What Is More Powerful?

[phat_al]

The written word

Or photographes and images.

If, for example, you had only one post to be banned forever. Could you do it with one remark. Or one photograph.

[Jay]

My last post before being banned?

"Sayonara, fuckers!"

[PopCulturePooka]

Words.

Easily.

A picture would shock and offend people.

But give me an hour or so to write a giant, massive fuck you post to everyone here, with all the dirt and secrets and stuff against everyone, attacks on everyones sore posts and I'll be banned but the fallout from the post will last for weeks.

Just saying...
Is all.

[Collapse]

Pictures usually. People love visual representations.

[Angelyne]

Pictures. Most people are too lazy to read long posts or entire threads.

[phat_al]

In other words, does a book resonate longer or a painting?

[Jay]

A book, no contest.

[Orclover]

A picture. Ask the Danish.

[Jay]

He did say resonate longer, though... I mean, look at the Bible. :sarcasm:

[Myrsilus]

This is a little difficult to decide, but I'd say pictures are consistently more powerful than the written word.

I'm trying to think objectively here, and nowadays it seems like the general populace is more deeply impacted by pictures they can behold. There may be some very powerful words written in documents and books, but the fact is many people just don't have the patience to find that significance.

Nearly everyone can understand the general idea of a picture, which is readily accessible... at least moreso than some text. Also, sometimes the most graphic and detailed of words can never describe what is plainly seen in a picture.

I'm not trying to downplay the power of words... I understand the amount of damage words can cause, and I am also aware of the intense drive for change that can be called forth by powerful words. I just feel it's not consistently as impacting as pictures may be.

[phat_al]

He did say resonate longer, though... I mean, look at the Bible. :sarcasm:

^^^^

:sarcasm:

[Mechs]

"A picture is worth a thousand words"

Never heard of that quote?

[phat_al]

And a thousand words is worht a picture, have you heard of that?

[Jay]

Sweet comeback.

[Mechs]

And a thousand words is worht a picture, have you heard of that?

So, you ask what is more powerful correct? If I have one item that beats a thousand other items, wouldn't you call that one item more powerful?

[Jay]

Yet all the words in your 1000-word passage can be meaningful, or painful, or emotive, or whatever you want them to be.

With a picture, you only get one shot.

[phat_al]

So, you ask what is more powerful correct? If I have one item that beats a thousand other items, wouldn't you call that one item more powerful?

And if it took one lousy picture to try and express a thousand words, yea--you can call it powerful

[Myrsilus]

You're downplaying the importance of pictures. They are not simply one thing, y'know. A picture can bring forth many emotions at the same time. If we have the capacity to take symbolism from words, and feel deep emotions in reading powerful words, we can look at a picture and take much from those, too.

I suppose they're the same in a way... Sometimes, you have to have patience to see the significance in words and pictures.

[phat_al]

But a picture is dead; it's in the past.

Whereas the word is living; it's speaking to us now.












:eyepop:

[Mechs]

And if it took one lousy picture to try and express a thousand words, yea--you can call it powerful

Eh...whatever. I've made my point :D.

[Duke Luke of Juke]

Pictures, hands down. Although I enjoy the art of literature more than I do photography, that's another story entirely.

I would forget Pooka's post about that one time he caught Jay tickling a kangaroo behind the Waffle Hut on the 4th of July within a week or two, but I shall never forget that picture of goatse I saw awhile ago, unfortunately.

[Jay]

You're downplaying the importance of pictures. They are not simply one thing, y'know. A picture can bring forth many emotions at the same time. If we have the capacity to take symbolism from words, and feel deep emotions in reading powerful words, we can look at a picture and take much from those, too.

I suppose they're the same in a way... Sometimes, you have to have patience to see the significance in words and pictures.

Well, I choose to look at this particular situation this way; if a picture can bring forth all these emotions, why can't 1000 words do it... 1000 times over?

Okay, getting a result with every single word would take more skill than I have right now, but still, with words you have more opportunities to do more damage.

[Myrsilus]

Who are you to say a picture is dead? You're not making much sense at all.

A picture does not just lose its signifcance all of a sudden. Many pictures in history are still important to us understand history itself, just as text can be. Text is written at times in history and present to document what is happening. Pictures are taken or formed by the brush to implant the social beliefs and values of the time. There is obviously a difference, but is there such a huge gap between pictures and words that you cannot see that they both impact us and tell us about what is going on?

[Jay]

Pictures, hands down. Although I enjoy the art of literature more than I do photography, that's another story entirely.

I would forget Pooka's post about that one time he caught Jay tickling a kangaroo behind the Waffle Hut on the 4th of July within a week or two, but I shall never forget that picture of goatse I saw awhile ago, unfortunately.

XD you dickhead... I love you. :rofl:

[phat_al]

Photographs are like drawings;

Writings are like movies;

And if you read something that feels like a still photo--you know he's a shitty writer. Dan Brown, anyone? How about J.K. Rowling. :mad:

[Jay]

Hang on... are you bagging those two or referencing them?

Just FYI, no one bags JK Rowling.

[phat_al]

FYI, you don't shove your opinion down my throat. I have my own.

[Jay]

Hooray for broad assumptions, huh?

[Myrsilus]

Well, I choose to look at this particular situation this way; if a picture can bring forth all these emotions, why can't 1000 words do it... 1000 times over?

Okay, getting a result with every single word would take more skill than I have right now, but still, with words you have more opportunities to do more damage.
Well, I image we're not only talking about damage brought on by words.

And I fail to see how 1,000 individual words could make that much of a difference. Individual words rarely mean anything more than their own dictionary definition, with perhaps a few exceptions (Considering that there are so many words in language).

I'll say this... I believe that words can potentially be more powerful than pictures, given the right circumstances. But I will also say that I find pictures to be impacting to the general populace on a much more frequent basis than words are nowadays. This observation leads me to believe that pictures are more powerful than words. Sometimes what matters is consistency.

[Mechs]

Well, I image we're not only talking about damage brought on by words.

And I fail to see how 1,000 individual words could make that much of a difference. Individual words rarely mean anything more than their own dictionary definition, with perhaps a few exceptions (Considering that there are so many words in language).

I'll say this... I believe that words can potentially be more powerful than pictures, given the right circumstances. But I will also say that I find pictures to be impacting to the general populace on a much more frequent basis than words are nowadays. This observation leads me to believe that pictures are more powerful than words. Sometimes what matters is consistency.

WOOT! We have ourselves a winner :D!

EDIT: Damn me and my bad typing skills!

[phat_al]

Yet by saying this, you have just proven our stance:

Well, I image we're not only talking about damage brought on by words.

And I fail to see how 1,000 individual words could make that much of a difference. Individual words rarely mean anything more than their own dictionary definition, with perhaps a few exceptions (Considering that there are so many words in language).

I'll say this... I believe that words can potentially be more powerful than pictures, given the right circumstances. But I will also say that I find pictures to be impacting to the general populace on a much more frequent basis than words are nowadays. This observation leads me to believe that pictures are more powerful than words. Sometimes what matters is consistency.

Why didn't you just post a picture instead?

By that reasoning...

[Jay]

And I fail to see how 1,000 individual words could make that much of a difference. Individual words rarely mean anything more than their own dictionary definition, with perhaps a few exceptions (Considering that there are so many words in language).

Maybe I phrased my post badly... I didn't mean simply words, more well thought out sentences designed to inflict as much emotion as possible.

I believe words can be more powerful than pictures, in that with 1,000 words you get more of an opportunity to inflict emotion, because, well... you have more at your disposal.

[Jay]

Hurt me bad, baby. :(

[NERD]

Eh, to me it's more like apples and oranges.

Instead of Dan Brown or J.K. Rowling, who are okay writers, but not great writers, how about; Shakespeare, Edgar Allan Poe, Kafka, Tolstoy? I do not think pictures can do justice to describe or represent their writings, the strings they pull, the certain atmosphere they create from their choice of words and the manner they are arranged, and how you would interpret them as a reader.

At the same token, it is nigh impossible to put descriptions of masterpiece paintings into words: you can try to describe paintings by van Gogh, Rembrandt, Matisse, Picasso, but it wouldn't generate the same response as it would when you come face to face with the picture.


I think words and pictures work with different spectrums of our brain, and while it is possible that they share some qualities, if any, they come from different aspects of human creativity.

[Myrsilus]

phat al, be reasonable. Words and pictures have different uses, and in that sense they cannot always be interchangable.

And Jay, look to PriestPei's post.

It's all in the hands of the weilder, and I observe that, in the present, it is easier to find stirring pictures. As such, it's probably easier for someone to take a picture that can call forth deep emotions. Obviously there are individuals that can take a profoundly better picture than others, and this is the same with words. I just feel that there are fewer people that can be effective with words.

Eh, to me it's more like apples and oranges.

Instead of Dan Brown or J.K. Rowling, who are okay writers, but not great writers, how about; Shakespeare, Edgar Allan Poe, Kafka, Tolstoy? I do not think pictures can do justice to describe or represent their writings, the strings they pull, the certain atmosphere they create from their choice of words and the manner they are arranged, and how you would interpret them as a reader.

At the same token, it is nigh impossible to put descriptions of masterpiece paintings into words: you can try to describe paintings by van Gogh, Rembrandt, Matisse, Picasso, but it wouldn't generate the same response as it would when you come face to face with the picture.


I think words and pictures work with different spectrums of our brain, and while it is possible that they share some qualities, if any, they come from different aspects of human creativity.

Very good point. PriestPei's too. Sometimes, they are just very different mediums of expression. I'm just trying to think more universally.

[PopCulturePooka]

I still say it depends on context.

In a broad, world wide scope, whats more powerful? Memorable?

I think it all depends on what kind of learner you are. How you absorb information. A picture can be powerful, but I believe words can teach a lot more.

A picture can show something, words can explain it.

But the OP's original question was 'What would get you banned easier, what would cause more damage'.

And here... words would cause far more damage than pictures. Theres no single image I can think off that would cause as much damage as 1000 finely selected words.

[NERD]

But the OP's original question was 'What would get you banned easier, what would cause more damage'.

And here... words would cause far more damage than pictures. Theres no single image I can think off that would cause as much damage as 1000 finely selected words.

Well..... posting internet staples like TubGirl™, Goatse™, or the videoclip of the beheadings of American hostages by Muslim terrorists will probably get you banned.

EDIT: Look up TubGirl and Goatse on your own discretion, I'm warning you.

[phat_al]

The hell is tubgirl? A new fad?

[Trump]

Pictures are good at conveying things more quickly, but pictures leave more up to the viewer. Words on the other hand can be used much more easily to convey exactly what the author intends to convey. It may take a little longer, but the written word has more power, more precision, more flexibility than images if you take the time to read them. Why are peace treaties and laws written instead of drawn? Because images are much harder to interpret and can be interpretted many ways.

Here is the best way I can describe it. Pictures are like a rockin one night stand and Writing is like a 20 year romantic relationship.

[gyoza]

Well..... posting internet staples like TubGirl™, Goatse™, or the videoclip of the beheadings of American hostages by Muslim terrorists will probably get you banned.

EDIT: Look up TubGirl and Goatse on your own discretion, I'm warning you.

Damned curiousity. *projective vomit*

I think posting offensive pictures could get you banned with little effort. But carefully-picked words and personalized bashing and slander of every major member of the boards is likely to be more powerful.

[Vic_Rattlehead]

Well a picture can equal 1000 words. So really, if you typed more than 1000 words, in theory that would be the most powerful! (well obviously depending on the content...duh!) :P

[ruaidhri]

Words paint pictures in our minds. Yet, when we process pictures, we think in words. Even when we look at a photograph or a painting or a scene outside our car window we appreciate it, are excited or even repelled by it and form words in our minds to examine and explain the image.

Yes, images are powerful. Like words, we can craft images to elicit specific responses. But, beware, what you see or read is not always the truth. The question was: Which is more powerful? I vote for words because they are more precise and the end result of any picture once interpreted and accepted into our memory. For example, while I can still close my eyes and see the World Trade Center collapsing on September 9, 2001, it was the words that preceded the event and the thousands upon thousands of words that followed that truly changed our lives.

The point is we think and we act using words. Even pictures become words in our minds.

[gyoza]

The point is we think and we act using words. Even pictures become words in our minds.

That is true, however (at least from my experience), if I heard the word 'apple', for example, the first thing that would pop up in my head would be the image of an apple, and not the spelling of the word or anything like that. I think it works both ways.

[Radiance]

Simple to understand when you really look at it. A picture is far more powerful than words until the context around the picture is no longer understood. For example, those same pictures of the WTC will not carry the same surge of emotions over say five hundred years from now. The feelings of pain and suffering, missed loved ones, something being stolen... all of those feelings will be removed from the context and it will simply be "Here is a picture of a terrible event that shaped the course of a nation." The circumstances around it will most likely also fade from memory. Vague words on the other hand, while they might be tied in to a very important event will still not cause as much turbulence as an image.

If you can picture this, use it as a visual aid. If a picture was a drop of water falling on a still body of water, it has the potential to create a very violent splash, but the resulting ripple effect will be very short. While on the other hand, words have the potential to be like that wierd little drop of water that ripples further than you expected it to just because it hit the water the right way.

So... does that make sense to anyone other than myself?

[ruaidhri]

gyoza, yes, when hearing the word "apple" I also form a picture in my mind but at the same time I think fruit, red, round, sweet, tart and pie. Our minds explain everything we see.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against art. I grew up with art. My brother was a university art professor. My sister earned her Master of Fine Arts from Cranbrook Academy of Art in Bloomfield Hills, MI. My mother was a craftswoman extraordinaire with her creations in shows around the world. Every wall, every space in my parents house was covered with a painting from my family or another artist friend. We had drawing, paintings, and sculptures galore. I appreciated them all and enjoyed their presence. Yet, today, when I remember them I always explain my memory in words.

By the way, I was the only one in the house without any artistic talents. Even my father who was an old time pharmacist could write beautiful calligraphy free handed without so much as a hesitation. Oh, I tried, but totally failed. I still can’t draw much more than stick figures.

[gyoza]

Ah, I understand what you're getting at now. While pictures are more intuitive, words are definitely more specific, and because of that less subjective. So while pictures speak to a broader audience, words are less prone to being taken out of context (though that doesn't stop some people from trying :) ) Which is more powerful would depend entirely on who is viewing the picture/text.

[FOBulous]

I'm a photographer/designer and I have this argument with my editors all the time. But the truth of the matter is both are equally as effective. It just depends on the viewer if he/she is a word or visual based thinker.

[ShadowDeth]

If you were a true troll, leaving behind something like this would defeat the purpose. I opt for nothing before being banned.

[Jay]

The hell is tubgirl? A new fad?

Nope. It's years old.

[MSquared]

Just as you can string more words together to make one work that is much more powerful as the individual words, you can also combine pictures for the same effect. A picture is more than just a painting or a photograph. A movie is a picture as well, and I'll be damned if movies aren't more powerful than books. I'd say authors are better at portaying powerful things than movie directors are, but when comparing the mediums, there's no comparing how much easier it is to just move someone with a series of images rather than a series of words.

Let's say, for some reason, a movie only has 10 frames per second. For a 120 minute movie, thats 720000 frames. If a picture (or in this case, a frame, which is the same thing) is still worth a thousand words, that's 72 million words needed to convey the same amount as a movie. And I don't think anyone's going to want to read 72 million words. (at 350 words per page, that's over 200,000 pages)

[Jay]

Ah, now you're getting into the literal meaning. Still, though, for me, a movie doesn't have anything on a book. Because, while I can look at what the director chooses to display on the screen, my mind is a much more imaginative and emotive place than any visual medium could ever be.

[ruaidhri]

Jay, I do agree with you.

[Cogboy]

Damned curiousity. *projective vomit*

Does anyone else draw a strange parallel from this comment?
Though if taken from a perspective of forces they would likely cancel each other out.

As for Images vs. The written word, each is simply a form of expression for an idea, a thought, an event.
Canvas, Film, Pen, Sword. Each is powerful, but none more so than the mind.
To see inside the mind of any other would likely result in insanity, to gain the same effect from a picture or passage of text is difficult indeed.
Such is the power of the mind.

[Myrsilus]

From everyone's arguments, it is starting to feel like words and pictures can be in very different realms. Providing only a few examples is just scratching the surface, and they do not take into account that words and pictures, as I stated earlier, are not always interchangable.

I suppose both forms of expression are more effective in very different realms. Like for instance... Today I saw a video documentary on Sudan. I have read a lot about the situation there for the last few decades, but seeing this video was something entirely new for me. It impacted me far more than any of my readings have.

On the other hand, I can also recall the Schenk v United States case, where the government had to assess whether this man's leaflets, distributed during a draft period, were harmful to the state of the nation. They feared his words could incite a riot, and they had to act accordingly. Obviously, we see here the power of words, as they strike fear into the very government itself.

Obviously, circumstances influence how powerful each medium of expression is, but it is evident that each, while similar in some ways, can be completely apart in their effectiveness.

The more I think about it, the more conflicted I become...

[Sardaukar]

If I could only post one more thing before getting banned, it would be this delightful picture I have of Jesus raping a newborn baby, just for shock value.

[ruaidhri]

Sardaukar, you actually shocked me. You used words to describe a picture and I am admittedly repelled.

Obviously, each medium (pictures and words) can by themselves achieve the stated goal of the thread.

Whether you would get banned for life or not would, however, depend on the sensibilities of your audience. Some might find your actions humorous. I wouldn’t. Would I want you banned? Probably not. While your posting would undoubtedly disgust me, I oppose censorship.

For the record, I am not a Christian. I don’t support religions of man where they purport to speak for God. Regardless, I do believe a man named Jesus did live and I do believe he was a gentle and kind person. I wholly support his philosophy of love and respect. Jesus as a person was an example for all to follow. Depicting him as a child rapist is simply disgusting and attention grabbing.

What causes your hostility towards Jesus? I don’t believe he was God but I certainly respect his teachings. If your goal was to shock, you’ve succeeded.

[Jay]

Yeah, that's strange to me as well...

Okay, let's look at it this way. A really good piece of advice will stick in your head and guide your decisions for years. The exact proportions of an image would start to fade after a certain period of time, and eventually you will only be able to call up to your memory the fact that you once saw a picture, rather than exactly what the picture looked like five or ten years ago.

[NERD]

While you do have a good point Jay, pictures also have the same potential to leave a lasting impact on people. The images of the dead bodies bloated, blackened and floating in the aftermath of the tsunami in 2004 and Katrina are something that will be in a part of my mind forever, whether I like it or not.

It would depend whether you can relate to the photograph and does it grab you a certain way or not. I still maintain my position about words and pictures, with that apples and oranges analogy.

[Jay]

It may have something to do with my personality, but images and footage like that, as well as shock sites such as goatse, tubgirl, lemonparty and what have you - they just don't have the same affect on me as well-placed turn of phrase.

I guess it comes down to the individual's personality.

[Duke Luke of Juke]

It may have something to do with my personality, but images and footage like that, as well as shock sites such as goatse, tubgirl, lemonparty and what have you -
Lemonparty? Oh no, not again...
________

I do agree that it probably has something to do with personality-types. I mentioned earlier that I appreciate the art of literature more than photography, and I indeed do. But I can't say that anything quite stains my mind like the image of someone being mortally wounded, or just being degraded, or dehumanized, in general. I can't say I've ever read a book that's truly shocked, or changed my life, but I have seen quite a few pictures, or video clips that have made me re-examine humanity.

[Jay]

Put a leash on your curiosity, Luke.

[MSquared]

Ah, now you're getting into the literal meaning. Still, though, for me, a movie doesn't have anything on a book. Because, while I can look at what the director chooses to display on the screen, my mind is a much more imaginative and emotive place than any visual medium could ever be.

But then, it's not really the words that cause the emotion, it's the pictures in your head that result from the words, isn't it?

[Jay]

No.

When an author writes the word "death", to use a very general example, the first thing I think of is dying, and then what follows is other thoughts of morbidity, etc. And thoughts, at least my thoughts, aren't pictures. That said, they're not really words either...

[Frankey-eh]

jay, isn't it just a difference of visual/audio?
if you're audio, then when you see words, you're also hearing them in your head, so that has a tremendous effect on you.

for me, I'm visual so pictures have more effect on me.

Like, I hear people describing the horrors of A-bomb effect, and all I can say is "man, that must have been painful".
But when I see actual footages, I go "OH MY GOD!!" and have a much stronger reaction.

[Myrsilus]

That's right, rika. I think NERD covered what you are saying as well.

In the end, it might be very subjective. I suppose one has to wonder... what does the general populace, overall, react more strongly towards?

[smokingmonkee]

That's right, rika. I think NERD covered what you are saying as well.

In the end, it might be very subjective. I suppose one has to wonder... what does the general populace, overall, react more strongly towards?

Personally I react more to words. But finding out what the general populace reacts to more would be a really interesting study.

[Psychochink]

... what does the general populace, overall, react more strongly towards?

The general populace, by and large, has no (or very little) imagination and attention span. Therefore, pictures.

[Myrsilus]

Yes, I assumed that, too. That is what I was getting at earlier. But still, I'd like to see this conducted as a study. More concrete evidence towards one way.

It'd be interesting.

[Frankey-eh]

The general populace, by and large, has no (or very little) imagination and attention span. Therefore, pictures.

for me, it's painfully clear that I am visual when I try to do math in my brain. I canNOT comprehend a math equation just by words. Not even as simple as eight times twenty-five. I always have to translate the words into a mental picture before coming up with an answer. But once I have the picture, I can come up with the answer quick.

I think the visual/audio thing starts from the childhood.
maybe someone who's been doing math since three is visual, and someone who's been reading since three is audio...? (comparing myself to a friend. maybe I just have a very small world)

[Trump]

Please do not discuss movies here. Unless you are talking silent film, movies are a combination of pictures and sound. 99% of the emotion you feel while watching a movie is due to the music. Next time you are watching a movie, think about how silly it would seem without the music to set the mood.

[Klilynkun]

Personally I react more to words. But finding out what the general populace reacts to more would be a really interesting study.

I think words get a strong reaction as well. I mean... with the visual... people just dont visual when they are called a motherf****r... at least I don't think they do :blank:

[Marth]

I'd have to say words. A good quote or speech can change the way people think or see things and despite my finding religion BS, the bible, the koran (sp?) have had so much impact on the world it's not even funny.

[Renter]

image has impact, text has depth. They're not mutually exclusive.