According to the The New York Times the image above is a
sign posted at Camp Nama in Iraq where some "detainees were used as paintball targets."
Beyond the political and human rights issues associated with such a message, I find myself haunted by the possible significations found in the relationship between the words and the abstract forms used in the sign.
The phrase "no blood, no foul" is commonly heard on basketball courts. Now there is a new context to consider.Drawing on visual semiotics as a theory for decoding how images convey meaning there are some interesting visual cues at work here. In my mind, there is a strong gestalt between the words and the figures.
There is the simplicity of the visual construction here -- the effective use of negative space and the relative distances of the words sliding up and down the sides of the triangle -- that seem to suggest a high level of formal and declarative order.
According to New York Times writers by Eric Schmitt and Carolyn Marshall, the sign is part of a larger message at Task Force 6-26's top-secret detention facility.
"Placards posted by soldiers at the detention area advised, "NO BLOOD, NO FOUL." The slogan, as one Defense Department official explained, reflected an adage adopted by Task Force 6-26: 'If you don't make them bleed, they can't prosecute for it.'"
What are the iconic, indexical, and symbolic levels of meaning conveyed by such visual messages? Do such messages index or point toward the normalization of attitudes dealing with the treatment of prisoners in Iraq? In other words, does a sign like this foment the abuse of prisoners by establishing and maintaining what appears to me to an increasingly game-like culture of combat associated with military actions?
It is this last question that intrigues me most here. The transference of first person shooter computer games to military action -- in combat and in play seems to be in evidence here. Paintball moves the virtual reality of the computer shooter games into the real world. By extension, there appears to be a connection between fantasy games and warfare.
A simple analysis of the geometry of the dominant figures in the frame -- the circle within a black triangle -- suggest a sort of reciprocity. Maybe I am over-reaching a bit, but reciprocity from a social psychological perspective refers to in-kind negative and positive responses.
According to Wikipedia:
In social psychology, reciprocity refers to in-kind positive or negative responses of individuals towards the actions of others. Thus positively interpreted actions elicit positive responses and vice versa.... Reciprocal actions are important to social psychology as they can help explain the maintenance of social norms. If a sufficient proportion of the population interprets the breaking a social norm by another as a hostile action and if these people are willing to take (potentially costly) action to punish the rule-breaker then this can maintain the norm in the absence of formal sanctions.
In this case, I am visually interpreting the geometric forms of the circle within the black triangular field as constituting a reciprocal relationship -- one establishing and maintaining a social norm endemic in a "barracks culture." A denotative or literal reading may lead a viewer to see the circle as a paintball. However, deeper readings may produce more subtle deeply psychological connotative interpretations.