The Heresy of Imagery

At the risk of committing heresy, I state that the readings talk about a return to what Father

Ong would consider a transitional state between orality and literacy. He would see the

transition as heading in only one direction, toward literacy and forever away from orality. Yet,

reliance on imagery to create messages appears to return, taking a heretical step back.

Both the Honeywill and Lipson articles deal with visual literacy, and both compare the ancient

script with modern technology. Honeywill spent the entire piece pitting the Mayan pictographs

with modern icons, while Lipson wrote about the Egyptian hieroglyphics and touched upon the

imagery that modern movies use to convey meaning. The difference between the computer

icons and the Mayan was that the icons do not constitute an actual language, but only symbols

for specific functions. The Mayans could use their glyphs in various ways, which in the case of

Honeywill’s article, usually pertained to the Mayan leader, and could deploy the images to

remove as much ambiguity as possible. The icons, however, were not always non-ambiguous, as

one had to deal with the context of the image, and even the direction the viewer is used to read

from. There was the example in Honeywill of South African miners reading a series of images

right-to-left, opposite what the image-makers wished, and the result was that the miners

deposited rocks on a rail rack. The computer icons also depend on context, and that how the

user discerns the symbols may be quire different from how another does. Still, when there is

widespread understanding, using icons saves a great deal of time, and dare I say it—text. There

is little need for words when the icon itself describes the task desired.

The Egyptian hieroglyphics were like movies in that they seemed to tell a story, which, in the

case of Lipson article, dealt with the mighty pharaohs, their lives an their relation to the gods, by

using devices such a showing hierarchy in that the kings were larger than more mortals, and

sexual dominance in that even the female pharaohs were depicted as male. Lipson is not

entirely satisfied with the modern movies saying they do not make best use of their power to

manipulate imagery, though he is now encouraged by multimedia efforts to add text, and even

audio within the text, to bring about meaning. That we can do this at all should be appreciated,

but we have been jaded through familiarity. The point is that the new technology allows the

combination of text (literacy), imagery and sound (orality) to help the user understand the

content.

The issue, as I see it, is this: We are not returning to the visual. We never left. The Mayans

use imagery in they glyphs, as the Egyptians in theirs, and sometimes including text, and we see

the artwork form the monk’s manuscripts. We see it in flags and traffic signs, even uniforms.

Contrary to the wishes of Father Ong, not only will orality no wither away, but as well the lust of

the eye for images will not disappear either, but, if the authors are to be believed, will only be

satisfied for years to come.