Take this photo for example:
(Forgive the fact that it's a picture of a picture).
Imagine if I tried to describe this with only words. I could use words like desperation, salvation, need, want, fear, hunger, beggars, and youth. I don't know what's going on necessarily, but it looks like someone out of the shot is passing something to these boys that they want more than anything in the world at that moment. They seem to be lower income, with thin faces and protruding ribs.Yes, this seems like an adequate description, and some of the words seem to match up with the image, but something is missing.
Imagine if I tried describing this with only mathematical/physical equations.
There is something to be said about an image; it can convey a dozen messages without a single word. It can emulate an emotion the way a thousand words or equations could not. It's not to say that words and equations do not describe the world well, but there comes a time when they just aren't enough.
I believe this idea is relevant in modern revolution. The words/message of a movement can bring about a collaboration of people or a whole revolution can be started from new equations (relativity for example), but revolution often needs art and emotion to truly capture the whole story. Think of some common images we've seen for revolutions and revolutionary movements; the essence of the event is captured in a picture of a swarm of people or of a leader's determined face. Revolution, especially in the age of photography and video, is not the same without art.
Recently I was in Spain and had took the time to visit both the Prada museum, covering Medieval to late 19th century art mainly, and the Reina Sofia museum, covering late 19th century to very recent art. I noticed that up through the mid to late 19th century artists simply ignored the technological revolution going on around them. There is only one painting in the entire Prada, one of the great European museums, covering any kind of technological innovation past Roman times. It is a commissioned piece by a king, showing a hot air balloon taking off into the sky, with the nobles, military, and populace gathered below to salute the accomplishment. Interestingly, this painting is placed in the most out of the way corner of the second floor of the Prada. In contrast, the Reina Sofia has many depictions of technological innovations and their positive and negative impacts on the time.
ReplyDeleteSo, for example, the Prada misses the rise of industrialism, factory slavery, the birth of communism, and the whole set of revolutionary political movements of the 18th and 19th centuries. Art can also deliberately blind itself, perhaps through a subculture or tradition of artists. Since this willful blindness precedes Romanticism I don't think we can blame Romanticism for it. Pre late 19th to 20th century art is such a contrast to artists like Dali, who painted everything, including atomic structure and the atomic bomb, and even made use of stereoscopic viewing and dynamic media.
I think what stands out in Breanna's chosen photo is the immediacy and raw honesty of it. I see the 21st century as the age of media diversification and globalization. We "text" with 16 second videos now. Is Breanna really referring to art, or to representation and media? Writing can be raw and visceral and immediate as in Chinua Achebe's poetry, or it can be abstract and dry as in Immanuel Kant, even if Kant ultimately transformed how we see the world and how we do science.
I agree with Lincoln's last comment on writing. In my opinion, verbal communication is more than the sum of its parts and giving a list of words is different than describing the scene.
ReplyDeleteCompare Brianne's example to "A Mother in a Refugee Camp." Brianne's description is indeed adequate, but relatively flat. On the other hand, Achebe's description is (in my opinion) about as impactful as a picture.
I initially intended to argue that Brianne's point about the critical nature of images for driving revolutions was selling the capabilities of language a bit short. However, I thought about it a little further and actually agree with her post. While language is capable of description, reading is more work than looking. People do seem to be moving away from language-based society and more towards image-based society (in a VERY general sense.)
Perhaps in 2013 "Common Sense" would have been a youtube video?
I think that the image Brianne posted is a representation by media. I know that Brianne did not intend this since she apologized for taking a picture of a picture, but in doing so she created art. The distortion in the image gave me an eery feeling—almost as if something was off. Look at the picture, and see if you get the same feeling.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the point that art is important in revolutions. However, all art is a form of propaganda. The artist is trying to show us their perspective and to portray not necessarily fact but opinion. I think this correlates to what Lincoln mentioned as “willful blindness” in art. The purpose of art is not to record human history. In the same way that the winners of wars write the history books, the people who have the skill to paint, draw, etc. create art.
Furthermore, Deborah, you did not need to say that we are moving towards an image-based society “(in a VERY general sense”. It is quite clear that the role of our linguistics is changing on a massive scale. We are encouraged to use PowerPoints, photographs, and videos when discussing nearly everything. In this ever increasing image-based life, what role should language take? When discussing Meno, there was a great failure in communication as they tried to define virtue. We know what virtue is and can point to examples of it, but were Meno and Socrates struggling because of limitations of the language or because of their inadequate mastery of the language? Perhaps this is a time when poetry would be necessary to define virtue. Poetry can act like a “snapshot” with words, thus providing us with a strong definition of what virtue is, even if we can’t literally define it.
I came across this slideshow on the front page of The New Yorker today:
Deletehttp://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/09/september-11-new-yorker-covers-slide-show.html#slide_ss_0=1
It really struck me as how these sequence of images just so incredibly capture our initial response to the tragedy and then the progression of cultural attitudes and the changing landscapes. And maybe that is the particular niche that pictures fall into: effectively showing change and progress. Sure, you could write an essay or a brief history covering the progression of our nation's response which would be intertwined with facts, quotes, causality analysis, international politics, etc. But there is something much more fundamental that these images bring - the sentiment of change.
How easy is it to click through 12 pictures and see the evolution? This slideshow is especially suited for showing a picture's worth because they all have the same format. Your eye knows exactly where to look. In contrast, raw images such as the one Brianne posted, take more time for the eye to really absorb detail, because something unexpected lies at each corner.
I think ultimately, this discussion ties into another thread's post on technology. A picture's worth is as good as the context behind it and the format in which it is presented.