Often we hear that we live in an age of image overload. Where with a sur-abundance of pictures, with Instagrams and Google glasses and phone cameras, we are left awash in images, and the pictures lose their meaning.
Rather then point blame on the technology, It might be more pertinent to consider the distinction between images that are of immediate moments and those that are more of memories. The immediacy of imagery, brings it great poignancy, but as it is values in reference to its timing, it becomes quickly passe, lost in time as it were, replaced bu the next moment.
Yet if the image is not of a specific moment, if it is more of a reflection, a reconsideration of a moment, it becomes more general, and idealize. It becomes a universal image, and hence more people can relate it to their lives, to themselves, Rather then being pinned to a moment, an image that isn't focused on being up to the moment, is allowed a richness of depth, of reaching a wider audience,and more personally touching them.
Paradoxically, the more general and idealized an image is, the more universally it can be accepted intimately.by its audience. This isn't a function of how the image is created, but more on how it is "distributed".
Our quandary with images' loss of meaning, isn't so much a cause of their abundance, but in their incessant demand of being seen now, rather then being there for us to approach them. The difference between memory and immediacy? A function of whom approaches whom?
© GAMcCullough 2014