What comes to mind is the phrase 'pictures speak louder than words.' We have been talking a lot about communication via writing. As of a few days ago we started looking at ways, like poetry and creative writing, that don't evoke fear or boredom and reaches out to wider audiences. Images are another medium that can convey a message, a lesson, or just provoke thought.
Known for its photographic excellence, National Geographic captures more than an image for articles (sometimes an article isn't even necessary). This set of photos and captions relates to the freshwater crisis and is a simple, yet effective tool for communication.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
The pictures have a much more immediate impact than words usually do. I looked at the pictures for less than a minute before posting my comment, and feel similarly to how I felt after reading the Silent Spring chapters. An important difference is that the pictures and captions provide information on the state of things as they are, but don't suggest solutions.
I think that Lindsey makes an excellent point in suggesting that imagery can be extremely valuable as a form of communicating. The photographs from national geographic serve as extremely effective communicators by both passing along a form of knowledge and also by evoking emotion much like the poetry that we read in class. By doing both of these things together, the photographer is able to relay both knowledge of nature and about nature.
One interesting thing to consider however is the role that the text at the foot of the picture plays. While the text is minimal, it definitely directs the audience towards a very specific conclusion. Without this text, the viewer might be left to their own interpretations. What message or knowledge might you have taken away from the photgraphs if the text had not been present? Would these interpretation have been accurate and reliable?
"a picture can tell a thousand words." when someone mentioned this phrase, this person knew exactly what he/she or wanted to convey. I believe nature can tell tremendously about Science the same way Science can say a lot about Nature. Most importantly how we interpret what we see, hear, or read about nature is unique amongst all of us. Each one of us has a distinct connection with nature. These pictures posted by National Geographic depict the world in a unique way. They have almost all the elements we observe in nature, life, water, earth, sky, but with extra element of "disaster." I personally believe that these pictures can convince for instance a lot about science, about for instance pollution much more than a scientific journal article. And besides "a picture" IS the universal language, not English.
I went through the viewing first by just looking at the image, and afterwards, reading the captions. I must admit for a few of the images, I was thinking of its photographic qualities: composition and lightning. When I read the caption it struck me: there's something very wrong with this picture. Perhaps it is my background in photography that got me there. However, the images of trash in water definitely stood out, and they are the ones I remember most. I think such pictures stick to one's memory because of how unnatural the scene looks. We associate nature with something "clean", and natural; to me that means no human objects.
I totally agree. Whether or not someone understands the science behind pollution or global warming, these pictures easily carry a message of people damaging our environment. Especially for children, pictures quickly communicate a message that would otherwise be hard to explain.
Images really are very useful in science communication. I do recall in class that some articles were accompanied by images, some more technical than others, which needed to be explained. Images help people conceptualize and visualize the science and phenomena to which the researcher is referring.
Today, watching the bee eaters was quite different from reading about it. Images and movies tend to help widen the audience to which topics and issues can be addressed. This is especially important in educating children and even the general public.
I completely agree that pictures have a lasting impact. As we have recently been talking about nature in class lectures, I think the pictures are extremely relevant. When it comes to nature, pictures can often times be much more descriptive without saying one word.
I think what we're all saying is that the pictures help you "know Nature," though perhaps NOT "know ABOUT Nature."
Yet images are also used a lot in science -- think of all the graphs, spectrums, electron micrographs, etc. Many of those images get extremely heavily "processed" before being published. Are they pictures of Nature or of Science?
I think Professor L. brings up a good question about the graphs, tables, and figures used in scientific articles. I think that in any scientific article, graph/figure/tables are used to legitimize and "science-ize" the rersarch. I've read plenty of primary research articles, and one thing I've noticed is that scientists will try to make a table or a graph out of anything. While graphs and figures are ostensibly supposed to clarify the data, sometimes all they do is make the data more confusing, thereby defeating their original purpose. The reason for this is partly, I think, that tables, charts, and graphs are images are pictures of Science (in the audience's eyes). Since that audience views tables/charts/graphs as representations of raw science, primary authors try to legitimize the scientific merit of their research by organizing their data into such figures.
The phrase "a picture is worth a thousand words" is evident in the Nationmal Geographic pictures. As mentioned in the short article blurb often times with such a prestigious magaizine an article isn't even needed. The pictures are able to create a sense of emotional connection and thus make the audience want to help. The vivid pictures help us know nature and effectively create a connection from reader to the source of the problem.
Pictures have a much stronger impact than words do when first presented. However, they cannot elicit the same influence as words do. There are no suggestions or captions in pictures. Text allows for abstract thought, and different interpretations of presented information. I believe that the pictures however, can still present valuable information, considering that everyone can understand them.
I definitely think that text and pictures are both powerful in their own way. The pictures help us to "know nature" and in a way feel more connected to it. In this way we use our senses and actually see the devastation that often cannot be expressed well enough. The pictures really help to see what is going on but I think the text in the caption also plays an important role in letting us know exactly what is being shown in the picture. It helps to direct us instead of interpreting the picture ourselves.
I definitely agree with what you are saying. In fact, in my Comm 130 class right now we are going over different reasons why advertisers chose certain pictures and images for their products. When we reviewed the reason for scenic/environmental photos it was because they evoke emotions and add much more room for interpretation than any words could say. For instance, a Jeep out in the canyons could suggest that the car is rugged enough to make it there, it is strong and stoic enough to be among greatness or that it is even as sturdy and reliable as the canyons themselves!
Post a Comment