We live in a mediated blitz of images. They fill our newspapers, magazines, books, clothing, billboards, computer monitors, and television screens as never before in the history of mass communication. We are becoming a visually mediated society. For many — especially those who have been raised and nurtured in a television/Internet culture — understanding the world is being accomplished, not through reading words, but by absorbing and digesting images. Reading is losing to watching because viewing requires little mental processing.We live in an image-hungry society with screens embedded into airplane chairs and phones doubling as cameras. Images compel us to look at them, and their message is instant, unlike text which requires some time and effort on our part. Consequently, when images and words compete, the consensus is generally to go with the image because often it’s the image people will remember the next day, the next week, and perhaps for the rest of their lives.
Media images have tremendous power. Often, they define how we see ourselves, and they can define what others think of us as well.
Why do images have such power? It is part of the human condition. We are visually oriented systems, programmed to store more pictures than text in our long-term memories. According to research cited by educational psychologist Jerome Bruner of New York University, the average person remembers only 30 percent of what is read but nearly 80 percent of what is seen.
Actually, it was Johann Gutenberg’s magic printing machine that disrupted the harmonious balance between words and images. With his machine, text-based communications had a quick and easy method of dissemination. The development of an equally efficient means of reproducing the color, depth, form, and movement of visual communication languished far behind. Words sped out of printer’s blocks and left images in a cloud of ink. In a race for cultural superiority, text crossed the finish line first, and pictures came in a distant second.
The intellectual valuing of words over images was passed on from generation to generation. It is just this history and precedent that causes educators to bemoan the pervasiveness of the visual culture. They blame TV for the decrease in analytic ability and students’ poor writing skills. It is true that the sheer weight of time students spend immersed in television, computer games, and other visual distractions keeps them from other educational activities.
The shift from words to images began with television which emphasizes the moving image over written and spoken language. Television is image-driven, image-saturated, and image-controlled. This is precisely what television does that books, recordings, and pictures cannot do; it brings us visual action. Now, television programs can be watched from direct broadcast, from cable and fibre optics, from satellites, from VCRs, from laser disks, and from hand-held receptors. On some television sets you can watch more than one program at a time. In a television commercial for Kodak’s Photo CD technology, the announcer reports, “Pictures have never been so powerful.”
But just because we are moving toward a visual orientation, does not mean we should be moving in this direction. The problem is that when the image dominates the word, rational discourse ebbs. These technologically animated images move and combine in ways unknown only a few decades ago, thus increasing their power to mesmerize.
The visionary reality of connected images doesn’t allow for critical discourse, explanation, duplication, or reflection — all rational activities required for separating truth from error. This is because images require viewers to be continually involved in the action. Images keep words in check because words strip images of their hypnotic and magical power.
When images overwhelm and subjugate words, the ability to think, write, and communicate in a linear and logical fashion is undermined. Television images have an immediate effect on us, but the effect is seldom to cause us to pursue their truth or falsity. Often television images are shorn of their overall context and meaning and are reduced to factoids (at best). That is, ideas located within historical and logical settings are replaced by impressions, emotions, and stimulations.
Images communicate narrative stories and quantitative information such as graphs and charts. Words are required for more linear, logical communication. Propositions and beliefs can be true or false; images don’t have truth value. Images are arresting, alluring, and entrancing, but because they shrink events into factoids or create outright falsehoods, viewers are manipulated by their normal way of operation and presentation. Viewers then assume that what they saw on television is something they saw with their own eyes.
What viewers don’t realize — because they are so totally consumed by images — is that every television minute is edited. Viewers don’t see events, they only see edited symbols or edited images of events. An aura and illusion of objectivity and truth is built up which cannot and does not exist. Despite that, reality becomes the image even when that image does not correspond to any objective state of affairs.
Think about the effect this can have on viewers during a political campaign. Truth and logic are socially constructed, and they can be deconstructed and reconstructed at whim.
What is the remedy? If truth is to prevail, image consumption must be replaced by word devotion. Teachers are correct: the desire to read, the ability to read and write all suffer under the ruthless regime of television, the Internet, computer games, and other image-dominated media.
Print, on the other hand, demands to be understood. Written sentences call upon readers
to know the importance of what is said. To read effectively, readers must come to print in a serious state of intellectual readiness not necessary with images. The mental act of reading is active, engages the mind and imagination, and makes truth possible and knowable. When language is the principle medium for communication, ideas, facts, and claims occupy a central place in our thoughts and require mental processing — little mental processing is required with images.
In the essay,“Wordplay: The Importance of Language,” Rochelle Siegel at The Sandspur (the oldest college newspaper in Florida - Founded in 1894) distinguishes among language, speech, and communication, and she emphasizes the importance of learning and understanding the non-linguistic properties of speech. Her essay can be found at: http://media.www.thesandspur.org/media/storage/paper623/news/2005/11/11/LifeTimes/Wordplay.The.Importance.Of.Language-1053959-page2.shtml
In this WebQuest, designed for 11th graders, entitled “Images and Influence,” designed by Carol Boehm, there is a wonderful lesson on the influence of images in advertising. Boehm discusses specific images and their influence, and then she asks critical questions to get students thinking such as, “What are the social and political implications?” This website offers important information and insights: http://eprentice.sdsu.edu/J03OW/boehm/INDEX/Images_Influence.htm
Contact Richard L. Weaver II
Just look at the cover of the latest New Yorker and we know how much image trumps text! Of course, it doesn't help that the text of the article doesn't even explain the cover!!!
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely right Jimmy Lee, and thank you for writing. This week's New Yorker set off a Web-and-cable frenzy because it shows Barack Obama as a Muslim, Michelle Obama as a militant and the American flag aflame under a portrait of Osama bin Laden --- all in the Oval Office. It is, just as the editor of the New Yorker has called it, "a 'fantastical' satire that shows 'obvious distortions' about the Obamas. The problem, clearly, is just as George Lockwood, a professor at Louisiana State University has said, "the one thing that most readers don't understand is satire." Author Ta-Nehisi Coates built on Lockwood's comment by saying that satire is supposed to exaggerate reality, not reflect it: "Sadly, that picture exaggerates nothing --- that's exactly what a slice of Americans believe about Barack Obama." I thought Philip Klein's comment is probably most accurate. He says, "The cartoon is intended to make fun of conservatives as ignorant racists, and essentially marginalize any criticism of Obama as moronic." The bottom line, however, is just as you have offered it to readers, Jimmy Lee: Image trumps text! (And, I'm afraid it always will!)
ReplyDeleteAs an artist, the image I present in my work is of utmost importance. Whether the job is for a client or simple painting for myself, the goal is the same: To convey the meaning and my intent of the work asking the question, "Does this artwork say what it's supposed to say?"
ReplyDeleteI can barely agree with Conservative talk-show host Joe Pagliarulo stated, "I think this could be a very positive thing for the Obama campaign. Sure... spin anything to postivie, but spinning this gives me a stomach ache.
Satire is one thing, but this image has already been circulated widely and I fear many will not read the story... simply believe the image.
I hear people all the time talking about Obama and the Muslim, Quran connection. It's hard to dispel the myth when a respected magazine puts the exact image I try and correct when I run across it.
This is like Fox News style unfair.
Truth prevailing? I hope so, but I don't have a lot of faith.
The bottom line is simple: the interpretation of the image lies in the mind of the beholder. Anyone can create an image and hope that it conveys the message intended, but the final thought lies totally in the eye or mind of the interpreter. The New Yorker cartoon has created an enormous amount of discussion, and I believe that discussion can only help the Obama campaign. What better way to dispel incorrect stories and rumors than to get them out in the public for explanation, discussion, and open refutation. Those who are going to believe the image are the very same ones who could not be persuaded no matter the evidence nor the debate.
ReplyDelete