Ways of Seeing

"No other kind of relic or text from the past can offer such direct testimony about the world which surrounded other people at other times. In this respect, images are more precise and richer than literature."

This, I think, is not obviously the case (though it may well be). It seems to me that an image can always be open to at least some interpretation. No matter how precisely the subject may be framed, or the colors may be adjusted, we may always read into what was excluded, what could have been the case, what other options were available or ignored. We can even read layers of meaning in choices that were made positively: Does this framing imply that the subject is good or evil? In literature, however, there is ample space to make these distinctions clear (though they also may, just as validly, be left vague). Hence, literature may have higher precision than images.

As for richness, I am also not sure this is the case. Consider an image of a field and passage of literature describing the field. In the image, if the photographer or painter is masterful, we will feel the sway of the grass, feel a chill in the air, smell the sweetness of nature... And of course we will also experience all the colors immediately: the blue sky, the yellow sun, the golden grass, and so on. We may even hear the wind moving through the landscape, or insects chirping. However, in literature, the composer can explicitly explore each area, and is able to suggest to the four senses (apart from sight) more ably than an image can. Literature also has more ability to introduce emotion, to invoke nostalgia, even to make more relationships (as Berger stresses) between the subject (a field, in this case) and other things.

Though I may be mistaken, for these reasons it is at the very least not obvious and at the most not true that images are richer and more precise than literature.

Now, in light of the discussion of publicity, I need to walk this rant back a little bit. When the goal is to grab attention quickly and sell a product (or lifestyle, etc.), images are surely the better mode. No one will sit down to read a piece of literature describing the latest car model in the style of the landscape literature I wrote about above. They will, however, look at the car pictured zooming down the road filled with a loving family, which communicates more quickly (but maybe not more precisely) the author's message. So, depending on the context and purpose of the piece (image or literature), one is likely to be more effective than the other.

One interesting point for discussion might be how one can advertise through text. In The Atlantic, corporations will sometimes buy a page or two of ad space and fill that space with what, at first glance, appears to be just another article. The unwitting reader (me) will often find themselves halfway through the article before realizing it's an ad. Usually I flip the page in disgust -- subtle advertising makes me irrationally angry -- but nevertheless I took in their publicity. So, how might literature (or language generally) be used to create effective publicity, and in what spaces or contexts is this more likely to be effective?