What caught my attention more than the issue with CNN is the author's claims regarding the use of images in general. He quotes from several Christian thinkers who are critical of the use of images--the following two quotes particularly caught my attention:
"Far from offering truth, [Francis Schaeffer] said, "every television minute has been edited. The viewer does not see the event. He sees . . . an edited image of that event.""
"And as Christian philosopher Douglas Groothuis notes, with television, reality becomes the image, "whether or not that image corresponds to any objective state of affairs—and we are not challenged to engage in this analysis.""These are strong statements regarding the use of images in general, and the medium of television in particular. Both Schaeffer and Groothuis, as far as I know, are extremely critical of television as a medium of communication--Groothuis seems to view it as a completely debased and useless form.
It is worth noting that these criticisms are valid. Television, as with any form of communication, has weaknesses, and it is good to point them out. One should always bear in mind that television is a highly edited medium, and Groothuis is at least correct that many people do not take the time to think about what they are watching. My difficulty, however, is that the implicit assumption behind these statements (and I believe Groothuis' writings confirm this interpretation) is that image is somehow inferior to word. That is, textually based information is viewed as having a greater claim to truth, or at least a much greater ability to communicate truth.
However, I'm just not sure that this is true--that image is inferior to word when it comes to communicating truth. Different, certainly, but inferior? Part of the problem is that it seems to be barely acknowledged (if at all) that texts suffer from the exact same limitations noted above regarding the use of images. All textually based material is necessarily edited by its author, and is written with an agenda in mind. Word/text is always produced for a reason--everything is subjective, and any claims to complete objectivity are automatically suspect. I believe this is part of the human condition--while we may legitimately try to limit the extent to which our own experiences, ideas, and agendas influence what we produce (be it image or word), true objectivity will always elude us.
Accordingly, while the above criticism of images, and of television in particular, is certainly valid, it seems inappropriate for it to be used to privilege word over image. God himself seems to value both--while the Bible is the Word, isn't Jesus the ultimate Image?
3 comments:
Jake, I agree with your thoughts here. We shouldn't limit our usage of images just because they have a tendency to be used inappropriately. Both images and words have a tendency to be biased and we just need to remember that as we read or watch. Recognize that in many instances the author has an agenda and will use both word and image to meet that agenda. Also, keep in mind that though I agree that both have the same fault I do see that imagery has it to a larger extent. "A pictures speaks a thousand words" is still true today so how many more words does a biased video say over a thousand word article? Just a thought.
Actually, I'm not sure it is true to a larger extent - rather, it is true in different ways. An image, without any associated text, is more open to a variety of interpretations by the audience. However, word/text is ALWAYS influenced by its author's agenda, in a way that images sans text are not.
I'll also quibble a little bit with your statement: "Recognize that in many instances the author has an agenda . . ." Actually, I think in EVERY instance the author has an agenda. My whole point is that subjectivity is inescapable. If someone says they have no agenda, they are claiming complete objectivity, and I think complete objectivity is an unattainable ideal.
Jake, you never cease to amaze me with your insight. I am glad to have someone like you as a friend. I agree with your assessment on this issue in that both mediums are (in a sense) limited/weak in their ability to portray objective reality.
Both of the men you cited are quite hesitant to place much trust in media-based information, and that they tend to focus the majority of their attention on the written word. (I wonder if they see the inherent flaw in their choice -- isn't the written word a basic form of media? Wasn't the written text the TV of ancient times?)
The only thing I wonder about, however, is what they are ultimately trying to say. Both men come from a philosophical tradition that only adheres to what is true in the absolute sense of the term (see, Aristotle's definition in "Metaphysics" 1011b.25). In other words, they want to know what can be known as objectively true in the sense that it corresponds to actual reality (I know for certain that Schaeffer holds this view; I'm not so sure about Groothuis -- he might).
This desire is not short-sighted; the medium through which they seek to sustain this desire is the point of limitation. Both written and visual mediums have their inherent limitations; and both are at the mercy of those who use them. This is where they are at fault. I do, however, understand their underlying logic in placing a written text over a visual portrayal; though I do not share their conviction that the former trumps the latter.
Post a Comment