response to " On ******* Media"

In the reading, it talks about how as our technology advances to be able to capture more realistic depictions of reality, we, as a people, lose interest of more fictional depictions. This is shown by talking about when paintings were still the main form of depicting history, war scenes were illustrated as very heroic and glorious things. Because the painter could show war however way they wanted, they chose to do it in a positive and celebrated manner. The reading then explains how once photography was invented and people started seeing actual pictures of war with its destruction and horror, then people lost interest in the fiction that they had seen before. Once they could see the truth about what war is, they were no longer interested in the “lies” that they had seen before.

            I find this idea of once you see the, at least, more truthful version of something, then you reject the fictitious version of it. I’m not sure if I agree that that is always the case. I think that I lot of the time the majority of people want to be shown a false version of something if the false view looks “nicer” than the real thing. When it comes to terrible things that happen around the world, I think that a lot of the time people don’t really want to think about it because it makes them upset, and instead of doing something about it, it’s easier for them to look at some false depiction of the event. It’s hard for people to imagine thing like war, famine, and genocide, so by thinking things are not as really bad as they are, it helps them sleep at night. I think it would be interesting to see if you asked someone to choose between a graphic photograph or an unrealistic painting of some horrible event, which one would they prefer.         

Jeremy Reich