On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 3:57 AM, Ian Glendinning <[email protected]>wrote:
I agree Craig > John, the confusion with the "every picture paints xxxx words" adage > is that is partly misunderstood out of context. > > The picture symbolically will enable recall of xxxx thousand > words-worth of conceptual thought, not because those words jump out at > you or can be inferred with or without any interpretation from the > image, but because the story / message has already been communicated > and understood - and hence associated with the image(s) thereafter. > That "recall" can be much faster and efficient compared to long-winded > explanation and story telling. The context I usually associate with the aphorism is in the descriptive power of images vs the descriptive power of words. It can take a thousand words to adequately describe a reality that a picture conveys in one fell swoop. Also, may I interject that Ellul's point was not that "images are evil and words are good". Rather it has to do with a proper hierarchical understanding of truth - just as it is more inefficient for words to describe reality, it is even more inefficient and deceptive when images attempt to describe truth. > The symbologies or the different parts of an image are just as > symbolic as the different parts of a text - the symbolism may be more > spatial, more compressed, more efficient and less linear as you say > ... but there still needs to have been interpretation that associates > the message with the images / symbols and their arrangements. > Interpretation is only needed when there is meaning intended. For many images there is no symbolic interpretation needed because the image stands alone. Let me think of an example... Ok, when as a kid I snuck my dad's Playboys into the garage, I wasn't interested in the meaning of women posing naked for the camera, nor was I curious about the symbology of the bunny. I just liked looking at pictures of naked women. As an esthetic unity, the pic stands alone. yeah, and I could probably make a witticism about something else standing alone, but I won't. I have way too much class for that. :) John Regards > Ian > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 7:52 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > [John] > >> the verbal description is linear and > >> interpretative whereas with the picture, it's all there in one quick > >> gestaltish glance. > > > > This is the view that the later Wittgenstein argued against. > > True, interpreting 'bicycle' requires knowing a language. > > But a picture of a red bicycle needs interpreting too. > > Does it mean a generic bicycle, your bicycle, a metal object, > > > > a red object, an object with two wheels, something manufactured, > > > > etc.? > > Craig > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > > Archives: > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
