Author talks of text as abstraction compared to "edited" version of reality of visual media. But videos, movies, TV shows are also abstractions, possibly worse in that they more easily trick our subconscious into perceiving them as more real than words on a page while still being constructions of a "reality" based on the creator's point of view. So people think they have an understanding of the world based on fictionalized entertainment and tropes they've experienced thousands of times from screens.
Think of any time someone makes a political argument, or comments on a particular aspect of human nature by referencing something they saw in a movie. I think this is odd, at least if over done, as if the constructed media representation is somehow evidence of anything true. As if people don't have to have real lived experience of some phenomena as long as they watched something about it in a show or whatever.
Reminds me of Baudrillard's "hyperreality" [0] concept, where constructed media becomes "more real than real", here's an excellent presentation summarizing the idea [1]
Sidney Lumet's film "Network" (1976) explores the idea of "hyperreality" in an accessible way, where people model their lives in reaction to relationships shown on television.
>"I think this is odd, at least if over done, as if the constructed media representation is somehow evidence of anything true"
Constructed media representations, like clips of movies, can still be quite useful for introducing an idea where the evidence will be presented later on. For example, some research psychologists use clips from Ratatouille to introduce concepts about memory.
However, I agree that it's unfortunate that people sometimes do uncritically use fictional depictions as evidence of arguments for human nature. For example, Lord of the Flies depicted a highly pessimistic view of how shipwrecked boys would behave over time, and people have formed a cynical worldview from the story. A real-life case of shipwrecked boys in 1965, however, ended with cooperation: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/may/09/the-real-lord-...
Lord of the Flies was a satire on a popular genre of books where rich, upper-class, white kids ended up in exotic locales and not only survived but thrived, including teaching the primitive natives how to do civilization. So basically satire on pro-colonial propaganda.
Absolutely, no question. And personally I love film as an art form and even I fall into the trap of referencing film as some model for the real world.
It's hard to articulate the nuance but visual media/art certainly still exist in the real world, and we have to account for whatever it is they communicate to us, and it is something. There can be something real and reflective that comes from them, some insight on the human condition and (maybe less trustworthy) historical accounts of events.
It is just that to the degree something is visual and contains moving images seems to correlate with how much people perceive it as strictly factual or direct representation of reality. Whereas with books and texts people seem to have a healthy arms-length relationship with it being a depiction of a constructed reality or an abstraction. I think there are studies that sharing an experience watching a movie has a significant emotional response amongst viewers where that's similar to real life event. It fools your brain better than other forms. And since we live amidst near infinite quantity of films and shows, while people's actual lived experience of certain types of human struggle in developed world are less than in past, the disconnect of hyperreality becomes greater.
Indeed. I've lost count of the number of times I've come across the"Argument by webcomic" fallacy: the notion that somehow one's argument is unshakeable compared to a simple declaration of it, because it's been presented as a webcomic interaction or as an infographic.
Really well put, especially in regards to the notion that the less obvious mode of abstraction of visual media increases the risk that we mistake it for reality.
You’re right, the written word or visual depiction is still the result of human intentions, and I don’t think the process is very different between the two. This is coming from a writer’s perspective, so I guess I will state my bias.
Think of any time someone makes a political argument, or comments on a particular aspect of human nature by referencing something they saw in a movie. I think this is odd, at least if over done, as if the constructed media representation is somehow evidence of anything true. As if people don't have to have real lived experience of some phenomena as long as they watched something about it in a show or whatever.
Reminds me of Baudrillard's "hyperreality" [0] concept, where constructed media becomes "more real than real", here's an excellent presentation summarizing the idea [1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreality
[1] https://youtu.be/2U9WMftV40c