The_dangers_of_visual_culture_.pdf

Disclaimer: This is a machine generated PDF of selected content from our products. This functionality is provided solely for your
convenience and is in no way intended to replace original scanned PDF. Neither Cengage Learning nor its licensors make any
representations or warranties with respect to the machine generated PDF. The PDF is automatically generated “AS IS” and “AS
AVAILABLE” and are not retained in our systems. CENGAGE LEARNING AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY
AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY,
ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE. Your use of the machine generated PDF is subject to all use restrictions contained in The Cengage Learning
Subscription and License Agreement and/or the Gale College Collection Terms and Conditions and by using the machine generated
PDF functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against Cengage Learning or its licensors for your use of the machine
generated PDF functionality and any output derived therefrom.

The dangers of visual culture: the power to control and
manipulate images is democratizing, but it may also
undermine trust
Author: Christine Rosen
Date: March-April 2007
From: The Futurist(Vol. 41, Issue 2)
Publisher: World Future Society
Document Type: Article
Length: 1,189 words

Full Text:
The average person sees tens of thousands of images in the course of a day–images on television, in newspapers and magazines,
on Web sites, and on the sides of buses. Images also grace soda cans, T-shirts, and billboards, and Internet search engines can
instantly procure images for practically any word you type.

On Flickr.com, a photo-sharing Web site, you can type in a word such as “love” and find amateur digital photos of couples in steamy
embrace or parents hugging their children. Type in “terror,” and among the results is a photograph of the World Trade Center towers
burning. “Remember when this was a shocking image?” asks the person who posted the picture.

The question is not merely rhetorical. It points to something important about images in our culture: They have, by their sheer number
and ease of replication, become less magical and less shocking–a situation unknown until fairly recently in human history. Until the
development of mass reproduction, images carried more power and evoked more fear. The second of the Ten Commandments listed
in Exodus 20 warns against idolizing, or even making, graven images: “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any
likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.”

During the English Reformation, Henry VIII’s advisor Thomas Cromwell led the effort to destroy religious images and icons in the
country’s churches and monasteries, and was successful enough that few survive to this day. The 2001 decision by the Taliban
government in Afghanistan to destroy images throughout the country–including the two towering stone Buddhas carved into the cliffs
of Bamiyan–is only the most recent example of this impulse. Political leaders have long feared images and taken extreme measures
to control and manipulate them. The anonymous minions of manipulators who sanitized photographs at the behest of Stalin (a man
who seemingly never met an enemy he didn’t murder and then airbrush from history) are perhaps the best known example. Control of
images has long been a preoccupation of the powerful.

Today, anyone with a digital camera and a personal computer can produce and alter an image. As a result, the power of the image
has been diluted in one sense, but strengthened in another. It has been diluted by the ubiquity of images and the many populist
technologies (like inexpensive cameras and picture-editing software) that give almost everyone the power to create, distort, and
transmit images. But it has been strengthened by the gradual capitulation of the printed word to pictures, particularly moving pictures.
Text ceded to image might be likened to an articulate person being rendered mute, forced to communicate via gesture and
expression rather than language.

People love images. We love the democratizing power of technologies–such as digital cameras, video cameras, Photoshop, and
PowerPoint–that give us the capability to make and manipulate images. What we are less eager to consider are the broader cultural
effects of a society devoted to the image. Historians and anthropologists have explored the story of mankind’s movement from an
oral-based culture to a written culture, and later to a printed one. But it is only in the past several decades that we have begun to
assimilate the effects of the move from a culture based on the printed word to one based largely on images.

In making images rather than texts our guide, are we opening up new vistas for understanding and expression, creating a form of
communication that is “better than print,” as New York University communications professor Mitchell Stephens has argued? Or are
we merely making a peculiar and unwelcome return to forms of communication once ascendant in preliterate societies–perhaps
creating a world of hieroglyphics and ideograms (albeit technologically sophisticated ones)–and in the process becoming, as the late
Daniel Boorstin argued, slavishly devoted to the enchanting and superficial image at the expense of the deeper truths that the written
word alone can convey?

Two things in particular are at stake in our contemporary confrontation with an image-based culture. First, technology has
considerably undermined our ability to trust what we see, yet we have not adequately grappled with the effects of this on our notions
of truth. Second, if we are indeed moving from the era of the printed word to an era dominated by the image, what impact will this
have on culture, broadly speaking, and its institutions? What will art, literature, and music look like in the age of the image? And will
we, in the age of the image, become too easily accustomed to verisimilar rather than true things, preferring appearance to reality and
in the process rejecting the demands of discipline and patience that true things often require of us if we are to understand their
meaning and describe it with precision?

The potential costs of moving from the printed word to the image are immense. We may find ourselves in a world where our ability to
communicate is stunted, our understanding and acceptance of what we see questionable, and our desire to transmit culture from one
generation to the next seriously compromised.

About the Author

Christine Rosen is the author of several books, including, most recently, My Fundamentalist Education: A Memoir of Divine Girlhood
(Public Affairs, 2006). She is a fellow at the Ethics & Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., and senior editor at The New Atlantis:
A Journal of Technology & Society. A longer version of her article is available at www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/10/rosen.htm).

RELATED ARTICLE: Facts on Literacy

* Some 35 million U.S. adults have difficulty with common literacy tasks such as completing forms or finding information in a text.
Around 40 to 41 million Americans, or 21%-23% of the adult population, read at the lowest literacy level.

Source: National Center for Education Statistics.

* Globally, approximately 861 million adults were illiterate in 2002. The vast majority, nearly 70%, live in nine countries in sub-
Saharan Africa, as well as East and South Asia, including India, China, Bangladesh, and Pakistan.

Source: UNESCO-Education For All Global Monitoring Report, 2005.

* In a 2001 U.S. Association of Manufacturers poll, U.S. employers ranked poor reading skills as the second most serious skill
deficiency among current hourly employees, behind only worker attitude, timeliness, and attendance.

Source: The National Association of Manufacturers.

* Between 1982 and 2002, young adults (age 18-24) went from being one of the most-likely groups to read literature to one of the
least likely. The rate of decline for adults aged 18-24 was -28% compared with -18% for the overall population.

Source: The National Endowment for the Arts, Reading at Risk: A Survey of Literary Reading in America.

* In 2005, approximately 11% of incoming college freshmen in the United States required a remedial reading course, and 14%
required remedial writing. The need for remedial reading is the leading predictor that a student will drop out of college. Remediation
costs the United States $3.7 billion a year, including a $2.3 billion loss to the economy due to the diminished earning power of
students who do not have a degree.

Source: The Alliance for Excellent Education, 2006. www.all4ed.org.

Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2007 World Future Society
http://www.wfs.org/wfs
Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)
Rosen, Christine. “The dangers of visual culture: the power to control and manipulate images is democratizing, but it may also

undermine trust.” The Futurist, vol. 41, no. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2007, p. 29+. Gale College Collection,
link.gale.com/apps/doc/A160110385/GCCO?u=mia56118&sid=lms-GCCO&xid=4fcaf22f. Accessed 1 July 2021.

Gale Document Number: GALE|A160110385

http://www.wfs.org/wfs