Do we think and interpret mostly in words or images?
From my couch, I can see a piece of cardstock. It’s hanging from a piece of string that is strung across the mantle of our fireplace.
But it’s not just any piece of paper.
It is red rectangle with a solid white boarder and measures about 2 ½ inches in width and 3 ½ inches in height. In the bottom right quadrant, a white triangle stands on its tip. Resting on top of the triangle are three green-hued half circle like spheres, stacked on top of one another.
It’s a birthday card. On its front is a drawing of an ice cream cone.
Certainly there is a strong correlation between images and words, pictures and concepts? But does one drive the other? This question came to a head when I read 17th century theologian Polanus’ fine definition of Bible interpretation:
The interpretation of sacred Scripture is the exposition of the true sense and use of it, organized in clear words for the glory of God and for the edification of His Church.
While there is much to reflect upon here (e.g. “true sense” of scripture? I wonder how this term might play out in debates concerning the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture? Is there a supra-historical meaning of the text that lays beyond its historical form?), the words italicized above captured my fancy: interpretation of Scripture is “organized in clear words”. Reformation iconoclast tendency aside, Polanus suggests that the results of a detailed investigation into the true sense and use of Biblical words, stories, and texts are to be conveyed in “clear words”. Not images or pictures, but clear words.
Clarity in interpretation seems straightforward in theory and harder in practice. Anyone who has been given the task of conveying the Word of God knows clarity in interpretation is ¾ of the battle.
For me the issue is the use of words. Does Biblical interpretation preclude the use of images? And if not, do words take priority and precedent over images?
Bear in mind I ask this as someone who is much more verbal than visual. About the worst thing you could ask of me would be to give me a blank piece of paper and some paint and tell me to make something.
But the scenario with the card got me thinking, can images convey meaning beyond words? Do we need words to make sense of an image? In the case of Biblical interpretation (which following Polanius is not a historical-critical exercise drawn independent of a Biblical theology or ethic, but combination of the exposition of true words and events that give meaning to our world today), should the use of images be used concurrently with words?
Anybody have any thoughts on this?
The trick is when you start looking at why your brain says 'ice cream cone'. It's because you have seen many ice cream cones, and that birthday card's rendition is a familiar rendering, right? So in Biblical images the artist must be careful to display things in a familiar fashion. If they fail this, I suspect the brain can more easily translate the image as a visual 'autograph', if you will. Meaning if you've never seen Big Foot and an artist draws an image of John Travolta and titles it 'Big Foot', you may from here on out associate Big Foot with John Travolta. In another example, consider white, blue-eyed Jesus.
ReplyDeleteIf I'm reading you correctly, words precede images then in terms of priority of meaning?
ReplyDeleteI forgot to mention that this blog emerged out of two other events.
1. I was watching an episode of Mad Men where Bert Cooper hangs a Rothko painting on the wall. While he's out a number of employees sneak into his office to see what's hanging from the wall. They're dumbfounded. No one knows what to make of it. Except one. Ken stands before it and "experiences" it. He makes mention that it feels like you could fall into the painting.
The painting was an instance where it's meaning was supra-verbal. It was meant to be "experienced" beyond words. But this, to me, is different than the task of interpretation. No one in the room could interpret it without words.
2. I was listening to a podcast recently (sorry, no link) about the ability of newborns to "think". Researchers suggest that newborns are unable to think in the manner we do due to lack of verbal categories.
In no way am I an iconoclast. I value images. I'm just curious about how the relationship between word and image, the logos and the ikon might play out.
It's a fascinating relationship. Do you have something beyond Biblical illustrations in mind when referring to images and Bible interpretation?
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I follow your question. Do you mean beyond an illustration used in a sermon?
ReplyDeleteI heard a podcast talking about children's inability to think as well: http://www.radiolab.org/blogs/radiolab-blog/2010/sep/07/voices-in-your-head/
ReplyDeleteI think that images often convey meaning beyond words, which is their value. The problem with this is we are trained to interpret images subjectively, are taught that to look at an image involves asking ourselves "what does this mean to me"? I think that exposition is not intended for subjective interpretation.
I think the real question here is not between words and images, but between exposition and art. I think poems and stories have the same subjective invitation as images, while exposition tends to be more specifically precise. I think both have their place: art is more likely to make the Bible feel alive, but exposition is more likely to bring clarity and objective understanding.
Annie--That's the podcast that I was thinking of!!! Thanks for helping me remember where I heard it.
ReplyDeleteI like what you have to say about the connection to stories. But furthering the conundrum, for me at least, is the time period of the original quote. Polanus was active in a "pre-critical" (I don't like the term, but I'll grudgingly use it) period of Biblical interpretation where a literary realism was at work. The Bible, in a narrative fashion (i.e. the gospels) stories told a unified narrative. There was development and continuity. It progressed much like ... a story.
I'm afraid though that Polanus was in the danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater if he excludes images altogether.