Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Does Repetition of Image Derealize? 9/23
The question was brought up in class of whether or not the repetition of images derealize and desensitize them, specifically talking about the medias' constant 9/11 images. Personally I think that repetitive exposure to an image significantly desensitizes one to the reality and meaning of what they are seeing. An incredible mix of emotions overcame me watching the actual live coverage of the second plane crash into the World Trade Center tower. While the day continued on, and more information was divulged, and the coverage was practically on loop on every channel in the country, those images harbored more and more feelings and understanding. Yet, now when they are flashed on screen, my heart doesn't stop, my mouth doesn't gape, the reality of the situation isn't there. If I take the time to think about it, of course some raw emotion can be ignited, but its nowhere near the same as that day. I think a lot about the power of images can be said about the Vietnam War, when the media first displayed the gruesome reality of what was happening to the American public. There were riots. Literally. Overtime, as the media (news and entertainment) has turned this into a norm, it does not shock and awe the public, it is expected. If something that in the past could stop someone dead in their tracks now overtime has become something that is "normal", how can that not be "derealization" (if thats even a word, the red line underneath it says its not?).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I agree with this on most levels. For me, at first, the images were what made the event a reality for me. I was not there, I did not see the towers fall. I could have read about it, but the images were what made it all real. I feel that at first, the repetition of images was more and more sobering, and increasingly established my relationship to the events of 9/11. At some point however, the repetition began to numb me to the reality which they created. I kept thinking about what this transition from establishing reality to numbing me to reality came from. The obvious answer is that, at one point, the information was new. Once the information was there, the images did not provide me with anything new. They became stale, they numbed me. But I think there is more to it than that.
The image creates a reality for us from which we are removed by time and space. I think that the shift from creating reality to de-realizing that reality takes place, not only because of our own conditioning to the image itself, but also to a change in the nature of that particular image. Benjamin would argue that the meaning of an image is constructed by its relation to its context and the people/culture it was created for/by. The purpose of the 9/11 images was initially to make us aware of what had occurred. Once the initial “stun” effect of the image began to wear off, the image was removed from its original context and was used in other contexts for other purposes.
Once the context (informative nature) of the image was changed, the meaning of the image changed. It was no longer used to inform, but rather to elicit pure emotion (fear, anger, sadness, nationalism). News centers wanted to elicit emotion because emotion sells. The government wanted to elicit emotion to fuel their agenda. Once the genuine purpose of the meaning ceased to be the context in which it was primarily used, the image ceased to establish reality for us, and rather began to redefine our relationship to that reality in a way that served the interests of those in possession of the image (and the means to mass produce that image).
Post a Comment