 |
| Released to public by family of Trayvon Martin |
For the better part of 2012 and 2013 the most
covered news story in this country was the shooting death of Florida teenager
Trayvon Martin by neighborhood watch coordinator George Zimmerman. You would
have to have just landed from another planet to have not heard this story or
the national conversation it sparked. This picture of Trayvon Martin wearing a
hoodie was at the center of much of that conversation.
As this is a blog about images and their place in
history, I won’t be discussing what may or may not have happened on that
February night in Sanford Florida or the subsequent aftermath that gripped the
nation. My point with this is to talk about this image and its place in history.
The question is; do public images related to
criminal cases, especially high profile ones, affect public opinion? It is yet another tale of how the symbolism
we assigned to this single image became larger the person depicted in it. How a
picture does became a metaphor for each side of this controversial dialogue? How
does an image like this become so iconic? Did the image drive the drive the conversation
of race and guns or simply add to one already there? All significant questions
I think.
After the February 2012 shooting a number of images
of Trayvon Martin were released to the public, including this one. I have not
been able to trace the exact origin of the image. It is only listed as being
owned and provided by the Martin family. My best guess is that it is a
self-portrait. The image immediately became central to the conversation mainly
because the teen was wearing a hoodie at the time he was shot, as he is in the
photo. It suddenly became source of controversy and protest as the image made
its way across the landscape. I have noticed that in very high profile cases
like these, the images the media choses to display about victims or suspects are
significant. There is little doubt that images will often sway public opinion
on way or another. The question then becomes does the media select images for a
story like this simply at random to illustrate their story with no thought as
to their impact, or is there a conscious effort to promote an agenda and a the
photo is selected that will support that agenda? These images can become a reflection of how society
sees the different individuals. The
other side of this coin was the controversy of how Zimmerman was portrayed by
the media in the photos they chose to depict him.
There is little doubt images render a mental picture
for us. We are such visual creatures. If
you Google OJ Simpson for example, almost every image you will see is connected
to some kind of criminal activity. These include his 1995 murder trial or his
2007 robbery conviction. The most famous or infamous of them being the one Time
magazine put on its June 1994 cover. One
needs to deliberately search to find images that reflect his life before 1994. I
don’t think this is a measured attempt at a conspiracy, but it does add to our
perception as to the kind of man we now believe Simpson is.
Think back to every celebrity who has run afoul of
the law in the past twenty or so years. When these stories break how are the
pictures we are shown by are the media to illustrate the story are glamorous
publicity shots we normally associate with the celebrity? Or are they mug shots
or shots of them ducking the paparazzi while coming to or from a jail or courthouse.
Not that I feel a great deal of sympathy for these people. But I am forced to ask when the general public sees a news story about someone suspected of a criminal activity, do we also expect a picture appropriate to the situation and that is what we are provided. Or is our desire created be the media’s intention to give us images that better sell their stories? Is it the chicken or the egg?
It is difficult to tell at what point what Martin
was wearing became significant. However, on March 23rd 2012, media
personality, Geraldo Rivera became one of the first to comment that Martin was
partially to blame for his own death because hoodies are so closely related to
crime and the so-called “Gangsta” culture. Not only did Rivera receive a large
amount of criticism for his comments, but it helped spark a counter argument if
you will, when thousands of citizens attended rallies wearing hoodies in
protest of the shooting. Celebrities began to Tweet pictures of themselves
wearing hoodies. Many of these pictures were deliberately posed to be similar
to the picture of Martin. One can even go to Amazon and order a hoodie with
this photo imprinted on it. The Martin family has trademarked his name and
likeness. The point the protesters was trying to make was that clothing is no justification
for shooting a person
This image is significant for all of these reasons. Photos
like these make us ask questions not only about the world around us, but how do
we see that world.
Thank you for posting your perspective on this. I like to hear others opinions about this topic.
ReplyDeleteWhile the owners of certain news organizations likely have their own agenda, clearly it doesn't always work. Despite the "attempts" (or lack thereof) to present Trayvon Martin as an innocent, Zimmerman was acquitted. The idea that OJ Simpson being difficult to find pre-murder trial isn't some grand conspiracy; I think it's just the fact that the last things he was known for are criminal activities. It's human to associate someone's image with the last thing that they're known for. Perhaps Trayvon's image was trademarked by his family out of fear that someone else might try to. I know I wouldn't want my deceased child's likeness or name to be owned by some stranger or corporation.
ReplyDeleteThe Trayvon Martin case has been something of much interest to me since the event happened, due to the fact that he was essentially killed due to the fact the he looked of a certain profile. I tend to take interest in cases like this due to the fact that I often get profiled for looking "alternative" or "goth", looking forward to reading this post and future posts from you.
ReplyDelete