I am not sure the 'New Atlantis' web site is I would pick for a

I go to the Art & Letters Daily website every morning. They review
books, articles and essays all over the web and post four or five short
descriptions and links every morning. The article on imaging naturally
caught my eye. I realize that New Atlantis is a strange site, but
Rosen's essay and thesis on the detrimental effect on us and our culture
by so many images was interesting. I totally disagree with her about the
detriment, but do agree that photography, printing press and video
technolgies allowing mass distribution of pictures have had a major,
profound effect on us all.

I read and taught for years about art, photography as an art, is it an
art, what is art, etc., etc., etc., blah blah blah.  Then Schlain's book
hit me right between the eyes. I was aware of the impact of some photos
on people before that, but his thesis, based on right-brain/left brain
research, that cultures with linear alphabets denigrate the status of
women and that the growth of feminism begins with the advent of both
photgraphy and printing technologies to distribute them was mind shaking
to say the least. As he states he doesn't present a scientic testable
proof just a good court case for his theory. It is quite a book.
That sent me back to reread Marshal McCluan, Sonatg and a few others.
That is where I am at now.

Those of us who use photography for journalism, commercial advertising,
or even our fine art realize (hope) that our pictures can make a
difference to a viewer. The fact that our snapshots are what we grab
when the house is on fire attests to the importance we attach to even
our simplest images. And the fact that everyone here has spent thousand
of hours and dollars learning, creating, traveling, and crafting the
finest images we are capable of producing must mean that pictures mean
quite a lot to us all.

Way back in the fifties in college  I remember the emotional and
visceral shock when  first seeing photographs by Adams, Weston,
Cunningham and all of the rest ( anyone else old enough to remember when
Popular Photography was a first class magazine?) Gene Smith's pictures
in Life were also formative. So I have always been aware of the effects
of pictures, but never gave much thought to the broad social
consequences of ubiqitous pictures in our culture - or any culture for
that matter.

My other passion besides photography is funerary art. One of the things
that makes colonial gravestones so unique is the fact that the images on
them were carved at the height of the influence of the Puritan
Church.Your biblical quote of "no graven image" was a cornerstone of the
Puritan faith. The stones are equivalent to a member of the Taliban
painting a picture of Allah on his wall.  I think the appeal of pictures
is primal.

Frank

What I've noticed mainly is the number of digital mags on the stands
suddenly. My attitude is, how good can all those pictures be? How many
people will be inspired to do tht work. Come to think of it, how many digi
photogs can most people name? I can   see the school of a few years in the
future, the answer to everthing is the same; "The camera does that". So who
needs a school?  Years ago there were a collection of top notch people doing
Life and Look, now the cover says 8.6 MP. Great.                Bob Hickey