Fragments on the Mourning of Images

In the society of the spectacle, even death must pose for the camera, and what is buried is not only the body but the last fragile hope that anything might remain untouched by the churn of images

Saw the photo. A row of leaders, phones up, faces slack. The coffin — Pope Francis’s coffin — plain and weighty, firm in the foreground. Some of them are turned toward it — Trump, for one — but even then the expressions are blank, detached, the faces of people witnessing not death but an event already sliding into image. They’re not looking at the coffin, not really. They’re looking at their screens, at the thing they are producing. Mourning replaced by recording. Presence hollowed out.

Debord again, never far away: “everything that was directly lived has moved away into a representation.” But it’s worse now, more total. They aren’t even pretending to be present anymore. Just there to prove they were there. The death itself — the fact of it — secondary to the production of an image of death. Documentation has swallowed experience whole.

Baudrillard would say we’re beyond representation now. This isn’t an image of mourning; it’s an image instead of mourning. No real loss, no real grief, just signs piling up on signs, each one emptier than the last. The funeral isn’t the thing. The photograph of the funeral is the thing. The photograph of the photograph of the funeral is the thing. On and on until there’s nothing left but noise.

Even the ones with heads bowed — no phones in their hands — can’t escape it. Their refusal becomes another image, another posture. There’s no way out. Authenticity is just another content stream. A bowed head is only another kind of brand.

We used to carry our dead through the streets. Public grief, shared, uncommodified. Now we turn them into content before the earth’s even taken them. A Pope dies and the first instinct is to frame it, catch it, store it away like a dead butterfly pinned under glass.

The coffin remains, solid and unmoving, the last real thing in the frame. Around it, the churn of spectacle whirls and empties itself out. A box carrying not a life, but the memory of one — and already half-forgotten.

It’s not just the death of a man. It’s the death of the possibility of real mourning. Real attention. Real anything.

Maybe we stopped believing in death the moment we stopped believing in life.


Artificial Intelligence (10) Book Review (85) Books (89) Britain (54) Conservative Government (35) Creeping Fascism (12) Crime and Punishment (12) diary (11) Donald J Trump (57) Europe (12) Film (12) France (15) Gaza (15) Imperialism (22) Iran (10) Israel (18) Keir Starmer (12) Labour Government (36) Marxist Theory (10) Migrants (16) Nigel Farage (17) Palestine (15) Protest (16) Reform UK (28) Russia (19) United States of America (95) War (25)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Share the Post:

Latest Posts

Britain

From “Feed the World” to Looking Away

Live Aid was forty years ago. Today, we are haunted once again by the images of starving children (and now, starving adults) in Gaza. But this time, it doesn’t seem to register. No concerts. No campaigns. No national reckoning. Why? Because the system can only process suffering when it’s stripped of politics. Ethiopia’s famine was framed as fate. Gaza’s is a siege, and Britain is complicit. That’s the difference.

Read More »
Screenshot of a Daily Mail headline by Frank Furedi reading: "We've been silenced on mass migration and the nation's furious. All it will take is one spark and tinderbox Britain will go up in flames: FRANK FUREDI." Below the headline, it notes the article was published at 01:10 on 24 July 2025 and updated at 09:25 the same day. The Mail logo appears at the top left.
Far Right Extremism

Britain Will Not Burn – But Furedi Wants It To

Frank Furedi claims the public has been silenced, while shouting from the pages of the Daily Mail. What he’s really mourning is the loss of uncontested dominance: the fantasy of a Britain where dissent means agreeing with him. This isn’t analysis, it’s a staged panic, designed to justify repression and launder far-right talking points as common sense. Britain isn’t a tinderbox. But pieces like this are trying hard to make it one.

Read More »