Human culture is a visual culture. Early man left their mark in the form of cave paintings that we are unable to decipher, but we presume they told stories about their day-to-day lives, perhaps educating their young about the world they needed to navigate. From the twentieth century, it has been the moving image, on television, cinema screens and via digital platforms, that is most likely to capture attention and offer representations of human life and the human imagination. While books or radio has been argued to allow imaginations to make their own images (Street, 2013), the pictures in our head form out of our understanding of the world around us. Philosopher David Hume, writing in the eighteenth century, argued mankindâs imagination was finite and could only create unique compositions of elements that already existed. Hence the images we store in our brains allow us to imagine unicorns, dragons as well as different lives for ourselves.
Imagery is used in religion, with scenes of devotion and pilgrimage, in creating social norms, family scenes, depictions of aberrance and justice; images are produced to bring pleasure, entertainment, humor or sexual arousal; and images are used for state control through censorship and by dissident groups to challenge the established order through the use of iconoclastic imagery (Freedberg, 1989). All of these examples demonstrate the socio-political power of the image, and all can impact how viewers think and feel about their society and the place within that society they occupy. The ubiquity and power of imagery are thus well documented and raised as problematic because with visuals âthe illusion is created that we are gazing out of a window at the real worldâ (Gurri, Denny, & Harms, 2010). The fact that an image can be constructed to make a point, manipulated or chosen strategically out of hundreds of similar shots to convey an impression can go unnoticed by the audience. The idea that a picture never lies is a powerful, if inaccurate, adage. The problem is that images appear to tap into a fundamental element of human cognition.
Politics has always had a visual dimension, and in an age of information overload where around 79% of earthâs population has access to television and 51% has Internet access, the image may be an even more powerful means for grabbing attention than ever before. The kings of the Renaissance age commissioned artists to paint their portraits, a physical representation of their power. Similarly, the ancient ports and cities of the world still display their power and wealth through their architecture. Across places of religious worship, it is the power of the respective god, as well as the rules set out in scripture, that adorn the walls. For the modern politician, displays of statesmanship and power have partially given way to displays of authenticity, but public judgments of their leaders based on their performative appearance remain crucial for support and legitimacy (Kernell, 2006). Several studies (Cartwright & Mandiberg, 2009; Hoffman, 2011; Kuhn, 2004; Marland, 2012) have shown that the new communication agora is filled with images of contemporary leaders. Images that bolster and undermine their credentials compete for the gaze of an audience. The gestures and facial expressions politicians make on the stump or television, the humorous memes that circulate, the posters and the often-infamous forms of political advertisement are strategically designed for maximum impact on public attitudes.
The socio-political power of images, which make their strategic production and manipulation in important areas of academic inquiry, lies in the emotional impact an image can have. Images such as videos of âTank Manâ during the 1989 protests in Tiananmen Square and the death of Neda Agha-Soltan at the hands of an Iranian government sniper during the 2010 protests in Tehran both had resonance in different ages. The former was transmitted around the world by television, a symbol of the might of the state and the bravery and resolve of Chinaâs student protestors. The latter was shared online, too graphic for mainstream television, and circulated to challenge the legitimacy of Iranâs supreme ruler. The poignancy of Neda looking to the camera as she took her last breaths choking on her own blood, perhaps symbolizing the death of hope within the nation, has the power to move an audience. Images of the self-immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi led to the first protests in Tunisia and the eventual fall of the Ben Ali regime. Therefore, the political power of the image can impact behaviors and, under extreme circumstances, light the flame that can lead to regime change.
The circulation of images, particularly via social media, is evidence of âbuzz,â and when shared across social media platforms, there are observable accompanying expressions of sentiment which can have a direct attitudinal effect on those viewing the image. Images can also have an immediate behavioral effect; they can directly link to campaigns to sign petitions, lobby legislators or mobilize protests, each in turn leading to further coverage and buzz. Such indicators can show directions of influence moving with audience exposure that infers a direct link between exposure to an image and attitudinal and behavioral change (Gurri, Denny, & Harms, 2010). The power of the images is the potential to cause a strong emotional reaction: through capturing defiance and oppression (one man blocking the path of a tank), their representation of indiscriminate state murder (the death of Neda by a single bullet), of the randomness of terrorism (the planes hitting New Yorkâs World Trade Center on 9/11) or a final act of protest (the death of Mohamed Bouazizi). Even the color used can be a highly resonant and meaningful visual cue that stimulates an emotional mood (Garber & Hyatt, 2003). Visuals thus affect us emotionally, awakening an array of linked ideas and perceptions stored in our subconscious.
The images of Chinaâs Tank Man and Iranâs Neda Agha-Soltan are images in which one can easily recognize their power. The stark black-and-white image of the small human facing down a huge tank is one that is instantly recognizable. Overlay that image with our perceptions of China, a repressive and authoritarian regime, and our belief that citizens have a right to protest and one can imagine an audience experiencing surprise and anger; fear for the anonymous human anger against the non-human machine of the state. The killing of Neda would similarly elicit feelings of anger as well as distress and disgust, particularly due to Neda being a young woman. In most societies, violence against a woman is seen as far more morally unacceptable; the apparent random nature of the killing, again by the dehumanized forces of a state, adds to the shock and disgust that the average person would experience seeing the video. In both examples, an intimate bond based on empathy is formed between the audience and the human (Kelly, 1998). But such dramatic and resonant images are not simply artifacts of footage from protests within repressive regimes; similarly, they are not always accurate portrayals of reality.
Dramatic and emotionally affective imagery is used by every leader, and would-be leader, protest group and any organization seeking political power and influence. The Catholic Church produced images of hell to combat the threat from Protestantism. The authoritarian regimes of Hitler and Stalin used visual propaganda to sustain anti-Semitic policies. Images of homeless veterans are used to counter government policies to house refugees. Images of polar bears stranded on small chunks of ice are used to promote more environmentally friendly lifestyles. All these and many like them tap into known attitudes, the fear of eternal damnation among Catholics in early modern Europe, latent xenophobic attitudes that existed in Germany, Soviet Russia and remain prevalent across societies, the respect for service personnel and love for cute bears. But all these images are to an extent also questionable. Hell is a mental construct; any portrayal of post-death existence is by definition imagined. The propaganda images play on discriminatory caricatures and urban myths. The homeless veteran may be any homeless person; the fact that they are homeless while a refugee is housed is a mere correlation with no causal link. The polar bear image is out of context; one cannot ascertain why the bear is standing on the small area of floating ice, it could simply be taking a break from swimming. Often veracity is based on believability, if we agree it is true; if we disagree it is fake. And here we counter the great challenge of the digital age. Manipulating images involves minimal skill, sharing an image is free and involves having a social media presence and a click of a mouse, finding an audience may be the greater challenge but a sustained effort of activism can deliver results.
The âfake newsâ challengeâone that is central to what has been defined as the post-truth eraâis not simply a problem relating to visual communication. However, a powerful visual becomes a vehicle for making a fake news story that has emotional resonance, which results in attitudinal or behavioral impact. At the time of writing this introduction, a row abounds regarding fakery and images. As US President Donald Trump faced the media after the 2018 midterm elections, the CNN journalist Dan Acosta challenged him on his claims about âcaravansâ of âMiddle Eastern refugeesâ due to âinvadeâ the United States; this relates to stories of refugees making their way through countries of South America, in particular Columbia and Venezuela, toward Mexico. Trump refused to answer, instead verbally attacked Acosta while White House staffer Sarah Huckabee sought to retrieve the microphone from Acosta. After Acosta subsequently found his media pass no longer allowed him to attend White House press briefings and tweeted his surprise and allegation emerged that he has touched Huckabee inappropriately. A video was produced speeding up the moment Acostaâs arm touched Huckabee to make it appear a more violent act. The video was instantly called out for being fake; yet, the White House offered no comment. Various versions of the story exist across media outlets and digital platforms, whose version of events is supported depends on the ideological persuasion of the author. That such controversy can arise from a situation where cameras are everywhere, the room full of witnesses and at an official engagement of a democratically elected leader is worrying in every way. But what fakery can occur, and go unchallenged, from spaces where there are no witnesses?
The preceding paragraphs outline the thinking that provided the impetus for this collection of essays. Put simply, human culture is essentially a visual culture, visuals document life and fuel imagination. Visuals have long been a central feature of dynamics of power, the dynamics of politics. Visuals have always been manipulated; however, we are now at a stage in the evolution of communica...