Did the Photograph Ruin the Written Word?
My senior year of high school at Cathedral High School in Indianapolis any student or teacher who didn't know me personally probably knew me as the girl with the camera. Why? Well, that year I was the only official photographer on the school's newspaper, The Megaphone. So it may come as no surprise than that I think Postman's argument against the photograph per se is just a bit truncated.
Postman quotes Gavriel Salomon who said "pictures need to be recognized, words need to be understood" and Postman adds his commentary that Salomon meant "that the photograph presents the world as an object; language, the world as an idea." While Postman does have a good point here that photographs often do objective things they can also show what is internally going on in someone's mind and even present emotions.
Take this photo for example from my sister Samantha's wedding reception on July 18, 2015:
In the foreground of the photograph you can see my sister laughing. You can feel the sense of joy radiating from her smile which shows her upper teeth. In the background you see, my brother-in-law (newly minted at the time) on top of a gorilla) he look triumphant having "saved" my sister from the gorilla. Now to spoil there wasn't an actual rabid animal at my sister's wedding reception. My brother Daniel just dressed up a gorilla to I guess carry on a tradition I didn't even know was a tradition as my Uncle Paul did the same thing at my parents wedding on May 26, 1990.
Now to give Postman some credit though for his argument, the photograph does present a "psuedo-context" as Postman points out and creates a possibility for the "news of the day".
Take this photograph of the World Trade Center on 9/11:
(Ok so this is post 1985 and the 24-hour news cycle had been cemented by this time, but I'm using it anyway).
Now imagine that this photo was on the front page of a newspaper in some rural area where someone may or may not have heard that the World Trade Center had been attacked (ok unlikely, but let's imagine). You might think be scared. Now, imagine that you read the "news of the day" of September 2, 2001 realizing that not only the World Trade Center, but the Pentagon was attacked and a plane crashed in a field in Pennsylvania. You read that it was radical Islamic terrorists that orchestrated the attack. Regardless, of what 20 years later almost how we see the wars in Afghanistan that resulted from this this picture represents perhaps how "the news of the day" garnered likely widespread initial support for this war the so-called War on Terrorism.
Now Postman argues that things like television were built off the photograph and the telegraph and based on their biases. Here Postman is again partially correct in his argument. Television definitely built of the "news of the day" model of communication. However, I disagree that the phrase "serious television" is necessarily "a contradiction in terms" (80). Well even some new shows do speak the "voice of entertainment" (80), this is more because of the move from news being mostly objective journalism -pure facts allowing the viewer to decide an opinion for himself or herself- to more subjective journalism injecting much more of the reporter's opinion into the news story and blurring the line between the new and opinion sections.
Take these four headlines about the airstrike that killed Iranian military leader Qassem Soleimani in Early 2020:
Occupy Democrats:
Iran vows revenge against Trump and issues ominous threat in Twitter post
New York Times:
What to Know About the Death of Iranian General Suleimani
Wall Street Journal:
Qassem Soleimani, Powerful Iranian Commander and U.S. Foe, Is Dead
Epoch Times:
Now while these headlines on their face are pretty neutral. I arranged them more in less in order of the most liberal to the most conservative source. Taking that into account Occupy Democrats may want to show that Trump's move was the wrong tactic while the Epoch would want to do just the opposite.
As as student journalist since my freshman year of high school I get a little aggravated that the media seems so polarized. Though to be honest it could reflect the culture we live in which Postman dubs "the Peekaboo" world. Of course he believes photography is part of this.
In some ways he' is right. Photos are usually chosen by what best tells a story pictorially. Thus one could say pictures like words only give one part of the story. They are also only a snapshot of an event giving a "peek" into what happened. However, as someone how has in the past put together photo essays, I can say that pictures when posted in the order of event give much more than just a pseudo-context for an event. Overall, Postman's argument is a valid one pictures can obscure and objectify events and people however, like words pictures are much more than just playing a pictorial game of peek-a-boo.
I do agree that Postman's view on the photograph is a little off-the-beaten path. However, I have to agree that photographs and things like television have changed the way we see and think about the world. I immediately think about my learning style as an example. If I am sitting down in a lecture and I did not have the opportunity to take notes, I would have a hard time remembering much of anything my professor said. However, I sit down and watch a 20 minute video and I can remember most of what happened. I think that says a lot about the world today and how new technologies like the television have changed even our way of thinking.
ReplyDeleteI'm so glad you addressed this point that Postman made about photography. Of course, photography is a different way to absorb information but I find it incredibly important as a means of communication. A photo, at its strongest is one of the best companions to the written word that I can think of. A photo presents a truth or a snapshot in time, one that can bring much needed context to a written piece. Even standing alone, a photograph creates an image of our world that can be discussed and processed as deeply as someone writing about it. You can read an article telling you about the charitable deeds of others in a war torn nation, but seeing a snapshot of these events hold a greater and different kind of gravity to it. It brings the writing to life, gives it faces to place with names; if you already have the context, a photo enriches the story. As the old saying goes, sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.
ReplyDeleteI'm so glad you addressed this point that Postman made about photography. Of course, photography is a different way to absorb information but I find it incredibly important as a means of communication. A photo, at its strongest is one of the best companions to the written word that I can think of. A photo presents a truth or a snapshot in time, one that can bring much needed context to a written piece. Even standing alone, a photograph creates an image of our world that can be discussed and processed as deeply as someone writing about it. You can read an article telling you about the charitable deeds of others in a war torn nation, but seeing a snapshot of these events hold a greater and different kind of gravity to it. It brings the writing to life, gives it faces to place with names; if you already have the context, a photo enriches the story. As the old saying goes, sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.
ReplyDeleteAll this, and neither you nor Postman mention the photograph’s ability to convey abstract meaning. Hell, Postman says that the photo CAN’T convey abstract meaning! Huh? Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that snapping a photo of someone’s abstract artwork doesn’t count. Every single “camera trick” to ever exist conveys abstract meaning. Charlie Chaplin, a man working at the dawn of film, even manages to do this.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQC2shaue90&ab_channel=ayanproduction
Charlie is out here in the 1930’s showing how picture(s) can convey a sense of danger despite no one being at risk. Postman has no excuse to even think that photos can’t be abstract. I think he is just upset that photography eventually led to television. smh