Rhetorical Analysis: “What Do Pictures Want?”
In his book “What Do Pictures Want?” (2005), W.J.T. Mitchell, American Art historian and published author, makes a retrospective analysis of his other publication: “Cloning Terror” (2011). In which he refers to images as living beings with goals and desires that manage to manipulate or be the center of belief and ideology. Mitchell claims that the “living image” is subject to double consciousness between belief and disavowal, which for centuries—to date—has caused conflict among and between cultures for being a matter of simple contextual perspective that has led to stereotypic expectations of “others.” He talks about images being motivators for chaos and fear, which unleash a series of ideology-guided events that lead to the destruction of valuable icons—driving to a rather ironic outcome. Mitchell’s secondary goal is to make his “modern” audience aware of their susceptibility to imagery.
For starters, the author kicks off by explaining and exemplifying image anxiety to the reader. For this purpose, he utilizes two very well-known precedents: a picture of Dolly the cloned sheep and one of the World Trade Center under attack on 9/11. This is a very appropriate choice of examples as the repercussion and importance of both of these events are still felt today. According to Mitchell, in contrast, the image of Dolly signifies “the potential for creation” while the image of the World Trade Center represents “the potential for destruction of images in our time” (12-13). Nevertheless, as later acknowledged, their differences are rather a reflection of their similarities. Dolly does not only represent the potential of biotechnology to create but also the potential for the destruction of the natural order as it is. For some, the picture of this sheep merely represents scientific achievement, for others, the idea of a living replica of another organism is an unacceptable aberration. The image of the World Trade Center under attack is not solely a representation of the frightening event itself, but the creation of a new image that cannot be ignored or erased, permanently changing its symbology; some consider it a terrible incident, others as an indicator to take action. Dolly was also the living image of its parent, a clone, a twin, whilst the Twin Towers,as the name indicates,were exact—or attempted to be—replicas of each other, clones. Likewise, as Mitchell mentions on numerous occasions, both the sheep and the towers are “symbols of forms of life” that do not only symbolize what they stand for but actively participate as results of those processes, becoming “symbols of what they signify” (15). Dolly is not a statue that honors the efforts of scientists to perfect the cloning process: she is the direct result of it; she is the biological clone, the fruition of their work. The World Trade Center was not only a giant monument to symbolize capitalism and globalization, but two tall buildings full of offices and workers making the economy circulate. Both can, and were, seen as offensive images by individuals that held differing perspectives.
Another significant subtopic in “Cloning Terror” is belief vs. disavowal—the clash between idolatry and iconoclasm. As described by Mitchell, iconoclasm is not only the attempted act of destroying or disfiguring images, but it is a “creative destruction” that results in a “secondary image” being created “at the same moment the ‘target’ image is attacked” (18). Idolatry, on the other hand, as seen from the point-of-view of iconoclasm, is the irrational worship of false images. According to the author’s vision of iconoclasm and its laws: the idolaters are always seen as the “others,” secluded from the group one belongs to—a chain of thought usually reinforced by negative stereotypes that circulate around the “us” group. Iconoclasm also invites assumptions about others’ beliefs, or what Mitchell refers to as “secondary beliefs” for which it is assumed idolaters “believe their images to be holy, alive and powerful” (20). All of this concludes that those image-worshippers should be punished with death and their images are to be desecrated. It is worth noting that, as seen from a religious perspective, the second commandment—which goes against rending tribute to fake imagery or idols—is superior to the one against killing people because the “others” are seen as inferior forms of life. However, there is an ironic twist to the “holy duty” of destroying their images and desecrating their “false beliefs.” In the process of destroying the primary image, a new one is created and is just as powerful as the first one, given that the new image is commonly rendered tribute by those responsible for disfiguring the primary image, or further, a symbol of strength and resistance for those affected. To a certain extent, the never-ending imbalance between iconoclasm and, what Mitchell ironically describes as its “evil twin” (24), idolatry is the ever-waging war between modernism and conservatism, a fight between what is new and a sense of nostalgia for what used to be the norm. But for the most part, they are both manifestations of the “us” against “them” ideology that has haunted humanity for as long as history has been recorded, in which every individual believes only their beliefs are correct. Iconoclasm and its alleged sibling are not really opposites of each other, but symptoms of each other in a never-ending cycle of rebirth, proving that images cannot be destroyed, only molded.
Subsequently, Mitchell mentions imagery in a modern world setting. Mitchell starts by portraying the possible counterargument of a person in a post-modern ambience who believes they are immune to the power of images: “Perhaps savages, children, and illiterate masses can, like sheep, be led astray by images, but we moderns know better” (26). Usually, when individuals look back at the mistakes done by humanity throughout history, there are lots of questions asked, but most commonly is the incapability of understanding the reasons behind the events and the mindsets of those who blindly followed. These kinds of antecedents and lack of perception usually drives present generations to believe they are mentally superior to their ancestors: “I would never commit anything of that nature.” And so, in this specific example, it results in people in “modernity” believing they are immune to the power of images because they have supposedly “learned from history.” Notwithstanding, as we shift into a new era, so do the images that are idolized; this new era is defined by the use of new—modern—technologies with the accessibility and advantages they are said to offer. As Mitchell explains, these new technologies do very little in the process of “liberating us” (26) and become very convoluted living organisms with networks of their own—adding even more levels of complexity to the concept of the living image. Mitchell alleges that in order to “use them at all” we must “serve these objects” (26). He refers to our role in this relationship as “servomechanisms,” for which he means that in order to use these tools at all we must give them more than what they could ever give us, transforming them into minor deities in our society—which already has a fixed dependance on these devices.
Amy Winehouse at Her Last Concert, Reddit
As important as technology is in our current environment, it only accounts for one of the forms and factors of modern imagery. Another form of imagery that, for the most part, goes unnoticed is the toxic idolatry in the existent celebrity system. The perfect embodiment of this phenomena is the picture of Amy Winehouse taken during her last concert. In modernity, our adoration to artists is a result of the product they deliver (e.g., paintings, music, acting, comedy); people are initially attracted to artists by their talent and their art, but this devotion can only be sustained long-term by image. Celebrities are metaphorically under a magnifying filter of morality and impression; any action they take,good or bad,is amplified by the thousands of eyes watching them—a situation aggravated by the accessibility social networks give us to them. If someone’s aunt gives all of her will to charity, little would be known about it. However, if a celebrity makes a one-time donation of half their monthly salary it would be covered by lots of media outlets claiming they have an “enormously big heart, unlike anyone else.” The same applies to human-like actions: if someone famous is seen in public with messy hair or a little out-of-shape, it will be turned into a scandal. Celebrities are expected to be the image their public wants them to keep, it is unacceptable for them to have human flaws as they are held to God-like standards; they account for a new type of “other,” one to be idolized and be judged for being an idol. Amy’s addiction and bitter feelings were constantly romanticized by her fans; nevertheless, when image met reality once she was narcotized and unable to perform for her audience, they booed her. She was terrified, but people did not care about the artist they claimed to love and be fans of, they wanted to see Amy Winehouse, not the result of her devastating career. Months later, after her death due to an overdose, Amy became a secondary image of herself, a result of her fame and her addiction, a victim of the crushing pressure of the spectacle.
In “What Do Pictures Want?,” W.J.T. Mitchell gives us insight into what the goals and desires of the images we contemplate are with a definition of image that goes beyond our current understanding of picture. To reach our understanding of this seemingly impossible question he walks us through the interpretation behind the innate fear of images. As well as the aspects of the “double consciousness” between iconoclasm and idolatry, which, although are antipodes of each other, belong to the same revolution and are nothing but the result of perspectives enforced by stereotypes and a human tendency to exclude and fear those who are different( “them”/ “others”). To further validate the purpose of his essay, Mitchell dismantles what he believes is the primary counterargument his audience will pose while reading his text, which is to deny themselves of their susceptibility to images, modernity. He demonstrates that as eras change, the figures we idolize morph into something new that, without knowing, we continue to unreasonably venerate—in this instance, technology and celebrities. To finalize, Mitchell admits the indestructibility of images, as well as their ability to adapt to circumstances. Given this, he acknowledged that the only way to free ourselves of the power images have over our minds is to “break their silence,” in other words to “make [them] speak” (26-27). Which means we must analyze and understand what it is about those images that resonates within us and provokes those particular emotions and thoughts. We must understand why we have decided to adore them or to feel threatened by them. Once we break the silence within ourselves, within our minds, within them, we will be able to evolve beyond images and their dividing influence.
By Eduardo Esteves
Illustrations were done in collaboration with the New Media Artspace at Baruch College. The New Media Artspace is a teaching exhibition space in the Department of Fine and Performing Arts at Baruch College, CUNY. Housed in the Newman Library, the New Media Artspace showcases curated experimental media and interdisciplinary artworks by international artists, students, alumni, and faculty. Special thanks to docent Maya Hilbert for creating artwork for this piece.
Check the New Media Artspace out at http://www.newmediartspace.info/