SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2007
Mobile Aesthetics & Social Movements: Thinkspace
1 – 3 p.m. Polycentric sessions and screenings, San Francisco
Art Institute, Lecture hall and classrooms
Back to 1
Back to 2
False interpretations both internally generated and externally imposed
become the building blocks of manipulation. When a message is delivered
by a trusted source (media or government), its credibility is taken
for granted. The function of journalistic objectivity is to provide
a set of facts and allow the recipient to make a determination based
on the facts given. As such, if the facts presented are misinterpreted
by the media or the recipient or certain facts are omitted, the recipient
is prone to a false understanding of the circumstances. Consciously,
the recipient makes a decision or takes a position on a given subject
based on the facts presented and the emotions activated by those facts.
However, the human psyche is fragile and convictions are never static.
The delicate nature of emotion driven convictions make them susceptible
to extreme alteration if a conflicting set of emotionally charged facts
are presented. David Berreby elegantly illustrates the concept:
A conscious mind makes decisions and swears
oaths to treat the enemy as an enemy, always. But consciousness is a
tight, bright spotlight roaming over a restless ocean of mind. Elsewhere
in that ever-changing sea of perception and feeling, things change without
conscious intent. For Berreby, the unconscious change of perception
always displaces the conscious decision. As a result, consciousness
becomes influenced by the unconscious change in perception and new emotions
create new convictions.
The media are driven by profits. As such, they
must offer what is demanded of them by their audience — simplification
and sensationalism. As the audience, we have little choice in the demands
we make as we are influenced by our psychological tendencies and preferences.
While we consciously ask for truth, we unconsciously scream for a compelling
story, truth takes a back seat. Following the 9/11 tragedy, Americans
demanded patriotic sensationalism from the media. The media delivered.
The result was both conscious and unconscious convictions of patriotism
and vengeance fueled and refueled by an onslaught of media generated
propaganda. The unfortunate result was as Chris Hedges proclaims, the
justification of the horrible sacrifices required in war, the destruction
and death of innocents. As erroneous interpretations of facts continued
to be generated and delivered, the mythic sensationalism we demanded
from our media could only be maintained by denying the reality of the
war, by turning the lies, the manipulation, the inhumanness of war into
a heroic ideal. This heroic ideal became one of the baseline convictions
of the visitors of our exhibit. The larger mosaics represented this
heroic ideal. However, the individual tiles that made up the mosaics
revealed a conflicting message made up of previously unexplored facts.
Reactions, Observations and Conclusion
The exhibition sought to confront visitors with
the discrepancy between representations of the war in Iraq and the reality
experienced by the men and women serving there. We expected a reaction,
but were surprised by its intensity. We anticipated controversy, but
were surprised that so few were offended. Many of the images used depicted
graphic violence and carnage – far more than American audiences
were accustomed to seeing in the media.
The reactions to the exhibition came in two
forms: comments recorded in an exhibition journal and student comments
in a survey conducted between August 27 and 29, 2007. The former were
given no prompting, but had seen the entire exhibition. The latter were
shown two murals (Tear and Kiss), asked to view them form a distance
and then to move closer to see the individual tiles. After viewing they
were asked for comments, reactions and specifically how the murals made
them feel. Their responses fell rather neatly into Paul Ekman’s
paradigm of the five basic human emotions: anger, fear, sadness, happiness
and disgust. Sadness and anger were the two most common reactions.
Most visitors indicated a distinct difference in feelings or change
in emotional reaction. Viewing the murals from a distance, visitors
spoke of feelings of pride, comfort or happiness. Up close they spoke
of sadness, confusion, anger, shock, disgust or cynicism.
From a distance, the mosaics represent those
images we are accustomed to observing in the media—images of sacrifice
and sentimentality. Comments from this distance were universally positive
and patriotic. One visitor commented: “I think it is very creative.
It makes me feel proud seeing all the images of our soldiers.”
Another said: “Beautiful from afar,” but offered an insight
into the emotional transition: “At a distance, everything looks
better.” One visitor went so far as to provide a purpose: “The
exhibit was a great way to show support for our troops! Job well done!
These comments suggest cognitive dissonance
an “us and them” ideology, a key element of group cohesion
in how we view the war. It creates boundaries, both real and imagined,
that separate groups in conflict. In order for the conflict to obtain
support from the public, this ideology or prejudice must be nurtured
and maintained with propaganda. The problem lies in the fact that boundaries
are not static and rely solely upon a set of unifying principles consciously
accepted by the members—fear, patriotism, religion, etc. However,
when confronted with information that challenges preconceptions (i.e.
when media representations are displaced by the realities of war) boundaries
can be dissolved within the mind of individuals without their knowledge
or intent—unconsiously. This phenomenon occurs when stronger
unifying principle or concept is presented. As such, the media has tremendous
power to create and sustain group boundaries. During the Vietnam War,
combat reporters maintained journalistic objectivity. So much that it
created a political disaster for the US government as the images presented
by the media began to dissolve group boundaries. No longer was it “us”
vs. “them”, but collective humanity against the horrors
of war. The result was a culture of anti-war activists that by default
In the current conflict, the power of the American
media has been harnessed by the White House through concepts like the
embedded reporter program and the Office of Strategic Intelligence.
As a result, we don’t see the same types of images that came out
of Vietnam. We only see group galvanizing images like those of the larger
mosaics. As the visitors began to examine the individual tiles, an emotional
transformation began to appear. Ideas of patriotism and pride were replaced
with confusion, frustration, sadness, anger, fear and disgust. The confusion
seems to stem from “a mix of emotions” and the redrawing
of group boundaries. The confusion manifested itself with comments recorded
in the exhibition journal: We’re supposed to support our country
and its choices, but after seeing the photos behind the mural, it frustrates
me that we are spending so much time and money and destroying so many
lives in the process. I support those who put their lives on the line,
but not this war.
Following the initial confusion, the visitors
began to grow agitated as they began to understand the exhibit on a
more cognitive level. One visitor observed, “It’s just a
bunch of random images thrown together that’s meant to be shocking.
But it doesn’t convey a single emotion – which I think is
the point”. After visitors examined the images more closely, we
noticed a significant change in word choice. No longer did we hear elements
of group identity—us and them—but a new reference to people
and life in general, regardless of group affiliation. This supports
the notion that group boundaries can be dissolved by presenting a stronger