I was interested in your take on the cover, as well as the inside and multimedia images, of this latest NYT Mag feature.
On this fourth anniversary of the Iraq campaign, my sense is that public tolerance — as conveyed through the tone and stance of widely-circulated and current political visuals — has reached a tipping point. An image like this is an example of the blowback, framing the war/occupation — both figuratively as well as literally — as an assault on women.
I leave it to you to put words to image, including the way trust and service is narrated through stage, act and form of dress.
Majikthise has an interesting analysis of the NYT visuals.
Check out her take concerning the sexualized nature of the photographs, especially the “inside lead” image of Suzanne Swift posing on the beach. The discussion thread is also interesting, especially the observation that these women — particularly in the multimedia offering — are framed in exceedingly domestic, as opposed to “soldiering” situations.
Looking further, my question is, were these soldiers taken advantage of (once again) given the decision to employ an art photographer with a reputation for erotic portraits?
(caption 1: Keri Christensen, a former Wisconsin Army National Guardswoman who has post-traumatic stress disorder. “This was my career,” she says, “and they stole it from me.” caption 2: Suzanne Swift. Just before she was to leave for her second tour in Iraq, she told her mother: “I can’t do this. I can’t go back there.” caption 3: Amorita Randall. “Saying something was looked down upon,” says the naval construction worker who served in Iraq in 2004 and says she was raped.image: Katy Grannan for The New York Times. March 18, 2006. NYT Magazine. nytimes.com)