looking when you're out with a camera. As HCB famously said, "Photographing is nothing. Looking is everything."
The possibility is, particularly among newer photographers, that the more inundated they are by particular images, the more it may influence their personal vision (the operative word here being "inundated"). That said, I introduce my beginning students to the best of the "iconic" photographs (of course I know that is redundant, but it makes my point), so that they may experience what I, at least, consider to be the best of the best... equal parts of Haas and Henri, Weston and Winogrand. Best of the best is exactly why these photographs have become iconic. Almost without exception they are compositional masterpieces (I may need to exclude Winogrand from that comment, but even his works have something to teach).
Just barely tangential: So far as I know, no image in photography begins to approach the level of inundation I experienced on my first visit to Vienna, where the streets are literally paved with Klimt's "The Kiss"... posters, flags, imitation paintings, glasses, cups, saucers, complete dish sets, t-shirts, tablecloths, dresses, neckties, _______ (just fill in the blank and they have done it), and it is almost impossible to escape.
-
They thought it amusing to attack you; it isn't about your post, it's all about them.
Is there no end to your wisdom and insight, Isaac?
-
The possibility is, particularly among newer photographers, that the more inundated they are by particular images, the more it may influence their personal vision (the operative word here being "inundated"). That said, I introduce my beginning students to the best of the "iconic" photographs (of course I know that is redundant, but it makes my point), so that they may experience what I, at least, consider to be the best of the best... equal parts of Haas and Henri, Weston and Winogrand. Best of the best is exactly why these photographs have become iconic. Almost without exception they are compositional masterpieces (I may need to exclude Winogrand from that comment, but even his works have something to teach).
Just barely tangential: So far as I know, no image in photography begins to approach the level of inundation I experienced on my first visit to Vienna, where the streets are literally paved with Klimt's "The Kiss"... posters, flags, imitation paintings, glasses, cups, saucers, complete dish sets, t-shirts, tablecloths, dresses, neckties, _______ (just fill in the blank and they have done it), and it is almost impossible to escape.
Rip - you are on a hiding to nothing there I fear. You cannot control what newer photographers see. Photographers for as long as photography has been around have been influenced by what has gone before (as I can see you are aware). And I agree that the important thing is to be exposed to some of the best as well as just the most prolific. The better photographers will eventually develop their own way of seeing, even if it is influenced by what they have seen before. My own method as far as possible is Look, See, Photograph. The looking and seeing part is more personal to me now, but the photographing is undoubtably influenced heavily by what I have seen before. I suppose even the looking and seeing is part-influenced by what I have enjoyed looking at done by others, but I try hard to see anew.
Perhaps my best reply to this thread then would be to accept that there are some pictures I personally have seen enough of, but accept that they need to be seen often to spark the imagination of an endless new wave of people.
Jim
-
They thought it amusing to attack you; it isn't about your post, it's all about them.
Is there no end to your wisdom and insight, Isaac?
Quod erat demonstrandum.
-
Don't drink the cool-aid of the ideology spoon-fed to you since your birth. Ask you yourselves this question instead: why did the US corporate media believe this particular image at the time fit the propaganda much better and promote it?
"We feel free because we lack the very language to articulate our unfreedom." — Slavoj Žižek
-
Don't drink the cool-aid of the ideology spoon-fed to you since your birth. Ask you yourselves this question instead: why did the US corporate media believe this particular image at the time fit the propaganda much better and promote it?
"We feel free because we lack the very language to articulate our unfreedom." — Slavoj Žižek
There probably is something in what you say. I am always wary of the powerful effect of images used to support government foreign policy here in the UK. A bit like the recent huge emphasis on our Remembrance Day (end of WW1). It is really about remembering those that died in the great war - but it feels to me like the government use it to show solidarity with our armed forces now. Fair enough you might say - but they have been led into the quagmire that is Afganhistan and Iraq and we are expected to show unstinting support for these ventures because of the suffering of the soldiers. We talk about the 'heroes' and it eases the suffering of the soldiers and their relatives of those who are killed or maimed (somewhat).
Jim
-
There probably is something in what you say. I am always wary of the powerful effect of images used to support government foreign policy here in the UK. A bit like the recent huge emphasis on our Remembrance Day (end of WW1). It is really about remembering those that died in the great war - but it feels to me like the government use it to show solidarity with our armed forces now. Fair enough you might say - but they have been led into the quagmire that is Afganhistan and Iraq and we are expected to show unstinting support for these ventures because of the suffering of the soldiers. We talk about the 'heroes' and it eases the suffering of the soldiers and their relatives of those who are killed or maimed (somewhat).
Jim
+1
-
… and we are expected to show unstinting support for these ventures because of the suffering of the soldiers.
Support for their service; and opposition or support for the ventures as-you-wish.
-
A bit like the recent huge emphasis on our Remembrance Day (end of WW1). It is really about remembering those that died in the great war - but it feels to me like the government use it to show solidarity with our armed forces now. Fair enough you might say - but they have been led into the quagmire that is Afganhistan and Iraq and we are expected to show unstinting support for these ventures because of the suffering of the soldiers. We talk about the 'heroes' and it eases the suffering of the soldiers and their relatives of those who are killed or maimed (somewhat).
Jim
Wonderfully said, Jim. I want to share a quote from the playwright, Paddy Chayefsky, from his film The Americanization of Emily :
"It's not war that's insane, you see. It's the morality of it. It's not greed or ambition that makes wars. It's goodness. Wars are always fought for the best of reasons: for liberation or manifest destiny - always against tyranny and always in the interest of humanity. So far this war, we've managed to butcher some 10,000,000 humans in the interest of humanity. Next war, it seems we'll have to destroy all of man in order to preserve his damn dignity. It's not war that's unnatural to us. It's virtue. As long as valor remains a virtue, we shall have soldiers....
We shall never end wars... by blaming it on ministers and generals or warmongering imperialists or all the other banal bogeys. It's the rest of us who build statues to those generals and name boulevards after those ministers. The rest of us who make heroes of our dead and shrines of our battlefields. We wear our widow's weeds like nuns, and perpetuate war by exalting its sacrifices."
-
War has always been the ultimate wealth transfer vehicle that is designed to enrich the ruling elite who own the means of production. Forget politicians because they are just agents. That explains why wars, such as Vietnam War, was designed to drag on for years without any victory in sight. War is money and follow the money you can get your questions answered.