Absurd Images of Violence-
It is often thought by many that the American people are desensitized and numb toward the images of violence which are encountered everyday. This argument is made by referring to the emotional reaction an individual has when viewing an image of violence. Superficially looking at people while they view images of violence will lead one to think the American people are numb to violence. But a closer look at the nature of these images is needed to fully understand an individual’s reaction to them. I think, rather than numbness, a person’s unemotional reaction to an image of violence is due to the absurd nature of the images.
Photography, presumably the most realistic representation of reality, began in the nineteenth century. The technology of photography allowed images to be taken of the American Civil War somewhat readily. Quite suddenly, images of violence and death were being published in newspapers around the world and in America. What once was an ambiguous abstraction for people who never had direct experience, war quickly formed into a solid reality in people’s minds. People in America living through the Civil War where all effected greatly, and generally could not escape feeling a logical and emotional connection to the images being published. The new technology brought a great change in how people could perceive reality, thus it brought about a great emotional reaction when an individual viewed an image of violence.
Another great change in how people formulated reality came with television. The first major impact of violence and war on television came with the Vietnam War in the 1960s and early 1970s. Television offered a “higher” sense of reality to individuals, so instead of single frame still-shots, moving video became the main perspective of a reality which was once distant from the individual. Partly because the Vietnam War effected so many domestically, realistic images of war which came into American homes once again sparked a great emotional reaction.
In American culture today, each individual is over-saturated with images of violence and war. Yet, most Americans feel no impact from any of the images. Is that because Americans have become numb and desensitized to these images, or is it something different? Do unaffected individuals view images of violence differently than those who are directly affected by them? This is where I think a distinction needs to be made. Rather then having the logical and emotional connection to the people or events being represented by the images, the people or events remain distant and illogical in relation to the viewer’s life. Instead of a new media which proffers a “higher” sense of reality which would create a more sympathetic potential within individuals, the old types of media remain. This leaves people static in their interpretation of events and leaves the images as absurd representations of illogical and distant phenomena.
So, instead of claiming people are desensitized and numb to violence, I would claim people have not been offered a new way to understand reality in a deeper sense because the old media have become normalized. Understanding also that a majority of Americans are not greatly affected by images of violence or war, leaving the events and people represented disconnected from the individual viewing the image. The images are absurd in relation to the individual’s life, thus a weak reaction is elicited to images of violence and war. Ultimately, images of violence are not violence, they are strictly representations.
All of this is not to say a person cannot be affected by an image of violence, it happens often. But generally, unless a more serious look is taken past the image (meaning, finding information on the subject, so a more understanding perception can be formed), images of violence remain absurd and cast in shadow.
It is often thought by many that the American people are desensitized and numb toward the images of violence which are encountered everyday. This argument is made by referring to the emotional reaction an individual has when viewing an image of violence. Superficially looking at people while they view images of violence will lead one to think the American people are numb to violence. But a closer look at the nature of these images is needed to fully understand an individual’s reaction to them. I think, rather than numbness, a person’s unemotional reaction to an image of violence is due to the absurd nature of the images.
Photography, presumably the most realistic representation of reality, began in the nineteenth century. The technology of photography allowed images to be taken of the American Civil War somewhat readily. Quite suddenly, images of violence and death were being published in newspapers around the world and in America. What once was an ambiguous abstraction for people who never had direct experience, war quickly formed into a solid reality in people’s minds. People in America living through the Civil War where all effected greatly, and generally could not escape feeling a logical and emotional connection to the images being published. The new technology brought a great change in how people could perceive reality, thus it brought about a great emotional reaction when an individual viewed an image of violence.
Another great change in how people formulated reality came with television. The first major impact of violence and war on television came with the Vietnam War in the 1960s and early 1970s. Television offered a “higher” sense of reality to individuals, so instead of single frame still-shots, moving video became the main perspective of a reality which was once distant from the individual. Partly because the Vietnam War effected so many domestically, realistic images of war which came into American homes once again sparked a great emotional reaction.
In American culture today, each individual is over-saturated with images of violence and war. Yet, most Americans feel no impact from any of the images. Is that because Americans have become numb and desensitized to these images, or is it something different? Do unaffected individuals view images of violence differently than those who are directly affected by them? This is where I think a distinction needs to be made. Rather then having the logical and emotional connection to the people or events being represented by the images, the people or events remain distant and illogical in relation to the viewer’s life. Instead of a new media which proffers a “higher” sense of reality which would create a more sympathetic potential within individuals, the old types of media remain. This leaves people static in their interpretation of events and leaves the images as absurd representations of illogical and distant phenomena.
So, instead of claiming people are desensitized and numb to violence, I would claim people have not been offered a new way to understand reality in a deeper sense because the old media have become normalized. Understanding also that a majority of Americans are not greatly affected by images of violence or war, leaving the events and people represented disconnected from the individual viewing the image. The images are absurd in relation to the individual’s life, thus a weak reaction is elicited to images of violence and war. Ultimately, images of violence are not violence, they are strictly representations.
All of this is not to say a person cannot be affected by an image of violence, it happens often. But generally, unless a more serious look is taken past the image (meaning, finding information on the subject, so a more understanding perception can be formed), images of violence remain absurd and cast in shadow.
-Eric Virzi
No comments:
Post a Comment