Image 1
This is the originally cropped image of Che Guevara. It was found on a website that was called “Photos that changed the world”. The blog allowed for an open exchange of comments on the figure of Che Guevara with people taking different perspectives of the man and of the photo. There were some people who joked about how they have seen the pose of che as stealing it from another famous person (and there were those that thought he was from a band). This cropped version of Che was probably the first ever published in the media. The website states it wasn’t until a few years after when the photo was taken (1960) was it shown to the public. What is more important: the legend or the man? Does the photo inspire people to freely express their opinion about him?
Image 2
This was found at a allposters.com and is currently on sell for $15.19 CDN at 53 x 157cm and $9.34 CDN at 61 x 91cm. Obviously, the poster has changed somewhat since the original – the crop is the same but it has been coloured with a red tint. Does this poster suggest that anyone can show their rebellious nature by purchasing a poster? Why has it been colourized red? Could it be the colour of communism, is there relationship implied.
Image 3
The image was a new version of a piece by Andy Warhol, found on a website that is no longer active. The account is shown to be inactive and has the Spanish words: “El ítem que ha pedido no existe en este servidor o no puede ser servido”. I can only guess what it means is that the server is no longer available. Why is the image allowed to stay there if the website is shut down? What influenced pop cultural to adopt Che as an icon?
Image 4
So many people wear a shirt with the photo of Che without realizing his past deeds – or do if they believe in his campaign. The website remarks on how fashionable it is to be a communist, how capitalism takes advantage of this market and feeds into the conception of marketing philosophy and ideology. The blog says, “good old capitalism, using communist imagery to hock merchandise to the masses.” If some one buys a Che shirt does that make them a hypocrite for buying into capitalism? Is Che a representation of communism?
Image 5
This image is interesting because it actually shows the truth behind the image of Che: people don’t idealize him they want to be him. The lack of a face but the appearance of a rebel appeals to people. They can stick their own face there and feel that they, too, can combat the Man. You can upload a picture of yourself until this image, the website allows it. By wanting to be Che, does it defeat the purpose of being a rebel? Is this what people really want to become, a rebel?
Image 6
This is the original negative of the famous Che photo held by none other than Alberto Korda, the man who took the world famous photograph. It’s based on a BBC article that talks about the photo and why it was the most replicated photo in the history of photography. It talks about how it has been transformed into so many different artifacts – from t-shirts to ashtrays – and that it’s a recognizable image all over the world as a sign of rebellion. The blog though mentions that there was an entire art gallery dedicated to these image and the importance it had to the world for the last forty some odd years. Is this image a piece of art? Does it deserve its wide spread fame and recognition? What makes it significant: the icon or the photo?
Image 7
Che wearing a Che T-shirt T-shirt is an item you can buy from the Onion store – a satire news source that has no problem with making fun of serious matters. Making fun of the trend of trying to be a rebel by wearing a shirt. Even this satire makes the image more predominate over other symbols because it has gotten the recognition it needs to become parodied. The onion goes a bit further and makes fun of the images history by stating: “This scarcely seen inconic image dates back to 1958, shortly after revolutionary Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara freed thousands from the restrictive yoke of T-shirt selection.” Does the symbol become more empowered or less when parodied by parody media?
Image 8
Again, this website seems to be critical of the immortalization of Che Guevara but instead provides a more blatant approach to making fun and criticizing the icon. The blog uses the image to prove the point that Che was a hack and communism is a failure but seems more of an attack than a criticism. Although Che wasn’t the icon people make him out to be but his adversaries (United States Government) are not saints. The sad thing though is that this image is actually funny and it again attributes to the iconic figures becoming parodied. How far does manipulating an image does it become an abuse of that use? Should iconic images be open to scrutiny like the figures that are in them?
Image 9
This image comes from another website that talks about the significance of the image but what is unique about the image is that is on money. Not only is it a representation of effect Che had on communism and nations that are ruled by that ideology but it also goes against one of his reasons to rebel. The corruption of money and the power it holds over people is embraced by capitalist society (or at least that is how communism sees it). Is the image of Che counter-intuitive to showcasing Che’s ideology and achievements? Has the image become corrupt with the countless reiterations of it?
Image 10
The website where I got the photo from talks about the death of Che and the conspiracies that have popped up over the years. It remarks how the man became a martyr and how the fight against the United States has survived because of Che’s death. It comments on what he left behind and the continuation of the legacy. It shows a digital copy of the original uncropped version that became what it is today, which is important because this image is a conduit of symbolism so they can relate different meanings to Che, whether they liked him or not. The original photo is rarely seen and after seeing the variations of the photo it just goes to show how manipulative photos can be when edited probably. It’s all about how it’s presented. Does the unedited version of the Che photo provide a true look into the man? Or is it better that it is fake and it remains fantastical?
