The Molotov Man

I read the Molotov Man article a while ago, but I never wrote a blog about it because I was blown away by to the point that I didn't know where to start or organize my thoughts, so I just figured I'd respond to it later. I have accepted the fact that I just need to let my thoughts flow. Seriously, this article is perhaps the most impactful article I have read all semester. Let me begin with Joy Garnett. I was sympathizing with her at the beginning of the article to tell you the truth. I didn't see anything wrong. She had taken an image and made it her own as well as all her supporters. Wasn't Joy helping Susan out in way by bringing attention to her photograph? Have not many images gone into the public domain after so many years? Perhaps, but what Joy had done was decontexualize the original image. That is the problem.

"Who owns the rightst to this man's struggle? The words continue to resonate in the room.

Meiselas was documenting the war in Nicaragua. In fact, she had documented a crucial moment in Nicaragua's history when this man is threw a molotov cocktail at the Somoza national guard garrison, "one of the last such garrisons remaining in Somoza's hands." The Sandinistas would soon after take power and govern Nicaragua for about ten years "and this image ended representing that moment for a long time to come". Meanwhile, this image of the Molotov man would reappear all over Nicaragua; on walls, on matchbox covers, on church pamphlets. Anyways, If I were Susan Meiselas, I would probably feel the same way about Pablo Arauz's context being stripped away. He had fought too hard to have his story turned into an image of an abstract riot. In the end I can't help but agree with Susan. We owe it to ourselves and our subjects to preserve the specificity of these images, so that everyone may known its history. Because those who don't know their history are doomed to repeat it as Santayana once said. Just because you can manipulate an image doesn't mean you have to. And Susan's photo didn't need to be manipulated. Yet, I can't help but say that certain images/footage might benefit the public by being manipulated, or parodied. Parody. Now thats something to take into account. What if I want to send a beneficial message to the public by manipulating an image of George W. Bush, which might cause people to see him in a new light. For the good of the public.
Anyways, I'm still thinking about this. You know, my found footage video on Fanta was a parody. Soda is bad for you in general, and the types of marketing for this product is insanely over-the-top (fanta can chasing people), so I decided to make fun of it. Besides, its a subject that I don't think you can compare to the seriousness of Pablo Arauz and the Sandinistas.
By the way, there is a rock/hip hop band called Molotov from Mexico that is extremely popular for there politically charges songs. I wouldn't be surprised if they were inspired by the Molotov man.