Discussion Question: What would it take for a respected image (i.e. an image placed in a gallery or museum) to lose its “untouchable” status? Would there be a way for said image to regain its prestige?
W.J.T. Mitchell’s text is about the grand flexibility of the image itself. The image is seen by many as both a good and bad thing, as well as something that is on one hand taboo, but also widespread on the other. With the invention of technologies such as photography, television and the internet, the world has seen a massive proliferation of images. Because of the rapid availability and reproduction of images, many critics fear that said images could be easily doctored. Despite this, these same critics might turn a blind eye to the problem if the image were to be displayed in an art gallery or museum.
The image appeals to most of the senses, such as touch, smell, taste and sight. Should someone experience any sort of sense, their mind would deliver a visual metaphor. In addition, the image is both metaphysical and temporal; it can be, for example, either a canvas with a date and time imprinted on the back (seen as is) or a landscape depicting a scene of people dancing (the actual content of the canvas). Indeed, as Mitchell says, images will always be reactive and ambiguous, no matter how thoroughly controlled and analyzed they are. They truly are “everything and nothing”.
No comments:
Post a Comment