|
October 17, 2003

M.Davis
We often think of images in terms of a visual language signifying a world. We assume an outside world that is then re-presented through through a separate system of signs. The images in our urban visualscape that form our language then represent, construct, or organize some of the outside world.
Consider the above image as being about Australia as the new sheriff of Southeast Asia.
It is unclear that this image represents some underlying reality. Australia is not the sheriff of Southeast Asia in the war on terror just because the imperial president in Washington said so in a news conference.
Can we not see this in terms of intensity and effect? Does it possess a power of its own? Does it not create the affect of surveillance? Of fear? Does it not convey the menacing affect of being watched by a powerful and wrathful authority?
Does it not disrupt the everyday and habitual links that we make between our words and experience of Australia's role in the war on terror?
|
Dunno.
I played cricket today with a heap of people who give no indication of being in the slightest bit concerned about the war on terror or any sort of political issue.
Is it really an issue with traction in the public imaginiation?