-Reactions and questions raised while reading this essay. Not intended as an essay or formal response. This will serve for reference notes for later.
? What is the debate Rosen sets up?
-Two opposing sides:
1. Images open new understanding/expression
2. Images are superficial, create slavish dependance at the expense of deeper truths (which can only be expressed in words)
? What is the purpose of such a debate? No theorist can rationalize the population from their inclinations. Clearly we are drawn to images for their power to communicate something that was previously missing.
? What did we lose of our oral capabilities with the growing dependance on printed text? Certainly text is less personal and less immediate than an orator? (Considering some lectures that I have seen, this may not actually be true.)
? Why attach value to certain forms? A hierarchal preference to text will disadvantage the less literate. Gardner's Multiple Intelligence theory has been generally accepted among teachers and education theorists (not sure of the accuracy of this statement, or how to prove this). Regardless of whether one accepts Gardner's claims, this theory offers a method for affirming and developing skills in students, considering each as individuals, rather than identifying deficiencies according to impersonal standards.
! We must instead articulate the potential and limitations unique to each form, so that we don't lazily substitute one for another, when a particular idea demands a photograph when an essay would be insufficient.
"Images do not necessarily lead to knowledge. This is due in part to the fact that photographic images must constantly be refreshed if one's attention is to continue to be drawn to them." (Rosen)
What is our measure of knowledge here? Facts?
Would Rosen limit the potential of texts only to the knowledge that can be extracted?
Since the public generally recognizes the verisimilitude of images, few expect images to transmit some pure "truth." And, this skepticism that has developed with the inundation of images can be useful for teaching critical thinking. Besides, we don't hold this responsibility for communicating truth for all texts.
"Does every cultural trend make a culture genuinely better?" (Rosen)
? How could we possibly determine this? What is best culture? Is there a single unified culture anywhere?
! Lasting trends (TV for example) are successful b/c they successfully fulfill desires. My question is: How can we use TV (for example) to its full advantage, without becoming overly dependent and ignoring its limitations?
Rosen's normative and exclusive Value system
-Much of the article's claim depends on exclusive values: 1) assumes a shared understanding for what constitutes knowledge 2) assumes a hierarchy of media forms 3) assumes a shared understanding of what constitutes culture
-My objection is not that Rosen has preferences, but that these preferences are unexamined, and unacknowledged. Rosen begins with assumption that text is superior, without ever considering that these values have a history (most of her claims seem to fit comfortably among New Critical Theory).
Therefore, the conclusions reached are entirely arbitrary, and predetermined.
-Damien Hirst: "posturing and shallow." (Rosen)
I have no interest here in critiquing or validating Hirst, whose artistic contribution is subjective. Rosen is misleading here. She bolsters her rejection of Hirst, not by evaluating his art, but justifies her opinion because of his preferences. This is a weakening of substance and argument, the kind of arguments we might find in petty political campaigns. Rather than evaluating a Senator's history, we question her integrity because she prefers _______ (insert controversial topic of debatable value).
Rosen's use of Predictions
-Rosen quotes E. B. White: "If everyone is going to be able to see everything, in the long run all sights may lose whatever rarity value they once possessed, and it may well turn out that people, being able to see and hear practically everything, will be specially interested in nothing."
? Maybe. But how can we predict the people's behavior, especially in a vacuum of particular conditions? Why do this? Why write eulogies for future generations?
! Clearly there are advantages and disadvantages to the various forms of media and presentations of information. Predicting which form will come to dominate, and which will superannuate seems inconsequential, as predictions serve no practical function in the present.
? What exactly is there to prepare for? How could we prepare even if we knew? Apologists of print should panic and fortify a levee of books and magazines and newspapers?
! For education to remain relevant (considered primarily from perspective of English/Language Arts teacher), teachers must consider how people are currently communicating, if our goal is to prepare students for the world, and the work they want to do in it, we need to consider how people in the world are communicating.
Looking at form in The Image Culture
-Rosen: "But concern about a culture of the image has a rich history, and neither side can yet claim victory."
! The existence of fear does not prove the existence of the source, even when that particular fear has a legacy.
! This claim here seems to sum up Rosen's method of argument.
1. For the audience to consider forming an opinion, the essayist must establish the problem, and the urgency of this problem. Rosen does this through use of binary arguments, referencing opposite claims about her topic. If there is a fight, and there are only two sides, the reader is asked to choose.
2. Rosen appears to be objective because there are references to "both sides" of the apparent argument. News reporting proves that it is "fair and balanced" by limiting an issue to two choices, and finding two experts for each opposing perspective.
3. Also like TV news, Rosen's references are almost entirely hyperbole, replacing the dramatic effect of image with shocking claims.
Apologists for Text: image culture will lead to illiterate societies and the elimination of books. These critics appear like war-mongers predicting the apocalypse.
Apologists for Image: image culture will lead to new languages entirely based on images. The advocates for technology appear ludicrously optomistic.
Both of these claims are predictions, and therefore impossible to prove or disprove.
4. Focusing on predictions, there is no real evaluation of ideas or values, which appear to be presented as facts.
5. Common sense wins: The claims of the text apologists seem to ring more true because the claims refer to common sense beliefs, such "TV is bad for you" or literacy is the primary indicator is intelligence. Common sense is always beyond questioning and therefore not intellectual or academic, and totally emotional.
No comments:
Post a Comment