The Aesthetic and Ethical Strategies of Richard Mosse’s Infra in Challenging War Photography Conventions

Dissertation:

Fredrich’s War Against War! of World War One, to the ambiguous series of History by Luc Delahaye. Photographs are incredibly powerful, more powerful than words, enough to be used as evidence in courts of law, proof of war crimes and other violations. “To not picture atrocity is therefore to omit what is there, to fail the truth of a situation, to withhold that proof. Equally, not to look at pictures of atrocity is to deny its existence.” (Prosser, 2014, p.7). This unique position often opens photographic representation to critical ethical analysis. The tension that arises forms the basis of a multifaceted debate that many critics delve into.

This dissertation examines, critiques, and contextualises Mosse’s Infra within the discourse and concepts presented by various critics and academics. I plan to explore how the representation of conflict, specifically the portraits and landscapes of Richard Mosse are explored through aestheticization and beautification. The methodology within this will include the visual analysis of the work with surrounding theoretical frameworks to establish relevant understanding on photography’s social role regarding the representation, and furthermore, the ethical standpoints within it. To do this I will use the frameworks of Susan Sontag to establish relevant themes of representation. This is important to understand and analyse the work of Mosse, as we must first begin to understand how photography has positioned itself in the forefront of the representation of suffering. I will enhance this with the discussion of aesthetics strategies that intersect with representations of atrocity, using the framework of Mark Reinhardt and Jay Prosser to develop the evaluation of aestheticization whilst closely comparing opposing arguments such as the ideas of David Levi- Strauss. By doing so, these frameworks will allow for a detailed discussion on the work by Richard Mosse.

This dissertation will examine the images within Mosse’s Infra as a main case study, aiming to investigate how the imagery within the project attempts to challenge traditional representation conventions using beauty as a connecting medium between atrocity representation and viewers while also discussing the ethical complications. The key parts that are explored within this analysis are the portrait and landscape photographs which both question traditional aspects of photographic genres. The portrait photographs aid in critiquing the contemporary nature of Mosse’s depictions of both soldiers and the victims of atrocity, using key frameworks on war photography as a way to analyse the altering perspective that Mosse delivers. The landscape photographs allow examination of his contemporary nature on landscape conventions, exploring how Mosse uses colour and Aerochrome film to establish a deeper connection to the relationship between landscape and violence, while creating questions on authenticity and representation. The dissertation also briefly touches upon Shimon Attie’s The Writing on the Wall, in order to contextualise the use of beauty within representational media and aiding in a contrasting direction in which beauty is used to establish meaningful action which in turn will allow for a deeper evaluation of Mosse’s work.

Section 1 - Photographic Representation of Suffering

In On Photography (1977), Susan Sontag explores these issues by first examining the relationship between the photographer and their subjects, the boundaries between imagery and reality, and the compulsion to document. Sontag begins her analysis by describing photographs as “experience captured” (Sontag, 1977, p.2), emphasising this action of freezing a moment. However, she asserts that this action is not a neutral act. The act of photography is a social ritual that both validates and takes control over experiences which determines how people and events are portrayed and remembered, creating a barrier between the observer and the observed. This reduces experience to an act of consumption, positioning the photographer as a passive observer rather than an active participant. Furthermore, Sontag highlights a voyeuristic transformation, suggesting that framing people and events as objects to be consumed shows an exert of control thus relating to a power dynamic. This voyeuristic quality highlights an ethical tension of exploitation for aesthetic purposes which can be invasive and reduce experience to visuals (1977, p.10). Sontag claims that this exploitation, particularly when aestheticizing human suffering or reducing complex realities to superficial images. She affirms that to photograph people is to violate them, by seeing them as they never see themselves or by having knowledge of them, they can never have, it turns people into objects that can be possessed. This can result in imposing an external perspective on them that can demoralise them (1977, p.11).

Further in the chapter, In Plato’s Cave, Sontag delves into “the existence of a relevant political consciousness” (Sontag, 1977, p.20). It is argued that the impact of photographs, especially those depicting suffering/war, depend largely on the viewers’ political awareness. Without it the images may be experienced as unreal or disconnected, preventing them from being engaged with meaningfully. Images lose their ability to provoke genuine reflection and engagement. Using Sontag’s analysis, the images lose their morality and become another form of spectating. It highlights this instability within an image. This exemplifies a trivialization of photography – the photographs specifically representing suffering and war lose their ethical or educational value, instead turning them into “fait divers” (Sontag, 1977, p.24).

Sontag touches upon this to a greater extent in Regarding the Pain of Others (2003). However, within this timeline, Sontag’s reluctance to photography changes to a more balanced outlook on the relationship between photographers and their viewers. There is a shift from viewing photography as an inherently numbing or objectifying medium to acknowledging its potential for ethical witnessing and moral engagement. While she remains aware of the limitations, Sontag has a more optimistic view that photographs can foster understanding, empathy, and political awareness, depending on how they are contextualized and viewed. Sontag states “Photographs of an atrocity may give rise to opposing responses. A call for peace. A cry for revenge. Or simply the bemused awareness... that terrible things happen” (2003, p.11-12). Here she highlights that viewing photographs does not have a set response, it can create a difference in reactions, some more useful than others. This idea of a multifractional reaction of atrocity is extended into an exploration of photography’s power to shock and stir emotions almost as “shock therapy” (Sontag, 2003, p.13).

John Roberts also discusses this in a comparable way within Photography and Its Violations (2014) as he discusses photography's dual nature, its intractable and assertive qualities. He reflects that photography’s essence lies in its ability to disrupt perceptions and question appearances or its “productive capacity for violation” (Roberts, 2014, p.1). This refers to how photography can challenge our self-identity and thus highlights a gap between how something appears and its role within social relations. It makes photography a powerful tool for truth telling and social critique and invites viewers to question and rethink the represented within broader social contexts and perceptions of reality. Instead of photography as an act of objectification, Roberts believes that photography disrupts familiar appearances, new ways of seeing and understanding. However, Roberts expresses that this is not necessarily a deliberate act by the photographer but something that comes with photography’s ability to reveal. This ‘violation’ or power to make something visible often links with broader social dynamics, such as inequality. This violation may not be of the photographer's accord, but they still have the responsibility to decide whether to use this act of violation, acknowledging its potential for disruption vs protection/dignity of their subjects.

Photography’s dual nature has been a subject to many discussions. According to Jay Prosser, who examines both the strengths and the inherent weaknesses of photography in representing atrocities, photographs of atrocities never exist without mediation. Without sufficient context, images alone may lead to misinterpretation or manipulation influencing how atrocities are perceived. Prosser also highlights the issue of compassion fatigue, where repeated exposure to violent imagery can desensitize viewers rather than inspire appropriate action. This, once again, raises photography’s concern about its power to create change. Additionally, Prosser also highlights the ethical dilemma in atrocity representation where those who endure violence are often voiceless, while distant spectators consume their suffering as images, reinforcing a voyeuristic dynamic, turning suffering into spectacle rather than an opportunity for action (2014, p.9). Furthermore, photography’s inherent limitations mean it can only capture isolated moments which fail to convey the full depth of the suffering, the complexity of the political violence and the broader historical narrative. This reliance on images, while powerful, can ultimately oversimplify conflicts, reducing them to emotionally charged yet contextually shallow representations.

Prosser also explores the complex relationship between atrocity and aesthetics. He argues that when we picture atrocity, we are not only documenting it but also engaging with how it is visually represented, and how images of suffering are framed, composed, and interpreted. These images often draw from visual traditions, referencing artistic and cultural imagery. However, this can create discomfort; How can we reconcile the aesthetic appeal of an image with the horror it represents? Prosser ultimately leaves us with a provocative question: What kind of beauty is this? He challenges us to consider why certain images can be visually stunning. This paradox raises ethical concerns debating if beauty can diminish the gravity of the suffering they depict, or does it make them more powerful and memorable?

Aesthetics of Atrocity

The aesthetics within photography is a considerable debate that belongs at the forefront of atrocity representation; However, I want to begin to question whether aestheticization or beautification of images of atrocity holds a negative impact, Sontag believed, as discussed in the first chapter, that “Photographs can and do distress... But the aestheticizing tendency of photography is such that the medium which conveys distress ends by neutralizing it” (1977, p. 108). This critique presents photography as a means to aestheticize, and aestheticization prompts passivity in the face of trauma and injustice which may be reductive. According to Mark Reinhardt, to fully understand the terms ‘aestheticization’ and ‘beautification,’ It is worth noting that beauty is just one aesthetic mode, although it often dominates discussions about aesthetics. (2007, p.28) This dominance can lead to a conflation between aestheticization (the broad process of rendering something artistically engaging) and beautification (specifically making something visually pleasing). Reinhardt states plainly, aestheticizing suffering is inherently both artistically and politically reactionary, a way of mistreating the subject and inviting passive consumption, narcissistic appropriation, or condescension on the part of the viewers (2007, p. 8). A strength of the book Beautiful Suffering (2007), which Sontag’s books lack is the approach to opposing views (though this may be due to the writings being for The New Yorker in 2003).

David Levi- Strauss is quoted as saying that “to represent is to aestheticize; that is, to transform” (Strauss, 2012, p.7), Strauss is exploring this same tension between photography’s role as a medium of representation, arguing that representation involves a transformation, with the photographers making aesthetic decisions that ultimately shape its perception, even suggesting that raw, documentary images are not neutral. However, photographic representation cannot exist without some form of aesthetic consideration, all inevitably leading to how the image is interpreted. This is not unethical but requires careful negotiation to balance artistic form with ethical accountability. This perspective gives us another thing to think about; Is aestheticization inherently unethical, given its effortlessness for photographers? or does it depend on the context individually? Even if a photographer intends to provoke indignation or empathy, the aesthetic appeal of the image might lead viewers to focus on the visual pleasure rather than the moral weight of the subject matter. In conclusion, does the issue lie specifically with beautification rather than aestheticization? While aestheticization involves making something artistically engaging, beautification specifically seeks to make it pleasing, which might heighten the ethical risks in depicting suffering. Should it be considered whether beauty should be avoided altogether in representations of suffering or whether a more nuances approach can reconcile beauty with ethical responsibility? (Reinhardt, 2007 pp.28-9).

Shimon Attie’s The Writing on the Wall

Regarding this, it will be useful to look at the work of Shimon Attie, and his project The Writing on The Wall (1991-3) in Berlin’s Scheunenviertel. As seen in figure 1, The work involved projecting historical photographs of Jewish life from the 1920s and 1930s onto the exact locations in contemporary Berlin where those images were originally captured. This act reanimated the memory of a community destroyed during the Holocaust, creating a confrontation with history for its residents and visitors. The work is both beautiful and confrontational as its striking projections (as seen in Figure 1), disrupt the daily lives of residents, forcing them to confront the erasure of a Jewish Population and the city’s complicity in that erasure.

The accompanying photographs of these projections – saturated with colour and dramatic lighting – move beyond mere documentation to function as art pieces in their own right. While the street projections were disruptive and potentially uncomfortable for viewers, the photographs render these moments in a visually striking and reflective manner. It is argued that this beauty does not trivialize the historical suffering but instead intensifies the viewers engagement, prompting reflection on themes of memory, displacement, and loss (Reinhardt, 2007, p.30). It creates an uncertainty between aesthetics and historical suffering, which has been established within this essay so far – However, unlike critiques suggesting that beauty trivializes suffering, these photographs maintain the dignity of the subjects while provoking sorrow and contemplation. It could be said that The Writing on The Wall avoids morally questionable depictions of suffering by focusing on historical context before the Holocaust’s atrocities, avoiding direct beautification of suffering and death. Therefore, it could be implied aestheticizing suffering is more ethically questionable when it directly depicts real, historical suffering.

Acknowledgment and Subjectivity

The hesitation to beauty within atrocity images, or the broader issue of photography failing at its purpose of explaining seems restrictive when we examine it through the lens of Stanley Cavell. In Must We Mean What We Say? (2002), Cavell delves into aesthetics by exploring how individual experience and judgement shape our engagement with art, emphasizes the subjective nature of aesthetic judgements, noting that while they arise from personal perception, they simultaneously look for universal acknowledgment. Acknowledging is seen as a necessary and morally significant response to human suffering. According to Cavell, it goes beyond understanding and goes as far as recognising and grappling with the personal implications of another’s pain. This act often requires confronting truths about one’s own role or connection to the confrontational suffering depicted.

Cavell’s argument counters Sontag’s critique by suggesting that acknowledgment, rather than explanation, is the ethical imperative when responding to images of suffering. “The acknowledgment of another calls for recognition of the others specific relation to oneself [which] entails the revelation of oneself as having denied or distorted that relation” (Cavell, 2002, p.263). Photographs fail, according to this analysis, when they invite responses that fall short of true acknowledgment. Similarly, photographs that elicit only fleeting pity or aesthetic appreciation without prompting deeper reflection on one’s relationship to the subject can result in moral and political shortcomings. These failures are often tied to the aesthetic choices made by the photographer, which may inadvertently distance viewers from the reality of the suffering depicted.

Section 2 -The Portraits of Infra

Richard Mosse’s Infra (2011) is a photographic series that aims to explore the effects of war and violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), A conflict that has been going on for over 100 years, sadly creating atrocities such as massacres, human rights violations, and sexual violence. The conflict has continued more consistently since 1996 with the mainstream media and the international political community turning its back (Carayannis, 2003, p.223). The work employs Kodak Aerochrome infrared film, a film that was originally developed for military reconnaissance in the 1940s during World War Two. It is a false-colour infrared film which means it records infrared light as well as visible light and by doing so it has a unique combination that allows green foliage to be rendered as pinks and reds. The striking images draw attention to the overlooked atrocity within the protracted conflict while also presenting questions regarding the relationship between aesthetics and ethics in documenting violence. Mosse, by using the unconventional medium of infrared film, “seeks to challenge the established conventions of war photography, creating a palpable tension between aesthetics and ethics” (Gibb, 2014, p.21) regarding representation. The use of the medium Kodak Aerochrome film creates images that are flooded with shades of pinks, reds, and purples. By using the film, Mosse is creating a connection between conflicts, connecting World War Two and the ongoing war in Congo, but he is also representing an ‘invisible’ war with a medium that records the invisible infrared light.

As seen within Figure 2, the colour is most prominent within the image, In the middle there is, what we can infer, a soldier, stood holding a machine gun. The pose within the image has connotations of performance – the soldier decorated with a flourished head piece. The portraits within the series frequently depict individuals who seem aware of the camera, at times they have a sense of performativity, and expressiveness, in others, aggressiveness and resistance. The fluctuation in the subjects’ interactions with the camera bolsters the sense of the surreal. This creates a sort of dynamic collaboration within the process. The subjects are not just observed but are engaged within the representation of themselves. However, this contrasts typical photographic representation; it blurs the line between the associated capturing of ‘real’ moments and the authenticity that photography is subjected to.

Viewers often expect representational photography in the context of conflict to present unmediated depictions, and the posed images may lead to scepticism of the scenes portrayed. The gaze of the subject, or lack thereof, is important to raise. By not engaging with the viewer, it feels almost disconnected. The posing of the subject also raises questions about agency and consent. It also risks leading to dramatization or a reinforcement of stereotypes. By giving the allusion of staging the image, Mosse also creates an opportunity for viewers to critique his work as being an outsider perspective, he could create a vague "Family of Man" (Frizzel, 2015, p.178) sentiment, which, while well-intentioned, might dilute the specific cultural and historical realities of the region. Thus, leading again to the representation being questioned on whether it is the truth. The portrait is also unlike traditional images of conflict, taking images from Ernst Fredrich’s War Against War as a comparison (see figure 3) whose images use shock as engagement. Though the photographs within Fredrich’s book are depicting a more documented war, and are collected from war and medical achieves, it is still important to highlight as they both have the same documentary agenda. Sontag examines this use of shock, which is prevalent in a lot of atrocity images. She highlights shock as a tool to break through viewer complacency – to stir moral outrage and awareness by confronting viewers with things they might otherwise avoid.

This acknowledges the ethical power of such images, arguing that they can compel individuals to confront truths and generate reflective responses. However, while Sontag recognises its potential, she also argues that repeated exposure to a graphic image can lead to desensitisation and exploitation. She especially found this significant in images of suffering where aesthetic qualities might further obscure the depth of the suffering. For Sontag, this inability to explain is linked with broader discontentment with the aesthetic approach of photography, which might prioritise beauty or spectacle over meaningful understanding (Reinhardt, 2007, p.31). Sontag repeatedly critiques the aestheticization of suffering, arguing that it can evoke desensitisation and create a distance between the viewer and the urgency of the subject matter. Sontag’s analysis forms a fundamental understanding of the ethical and aesthetic tensions of photography and questions whether beauty in images of suffering might diminish their moral impact by making tragedy aesthetic or consumable.

This critiques how Mosse's Infra both embodies and challenges these tensions though the use of the medium. The rendering of pinks and reds transforms the sight of violence into a space of beauty. By doing so, Mosse draws the viewer in, making the viewer feel complicated when comparing it to traditional expectations. While the vivid colours can evoke awe and admiration, they also risk distancing the viewer from the atrocity itself, as Sontag suggests. In this way, the beauty and the performative nature does not traditionally align with ‘shocking’ or traditional photographs and thus, can create a conflict within the viewers mind, further distancing them from a meaningful action. However, much like the idea of John Roberts and the addition that photography’s essence lies in its ability to disrupt perceptions and question appearances, it allows us to begin to question if Mosse’s work is successful in this way. Mosse has stated in many interviews that he chose to use beauty as both a contradiction of traditional representation but also because he evaluates that beauty can be a way to promote deeper thinking (Science and News, 2014). According to Mosse “‘Beauty is one of the main lines to make people feel something. if you [represent] … something derived from human suffering or war ... with beauty, it creates a …problem in the viewer’s mind’ (Haenlein, 2014, p.110).

Mosse’s work does not merely ask us to understand the suffering depicted, it goes beyond and demands the viewers to acknowledge it, forcing us to confront this relationship between beauty and atrocity. If we review his work through the lens of Cavill, we can recognise that the images push beyond a simple intellectual engagement but instead invite viewers to recognise the moral and personal implications of the suffering shown. For instance, the use of the film’s aesthetic might prevent viewers from becoming numb to the images, instead making them confront their role or distance from the depicted suffering. According to Cavell, this type of engagement with the subject matter (acknowledging the suffering and its implications for one’s on life) would be the ethical response to Mosse’s work. It highlights that Mosse’s photographs are relevant because they complicate the notion of aestheticizing suffering. The beauty within the work does not simply serve to make the depiction more palatable, but it forces the viewer to reckon with the discomfort of beauty existing alongside human atrocity. Which therefore forces them towards a more profound and meaningful acknowledgement. He uses beauty to highlight a dissonance between the human experience of conflict and the way those experiences are mediated by conventional representation.

However, it may not be that simple. With the idea that Roberts discusses it highlights issues within the use of aesthetics. Roberts believes that photography disrupts familiar appearances, new ways of seeing and understanding. However, this has its issues; by using beauty, viewers can be too overwhelmed with it, that they might become desensitised to the violence it represents. This is evident in Cathy Haenlein review of the work; she states the scenes that are portrayed are distressing. “Yet, paradoxically, amidst the intense, dreamlike shades of lavender and crimson, it is easy momentarily to forget the very real nature of the pain and suffering.” (2014, p.108). This links with the first chapter within Beautiful suffering: photography and the traffic in pain (2007) , in which Reinhardt explores that the charge of aestheticization are often cited to the aesthetic qualities which have a tendency to place emphasis on the quality of the image, or at least to leave the viewers with not much more than a sense of how striking the suffering looks – this can be described as the term defined as the ‘aesthetic attitude’, which in the scope of Jerome Stolnitz underscores the idea of engaging with an object purely for its visual qualities without any practical or personal interest. In simpler terms, it emphasises an act of attention that focuses on beauty, not on meaning. (Stolnitz, 1998, p.87) This action aligns with ideas of aesthetics, particularly the issue of desensitisation but from the aspect of beauty rather than shock. Arthur Danto touches upon the issue though, Danto’s observation is that finding beauty on scenes of human suffering could signify a morally inappropriate response, he believes that if one were to see a sight in suffering and find it beautiful, one would think what kind of moral monster one had turned into and quickly think instead what could be done to help (Danto, 2003, p.110). This is also extended to imply that beauty in art often inspires love or admiration for what is represented. In some contexts, such as religious art, it may be appropriate. However, in the context of human suffering/atrocity, it may turn the suffering into aesthetic pleasure. Beauty might become "a relish, a device for enhancing the appetite, for taking pleasure in the spectacle of suffering” (Danto, 2003, p.114). With this, Figure 2 could be analysed as a photograph that expresses its concern with beauty rather than the representation of the vast conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The figure within the image is engulfed within pink landscape, the greenery intercepting with the soldier itself. The abstract landscape harshly contrasts with the clothing, creating a visual disconnect with the landscape. Within the image itself, the landscape surrounding the soldier gives the viewer no context of where the image may be situated. The only connotation we get is through the gun. This highlights an issue within his work, the lack of context. Within the series there are not many clues as to who they are or what they are fighting for. Within traditional documentary representation, where context was crucial in the succession of the photograph, it further expresses Mosse’s aim to contradict the traditional conventions. It links with Sontag’s explanation of the political consciousness; By using images that lack context for example soldiers that are without detail, or decorated with headpieces or in posed positions, it means that in order for the images to be fully understood, it requires the viewers to be politically aware. This is also important to highlight because of the lack of information given within the exhibition areas. Without the viewer already having a basis of understanding about his work or the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the true representation of the conflict depicted is risked, which together with the conflicting aspect of beauty, the series is open to a lack of understanding or meaningful action.

Section 3 -The Landscapes of Infra

Photography is afforded an authority founded in authenticity that has been ascribed to the photographic since its inception. This is particularly relevant in landscape photography because it is often tied to documentary testimony, meaning it can serve as evidence or a record of a place or event, like the Bechars for example. This quality can make photographs seem authentic and trustworthy, even when viewers understand the photographer's aesthetic choices and coding. While photography can establish a sense of authenticity, it can also be used critically to interrogate environments. By experimenting with different techniques and perspectives, photographers can challenge viewers' assumptions and deepen their engagement with the depicted spaces. This is a relevant point to raise because of Mosse’s use of unconventional techniques (Aerochrome) as it challenges traditional expectations of landscape photography. To really explore Mosse’s landscapes, we must understand what landscape is.

The Term ‘Landscape’

The term ‘Landscape’ has gone through multiple shifts throughout its history; firstly, based upon its history of landscape paintings and the act to present it as a progressive movement towards the visual; secondly based upon the decentring of the role of painting, treating landscape as an allegory to psychological and ideological themes (Mitchell, 2002, pp.1-2). W.T.J Mitchell in his book Landscape and Power (2002) aims to change the term ‘landscape’ from a noun to a verb, discussing not just what landscape is, or what it means but what it does, and how it works within practice. Mitchell explores this idea that landscapes are more than just symbols or representations of power, they actively shape and reinforce cultural and social power. He presents landscapes as natural and independent, disregarding the fact that they are often results of human choices. By doing so, landscapes function ideologically, making cultural and social constructs seem inevitable, which thus embeds the viewer within these constructs in a way that feels intrinsic. The term “landscape greets us as space” (Mitchell, 2002, p.2) emphasises this immersive experience within landscapes in which the observer is part of, or even subject to the scene. This positions the viewer as both the viewer and the person within the landscape, creating a unique relationship which may aid in finding reflective meaning. To think of landscape in this way, it requires us to think beyond simplistic analysis, such as seeing them as only allegories or aesthetic forms. Mitchell describes that landscapes are often sought to be focused on the natural element. Instead, he argues, we tend to forget that this subject matter is also always a “symbolic form” (2002, p.14) in its own right. The way we see the landscapes is already shaped by cultural ideas and symbolic meanings. “Landscape painting is best understood, then, not as the uniquely central medium that gives us access to ways of seeing landscape, but as a representation of something that is already a representation in its own right” (Mitchell, 2002, p.14). It is discussed that the enjoyment of viewing landscapes aligns with tension. Scenes of the untamed or the sublime aspects of nature can provoke feelings of awe or fear, these being emotions that typically challenge the comfort of spectatorship. In this case, viewing nature becomes a complex exercise in balancing admiration with insecurity (Wells, 2011, p.5). Wells expands on this to state that photography does not offer a direct experience of what is being represented. Instead, it provides a mediated view, shaped by the photographer’s choices, framing and the cultural expectations of viewers (2011, pp.6-7). Mike Weaver, a prominent photographic historian highlights the idea of creating photographs where the aesthetic appeal aligns seamlessly with deeper, ethical, or moral quality of the image. The focus is on achieving harmony between visual beauty and the essence of the image itself, without being tied to documentary purposes.

According to Liz Wells, the representation of nature within art specifically focusing on landscape, encourages a deep engagement with visual and emotional themes, connecting viewers to broader cultural ideas (Wells, 2011, p.5). In landscapes that are composed with traditional perspectives, there is often a singular focal point, inviting viewers into a fixed, centralized perspective (often tied to Cartesian ideas of individualism). This approach implies control and separation, allowing the viewer to observe from a safe, intellectual distance. The enjoyment that comes from viewing such landscapes is accompanied with an element of tension; scenes of the untamed, sublime aspects of nature can provoke feelings of awe or fear; emotions that challenge the comfort of spectatorship. In these cases, looking at nature becomes a complex exercise in balancing admiration with an undercurrent of insecurity. This interaction with landscape creates a tension which lends itself to a deeper reflection.

Within Land Matters, Photography is explored within the context of cultural geography. Wells states that the act plays a significant role in documenting changes in the environment and serving as a record of human intervention and history. It is seen as both objective and subjective: While photographs present a realistic depiction of a place, they are also influenced by the photographers' personal visions and choices. This interplay creates a narrative that goes beyond simple documentation, intertwining objective detail with deeper, often personal, meaning (Wells, 2011, p. 262).

Although Wells is specifically talking about the role within the geographical context, I think it can be extended to the work of Mosse because his approach highlights this idea that while photography is grounded in realistic depiction, it is also influenced by the photographer’s choices. Mosse’s landscapes are not just records of the land, they embody a narrative that critiques, questions, and reinterprets the representation of conflict. The work emphasizes how photography can move beyond literal representation to capture the profound impact of history, conflict, and human presence on the environment.

Figure 4 demonstrates one of these sublime landscapes that are displayed within Mosse’s work. The image shows the mountains of South Kivu, which are home to a large population of rebels named the ‘FDLR,’ the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda rebels, they are a paramilitary group that has lives in exile in Congo since the Rwandan genocide in 1994. The importance of these hills lies in the fact that they are rich in minerals such as gold, cassiterite, and coltan, which are extracted by artisanal miners who must pay taxes to the rebels (Hochschild, 2012, p. 112). This is crucial to highlight as control over these resources has been a major driver of the conflict, as armed groups and corrupt officials exploit them to fund operations and enrich themselves. Though within the image itself, the viewer would not understand.

These scenes of the untamed nature, which, as described by Liz Wells can provoke feelings of awe or fear, exemplify the traditional yet contemporary nature of Mosse’s landscape. However yet, the most prominent feature of this landscape is its aesthetics, with Mosse describing his imagery as his own “representation of the fabulous Dr. Seuss landscape of eastern Congo” (Mosse, 2012, p. 132). This highlights the use of the films preposterous qualities, though Mosse has stated that this work is not a performance of the ethical and rather is more challenge to representational media declaring that the photography taken place within a “beautiful landscape touched by appalling human tragedy” was a personal struggle with the “disparity between [his] own limited powers of representation and the unspeakable world that confronted [him]” (Mosse, 2012, p.133).

Within challenging or even critical landscape imagery like Mosse’s landscapes within Infra, the viewers’ assumptions about war, beauty, and documentary representation are unsettled because of the distortional elements that the infrared film brings. The unnatural hues of lush pinks and deep reds transform the landscapes of conflict into something simultaneously surreal and hyperreal, creating an aesthetic that disrupts conventional modes of viewing both war photography and landscape imagery. This visual aesthetic creates a form of cognitive dissonance, forcing the viewer to confront the contradiction between the image's dreamlike quality and the atrocious reality of the depicted conflict. Much like Mosse’s portraits, the approach created a tension that prompts deeper reflection on both personal and cultural relationships to nature, as well as to the political and historical aspects of the conflict itself. By altering the landscape in this way, the work challenges traditional notions of control, both in terms of how landscapes are represented within aesthetics and how war is framed through photography. In doing so, Mosse encourages viewers to confront the uncomfortable aspects of seeing beauty in scenes of violence and thus inserting a critical gaze that interrogates the relationship within photographic representation and within the broader ethical and aesthetical context. Mosse’s work has been awarded for the way in which his vibrant images created another layer to representational photography. As Aaron Rothman has observed, the altered coloration evokes the profound sense of dislocation that people must feel in a place of continual war. The magenta hillsides are somehow fitting, the landscape inverted by the incomprehensibility of the human activity that it holds. The colours seem more than symbolic. If the land were red, we could say, tritely, that it is soaked in blood and move on. But the electric pink is harder to pin down. It overtakes everything, leaving us without reason or explanation (Rothman, 2012).

However, this approach raises certain complications that question whether it is an appropriate response. By creating beautiful landscape images, it may distract viewers from recognising the real pain happening in the depicted locations causing them to see the work as just art or superficial critique on aesthetics and beauty. This links heavily within the discussion of aesthetics. Sontag touches upon this when she acknowledges the allure of aesthetic beauty but is wary of how it can obscure deeper ethical or political concerns, while revisiting photography’s role in aestheticizing suffering, warning that beautifying images of violence can lead to passive consumption rather than critical engagement. (Sontag, 2003, p.68). The colours and landscape within Mosse’s imagery may unintentionally romanticize violence, simplifying the complex realities of conflict and reducing the people affected to mere subjects for visual pleasure. The colour of the work seems to the general issue, according to critic, Mary Blackburn “There is something mad and maddening about the gaiety throughout Mosse’s ‘Infra’ series. His photographs are terribly seductive tableaux vivants– all that fantastic color and sensuous surface, with the soldiers garbed in pink and posing.” (2011, p.11). The colours specifically seem to amplify the critics anxieties, especially the pink hues as its often associated with “artifice, non-seriousness and the threat of seduction” (Bajorek, 2015, p. 231).

It could be argued that Mosse disrupts these issues of ‘traditional aesthetics’ within such photography. Blackburn captures these concerns fearing that beauty risks undermining political engagement. She notes that Mosse’s stylized, artificial approach may prioritize style over substance, posing the challenge of balancing aesthetic elements with political messaging (Bajorek, 2015, p. 232). However, it can be argued that politics (which lead to meaningful action) exists not in images themselves but in the human relations they reveal and that all photographs are inherently political and aesthetic, existing in the shared sphere of images and relations. The question is not whether elements like colour distract but whether they enable us to see, think, or act differently. While Mosse’s images produce a vastly different effect to traditional photographic responses to violence, the difficulties we experience when encountering his work might serve to put pressure upon viewing habits (Miller, 2020, p. 156). It is when we view his work that we begin to interrogate the ethical standards surrounding aesthetics in representations of atrocity, compelling us to rethink the traditional conventions of photography. His images challenge the boundaries of what is considered acceptable in depicting suffering, making viewers confront the uneasy relationship between beauty and violence.

On one hand, his work provokes a contradictory response by using the aestheticization of suffering as a deliberate tool to rethink the role of photography which in turn, invites viewers to take time to draw in their beauty before being confronted with the gravity of the atrocities depicted. In doing so, the aesthetic qualities become a means to engage the audience more deeply, challenging the voyeuristic issues within traditional photojournalism. On the other hand, it can be argued that his deliberate use of beauty and controversial conventions employed within these images risk overshadowing the imperative representation of atrocity. By aestheticizing suffering, his work may inadvertently take the focus away from the realities of conflict and towards the artistry of the images themselves, in turn, creating a detachment from experiences of those effected. This aesthetic approach could be perceived as diminishing the gravity of the suffering that has occurred and continues to occur within the Democratic Republic of Congo, reducing the atrocities to a visual spectacle. Furthermore, this aestheticization could reinforce a sense voyeurism which is often discussed within photography, where audiences appreciate the images for their beauty but fail to engage with the deeper context within the image.

In conclusion, Richard Mosse’s Infra explores the complex relationship of aesthetics, representation, and ethics in the context of conflict and suffering. Through his experimental use of Kodak Aerochrome film, Mosse tries to redefine the conventions of war photography, presenting portraits of soldiers and landscape images of the land in the Democratic Republic of Congo in surreal and dissonant hues of pinks and reds. These vibrant tones create an intriguing juxtaposition between beauty and violence, compelling viewers to confront the tensions within depictions of violence but also has been central to a vast range of critical discussion regarding the ethical standpoints within it.

This dissertation explores how Infra challenges conventional expectations of images of suffering, emphasizing the ways in which Mosse’s aesthetic choices provoke critical reflection. By drawing upon theoretical perspectives from Susan Sontag, Mark Reinhardt, W.J.T Mitchell, Liz Wells, and others, it situates Mosse’s work within broader discourses on photography’s role in documenting suffering and the ethical challenges of aestheticization. The various chapters highlight that while Mosse’s approach disrupts traditional visual norms, it also raises important ethical questions about the potential for aesthetics and beauty to overshadow the harsh realities of conflict. Mosse’s use of beauty, while controversial, can serve as a powerful tool for engagement. By transforming conflicts into dreamlike and hyperreal landscapes, Infra invites viewers to move beyond passive consumption of imagery and instead critically interrogate their own responses to suffering. This reflective engagement emphasizes the dual role of photography as both a visual and cultural artefact, capable of meditating complex narratives about human atrocity. At the same time, the series’ surreal aesthetics challenge the viewer’s sense of reality, blurring the lines between art, documentation, and representation.

While Infra successfully disrupts conventional expectations of documentary photography, it also risks desensitization among viewers. The vibrancy and colours, that often can be found to have various connotations such as seductiveness may lead to audiences prioritizing the aesthetic appeal within the imagery over the ethical and political realities they represent. This concern aligns with Sontag’s critique of aestheticizing suffering, warning of the dangers of reducing atrocity to visual spectacle. Yet, as this research argues, such contradictions are important to analysing Mosse’s ideas. By disrupting traditional ways of seeing, his work creates a space for viewers to reconsider the ethics of representation and the responsibility of spectatorship.

Ultimately, Infra is more than mere simple documentation, but instead positions itself as a multifaceted exploration of how conflict can be represented through photography. Its provocative images invite deeper engagement with the complex issues of representation, moral engagement, and the tension between beauty, aesthetics and violence. The use of landscape within Mosse’s work challenge viewers to critically engage with not only the images but also the broader socio-political contexts they evoke.

By combining aesthetics and ethics, Mosse's work highlights photography's power to both captivate and challenge viewers. This blend of beauty and discomfort gives Infra its strength, contributing significantly to modern visual culture and discussions about how suffering is represented. Mosse’s work pushes viewers to confront the tension between beauty and violence, redefining photography as both an artistic and political tool.

Figure List:

Fig 1: Attie, Mulackstrasse 32: Slide projection of former Jewish residents and Hebrew reading room, 1932, Berlin, 1993, colour photograph and on-location installation.

Fig 2: Richard Mosse, Safe from Harm, South Kivu, Eastern Congo, Infra.

Fig 3: Ernst Fredrich, Clearing Operations, 1987.

Fig 4: Richard Mosse, Nowhere to Run, 2010, South Kivu, Eastern Congo, Infra.

1. Bajorek, J. (2015). On Colour Photography in an Extra-Moral Sense. Third Text, 29(3), pp.221–235. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09528822.2015.1106136.

2. Batchen, G., Reaktion Books and Prosser, J. (2014). Picturing atrocity : photography in crisis. London: Reaktion Books.

3. Carayannis, T. (2003). The Complex Wars of the Congo: Towards a New Analytic Approach. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 38(2-3), pp.232–255. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/002190960303800206.

4. Cavell, S. (2002). Must We Mean What We Say? Cambridge University Press.

5. Danto, A.C. (2003). The abuse of beauty : aesthetics and the concept of art. Chicago, Ill.: Open Court.

6. David Levi Strauss and Berger, J. (2012). Between the eyes : essays on photography and politics. New York, Ny: Aperture.

7. Frizzell, D. (2015). Richard Mosse’s Enclave. Cultural Politics, 11(2), pp.163–183. doi:https://doi.org/10.1215/17432197-2895735.

8. Gibb, S. (2014) ‘An ongoing state of conflict: Richard Mosse’s the “enclave”’, Art Monthly Australia, (269), pp. 20–25. Available at: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db=edsimc&AN=edsimc.428847650113338&site=eds-live&scope=site (n.d.).

9. Haenlein, C. (2014). Richard Mosse’sThe Enclave. The RUSI Journal, 159(1), pp.106–110. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/03071847.2014.895265.

10. Mitchell, T. (2002). Landscape and power. [online] Chicago, Ill. Univ. Of Chicago Press. Available at: http://www.bibliovault.org/BV.book.epl?ISBN=9780226532059.

11. Mosse, R. and Hochschild, A. (2012). Infra : photographs. New York, N.Y.: Aperture Foundation.

12. Padley, G. (2014). Richard Mosse wins Deutsche Börse Photography Prize 2014 - 1854 Photography. [online] 1854 Photography. Available at: https://www.1854.photography/2014/05/richard-mosse-wins-deutsche-borse-photography-prize-2014/ [Accessed 11 Dec. 2024].

13. Reinhardt, M., Edwards, H. and Erina Dugganne (2007). Beautiful suffering : photography and the traffic in pain. Williamstown, Ma: Williams College Museum Of Art ; Chicago.

14. Roberts, J. (2014). Photography and its violations. New York: Columbia Univesity Press.

15. Saugmann, R. (2019). Military techno-vision: Technologies between visual ambiguity and the desire for security facts. European Journal of International Security, 4(3), pp.300–321. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/eis.2019.17.

16. Science and News (2014). The Impossible Image. YouTube. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTVkqwuLYHU [Accessed 28 Jan. 2020].

17. Sontag, S. (1977). On Photography. London: Allen Lane, pp.1–27.

18. Sontag, S. (2003). Regarding the pain of others. New York: Farrar, Straus And Giroux.

19. Stolnitz , J. and Carolyn Korsemeyer (1998). The Aesthetic Attitude, in Aesthetics : the big questions. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishers.

20. Weaver, M., Wolf, D., Rosenthal, N., Australian National Gallery, Academy, R. and Museum Of Fine Arts, Boston (1989). The Art of photography, 1839-1989. New Haven Conn.: Yale University Press, p.Preface.

21. Wells, L. (2011). Land matters : landscape photography, culture and identity. London ; New York: I.B. Tauris.

    
    

    Figure 1: Shimon Attie (1993). Mulackstrasse 32: former Jewish residents and Hebrew reading room, 1932, Berlin, colour photograph and on-location installation. [Slide Projection] Available at: https://shimonattie.net/portfolio/the-writing-on-the-wall/#jp carousel-1237 [Accessed 6 Dec. 2024]. 42

    Figure 2: AnOther (2013). Richard Mosse: The Enclave. [online] AnOther. Available at: https://www.anothermag.com/art-photography/2764/richard-mosse-the-enclave.

    Figure 3: Ernst Friedrich (1987). War against war! Seattle: Real Comet Press. Figure 4: (2011). Richard Mosse’s Majestic, Disturbing Infrared War Photography (PHOTOS). [online] HuffPost. Available at: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/richard mosse-war_n_1111245 [Accessed 22 Jan. 2025].