“It seems exploitive to look at harrowing photographs of other people’s pain in an art gallery,” Sontag tells us on Page 119. Is there a significant difference between viewing these images in an art gallery and in a boutique, or opposite a hair tonic advertisement in Life magazine? Consider all the spaces Sontag mentions that we use for viewing images of war. Which ones provide the reverential atmosphere such photographs require for viewing, and to what extent?

In Chapter 2, Sontag writes, “The photographer's intentions do not determine the meaning of a photograph, which will have its own career, blown by the whims and loyalties of the diverse communities that have use for it” (39). Are there war photographers whose work has survived the manipulation of the nation-states it has served? What accounts for our admiration of their photography? Is it the iconic imagery itself? Is it stories that were attached to it? Is it the political contexts in which it was shown, or the media platforms for its reception? Is it the course of life (or death) of the photographers? Trace some key works to make a case.