A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

I found myself repeating in my mind the infamous proverb, “a picture is worth a thousand words” while reading classmate Jordon’s Laine’s question concerning Sonja Foss’s article, Framing the Study of Visual Rhetoric. Foss claims that the focus of ‘function’ when interpreting visual objects, is the effect the creator of the visual image intended upon an audience. Thus, from a visual image a meaning or function is produced. Foss neither negates numerous functions stemming from one image, nor does she affirm the idea. It is within this grey-area that Jordan Laine questions; if an audience is not specifically told the function of an image, as we were with photograph of JFK’s son salute can more than one function exist?
I argue yes. “A picture is worth a thousand words” is a strong verbal manifestation of how many understandings can be perceived from a single image. The proverb speaks to the complexity of a story behind a solitary vision. As we have discussed in class, symbols, images, even words are mere representations of reality. They are arbitrary and ambiguous, depending on context culture and the symbol, in this case the image.
Modern art, one of the most controversial and misunderstood forms of talent make for a good example of how an image can produce multiple functions. A black canvas hanging in the Seattle Art Museum, may be interpreted by many to be a waste of canvas and space. Statements often uttered in modern art displays such as, “My child could do that,” or “what are they even trying to say?” are examples of individuals who find no function within the art. However, an art history student studying at the University of Washington may sit in front to the painting for over an hour examining how each brush stroke on the canvas runs at a different angle, creating a subtle difference of color within each stroke. Perhaps the student will walk away understanding the function of the piece to illustrate a personal conflict. The variance of the strokes depicts the indecision and battle of the artist. Perhaps it is a battle with modernity, or the current political culture.
I believe the argument that there can be more than one function of an image is easily made. I more pressing and exhaustive question to ask is “why” do individuals walk away with a different understanding of an image’s function? One reason being, our culture, an American understanding of Vietnam propaganda will be understood on a vastly different scale than an individual in South Africa. The image of a massive, angry ape on top of a building wearing a red cape, grasping a petite white woman will be understood in America as the threat of communism. Yet, in other areas of the world the image could be understood as America’s fear of gorillas. Or perhaps, that America is trying to warn the people of the nation of a vicious animal attack on the nation, or perhaps it appears as a movie advertisement. Where an individual is in life, physically, emotionally, mentally, and demographically will all impact an individual’s perception of function as well. My understanding, as a college student of an image of the American flag, will be incredibly different than a five year-olds understanding, or even different than a college student raised in the South.
It is because of these different perceptions that we must engage in open dialogue with one another, not necessarily to reach perfect agreements, but to allow for understanding and appreciation of our differences and similarities.