One of the concepts outlined in many of the readings focused on
the conflicting view of print and the mass distribution of literature and other
forms of art. In “The Press-Rival and Ally,” it is written that the Italians
were especially “hostile to printed books, regarding the press as a barbarous
German contraption which, at best, would impair learning to by lowering it to
the level of the multitude.”
While I completely condone the education for any person and being
a normal working-class-originated literary student, the printing press is one
of the most singularly important inventions ever gifted to humanity.
However, deriving from this concept only slightly, I wonder
if there is some validity that mass production or mass sharing of images, art,
or literature numbs the receiver to its impact. I recently visited BYU’s Museum
of Art which is currently displaying Pulitzer Prize winning photography. Much
of this collection consisted of photographs many of us may have have seen recently, such as the
attack on the World Trade Centers in 2001, and there were other photographs of similar or more intense nature, such as aftermaths of war, protests, mass
shootings, and suicide bombings.
As I continued to walk through the gallery, I noticed how
little I was affected by the content of the photographers, especially the ones
I had seen. In our social media driven society, are we continually scrolling through
our news feed and Instagram posts, mindlessly scrolling past history-changing
events like 9/11 or sharing a picture of the event with text written over it
reminding us to “never forget”? Have we already forgotten? Does a picture truly contain 1,000 words the more times we post it? Through our quick,
almost mindless, mass publication of visual rhetoric, have we also “changed the
appearance and state of the world?”
I would argue that it is not the trafficking of images that is the issue, but the infinitely easy potential to edit and make up such. To create a phony image in the 1960's would have required a team of experts. To do so now takes less than a minute by one man behind a screen. How are we supposed to be emotionally moved by an image, if it could just be the brainchild of some con artist?
ReplyDeleteYou have a valid concern, but I would like to discuss how we can use technology in a way that will increase our appreciation of the past rather than numb us to it. Having grown up in the 70s, I have to admit that I never really knew what was going on. I am embarrassed to admit that, even as a teenager, I feel like I missed so much. I believe that my kids and grandkids have more of an opportunity to understand the difficulties of this world because of the invention of the internet. In the future, when they have the chance to talk about news from their past, I doubt they will be as clueless as I was.
ReplyDelete