Visual Literacy

Part of my Junior theme dealt with the term "Visual Literacy". It's a lot like what Fallows, Finitzo, and Tragos were talking about on American Studies day. According to Wikipedia, visual literacy is "the ability to interpret, negotiate, and make meaning from information presented in the form of an image. Visual literacy is based on the idea that pictures can be “read” and that meaning can be communicated through a process of reading". For me, this applied to my JT because if photographs can be "read," what kind of restrictions should be put on them? Should they be censored in the same way a written work would be?

One of my interviewees, and a good friend of Mr. Tragos', has an excellent blog aimed at increasing visual literacy: nocaptionneeded.com. Please check it out, it's a great site that was founded after the publication of his book by the same title.

We already know that, for the most part, humans accept and retain knowledge best when presented visually. To interpret photographs critically is certainly much harder, but is also necessary. Thousands of photographs flood AP Images everyday, and we see many of them on TV or online, but it would take so much longer to analyze them that we often neglect them for quick headlines.

Take Nick Ut's iconic image, for example.  I could write an essay three times the length of my JT just on this grainy image. But for a quick "see-think-wonder," consider this: Ut was criticized for taking a photograph of a naked girl whose village was napalmed. But he helped the girl to a hospital, aiding the American soldier also pictured. This photo taken out of context could be so many things: An argument for the innocence of children to be censored from the mainstream media, arguments against pure pain, a suggestion that American soldiers really weren't doing anything in Vietnam (they look like they're ignoring the children).

If we were to really analyze the photographs that we see on the news, it would consume a lot of our time. But perhaps we might become more aware of what we saw and the bias of the photographer.

Since when is softball bad?

The Wall Street Journal recently published a photograph of Elena Kagan, Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, at age 17 playing softball.

The photograph is above. GLAAD (and SheWired.com) claim that the Wall Street Journal is suggesting that Kagan is a lesbian.

My dad and I had a conversation about this. He thinks that it's perfectly fine, maybe because when he grew up, guys would play softball. SheWired claims that "All women who play softball are lesbians. I happen to believe that sometimes the stereotypes fit". I think that it's inappropriate because it seems to suggest that she's immature, as softball is typically played by younger girls, and not played after high school.

But consider other photographs that other newspapers, like Chicago's very own Sun Times ran:

Perfect, right? Obama looking down at Kagan, approving, while Biden smiles and claps next to him. Very professional, and a good journalistic summary of what the situation was.

So why didn't the Wall Street Journal run this photograph?


Some think that it was blown completely out of proportion by GLAAD, and I agree. I don't think a claim can be made about her sexuality from the photograph, but I do think it was a poor choice, especially when there were other options.  The fact that she's playing softball highlights the fact that she's a woman, as softball is often considered the female version of baseball.

So what do you think? Was the Wall Street Journal wrong to have chosen this image?

Tokenism is Everywhere

Mr. Bolos argues that TV tokenism is prevalent in network dramas. But I think they apply to pretty much every non-reality TV show. Honestly, I think it is appropriate for a show to attempt to include people of color, but it's a little ridiculous that most shows feature white main characters with the buddy racial friend.

Consider the cast of Glee. For those unfamiliar, I got this photo from TVAddict.com. Honestly, I'm embarassed to watch the show even occasionally, but I mention it because its such a great example of Tokenism. Clockwise from upper right, it goes: Stereotypical white male dumb jock, loud Jewish girl, gay guy, popular white girl, popular Jewish boy, black overweight girl, boy in a wheel chair, and Asian wannabe-goth. The show aims to ridicule school stereotypes, but I feel like it promotes them: white kids date other white kids, and those with disabilities (Arnie) date those of color (Asian Tina).


There are other cast members not included--dumb blond cheerleader, Hispanic cheerleader, Asian male dancer, and another Asian guy. This gives a pretty reasonable representation though. And note how the white characters are in the most prominent position--the top and right.

One of my favorite lines from the show is something along the lines of gay boy and black girl saying, "she's black and I'm gay. We are culture." Is that appropriate for a show (on Fox) to say, even if it is a comedy?

The places you could go

It's about this time of year that I have a strange urge to drop everything and run away. I'm not talking about running away from home, but rather going anywhere, doing anything. Sunshine has a strange effect on me, especially when it filters through ferns or trees in my backyard, and when the wind blows through the leaves. It's not that spring coming to the North Shore isn't beautiful--it is-- rather, I would give anything to pack up my bags and get on a plane to someplace far away.

I started traveling when I was very young. I went to Paris, Nice, Avignon and Monaco at the age of six, when my kindergartner peers were first venturing out of state. I am the youngest of four, with three older brothers. My grandparents on my Mom's side traveled the globe--they went to Russia a few months after it was opened to Americans, Iran and Iraq before a hint of war, Indonesia where my great-aunt worked for the American Government as a member of the State Department. They were the sort of couple whose passports were renewed every few years--not because of expiration, but because they were filled up too quickly with stamps from foreign countries.

It seems that I have inherited this from them, even though genetics are out of the question (my mom was adopted). When I think about the two of them, I think of photographs of them on the Navajo reservation, standing at the Four Corners, or sitting cross legged on a pillow in Eastern Asia. It seems that the aged widower who looks at photographs of a younger man with his wife exists more solidly in photographs--perhaps another thing I have inherited from them, a visual memory like albums of photographs stacked to infinity.

Achieving the title of World Traveler is not easily done, and it certainly requires a strong financial security. But almost more importantly, to me, at least, is an open mindedness that begins at a young age. My memory includes German castles practically hidden by neglect, with rain soaked greenery. When I think of Italy, I think of driving through vineyards in Verona and enlisting a waiter to describe the dessert menu through interpretive dance.

Though I may have been too young to truly understand what I was seeing (Vienna without knowing a thing about World War 1, or Rome before knowing of the Ancient Romans), it has provided a backdrop for me of who I am, a treasure-trove of memories, and a beginner's knowledge of how the world works, and a mind left wide open when seeing things for the first time. But perhaps more importantly, my experiences have made me want to explore every inch of the Earth, and to revisit my memories of Central American rainforests and Italian piazzas.

Junior Theme 3

So I haven't been keeping up with my blogging, seeing as my junior theme is due monday. But as I was writing it, I thought of something interesting. Here's a quote from my paper:
Unlike fleeting television, where an image is played perhaps once per hour at most, internet users are in more control of what they see and how often they can see it. One can zoom in on images online, whereas with television, the network producers decide if they want to do a close-up. Also unlike television, photographs online are less likely to have been “fuzzed up” or distorted, because the discretion falls on the viewer (NPR 4-2004). Because there are more options for news seekers in modern day, visual literacy has expanded to a degree that was impossible during the Vietnam War.
Where do you get your news? The radio, TV, Perez Hilton? Do you consider yourself to be news-literate?

Junior Theme 2

Alright, so I am not DPark, so I don't have 3 interviews. I have, however, interviewed Robert Hariman, the chair of Communications at Northwestern. He was very insightful, and gave me some great ideas on how to reposition my paper. He suggested that I focus on the way in which photographs can help us align our moral compass. He linked to his blog, nocaptionneeded.com, which seemed exactly like what I was writing my paper on. Hariman also has a book by the same title.

Most interestingly, Hariman argued that the Iwo Jima photograph is so compelling because

 "the short answer is the composition.  Not also that it is not a “war fighting” image: they are not shooting, etc, but rather a flag raising, which also can be a civilian ceremony.  Thus, it can easily serve as a metaphor for citizen action, commitment to the war effort, and the like." 

I found this very interesting, because although I recognized that there was no actual fighting going on in the photograph, I didn't realize that it was so "civilian."

In addition to that interview, I am also speaking with Professor McNulty, who teaches at Medill, NU's school of Journalism (widely considered the one of best in the country). I expect that he will email me back sometime this weekend.

My focus will be on ethics,  (of sending photographers into a dangerous climate, and then taking photos of other peoples pain), technology (how in Vietnam, you saw the soldier's faces shot with 35 mm film, but now soldiers have more equipment and masks), and mobilization (how photos can affect people to act).
 I have a few really great sources, including a TED talk by one of the co-founders of Getty images Jonathan Klein (thanks Gooms).

Junior Theme

It's fourth quarter, which means its junior theme season in O'BoC's AiS class. After much confusion and frantic ramblings, I have decided on the topic of the ethics of war photography. My question concerns why Americans summarize a war with a single photograph. Probably the most iconic photograph in America is Flag Raising on Mt. Suribachi, by Joe Rosenthal (to the right, source). Why is this? Is it because something about this photo is so, purely, American? The flag is unfurling, surrounded by a halo-like lightness, with 6 Marines in various stages of planting it, one forever reaching to hold it (on the far left).

Not all war photographs are as beautiful as Rosenthal's. Nick Ut, a Vietnam photographer, took the disturbing photgraph of a recently napalmed girl running naked down a street in Vietnam, suffering from burns. Many have criticized photographers of standing by during a catastrophe, and some wonder if it is ethical to bear witness to pain of a caliber this high. But others say, if this photo were to raise awareness of the atrocities in Vietnam, is it not justified? And what all was there for the photographer to do?

Obviously, war is still a prevalent issue. In my paper, I am also discussing the horrifying pictures taken at Abu Ghraib, a US prison camp detaining Iraqis. There are several photographs that one associates with Abu Ghraib, as one associates more than one image to Vietnam or Gitmo. I am planning on using the widely known photo at right of a prisoner, hooded, who is connected to wires, presumably being shocked. This photo brings to mind the KKK in reverse, a black hooded figure, with arms outstretched in a Crucifixion manner.