Is 1000 Words Enough?
In Wednesday’s Digital History class we talked about different ways to tell stories (see 50+ Ways to Tell a Story for examples) and eventually wound up in a discussion about linear and nonlinear storytelling, courtesy of Alan Liu’s article “When Was Linearity?: The Meaning of Graphics in the Digital Age.” The article made some interesting points, especially regarding the fluidity linear and nonlinear storytelling. In the end, the story itself dictates the mode of the telling; what you are trying to say influences the best way to say it.
The really interesting part came less from the articles, however, and more from an example Jeremy brought up. He directed us to an interesting scholarly article by David Staley of Heidelberg College called “Sequential Art and Historical Narrative: A Visual History of Germany.”* Instead of a traditional written essay, as you would find in any scholarly journal, Staley tells his story of the history of Volkswagon as a series of pictures with no words. Staley’s goal, as he says, is “to elevate visual sources from the background of historical representation to which historians have long confined them, and to arrange such images prominently in the foreground.” Why, he asks, do we only use images when communicating with the public, and not inside the profession?
It’s a question worthy of serious consideration I think. Is there something inherently wrong with using pictures, only pictures, to communicate rather than words? People made arguments for both sides, though as a whole we seemed more skeptical than accepting. One person claimed that pictures evoked more emotion than words, though that statement as argued seeing as words are just as capable of pulling at our heart strings. Many of the problems people seem to have stem from the lack of direction picture-essays offer for readers. In the broadest sense, are audiences unfamiliar with the subject matter even capable of understanding such visualizations? The Staley essay, completely lacking in context until the explanation at the end, certainly asks a lot from its readers. Not knowing much about cars and post-WWII Germany, it took me a while just to figure out what it was about, and it’s easier for each reader of picture articles to reach different conclusions than if they were reading. While work frequently has different consequences than author’s intended, visual-only pieces leave far more to the imagination and to personal experience when interpreting them.
So, are visual articles worth the trouble? If it were up to my class, it’s certainly a subject for debate. I think the value of these types of articles is limited, but not they are not without merit. Right now many historians are looking for new ways to interpret information, especially on the web. For the most part, however, I don’t think anyone has considered doing away with writing. It’s always nice when authors include images with their work to illustrate text, but many are restricted to using what is available, especially for those studying the thousands of years before the 20th century. I would certainly support anyone’s decision to write an article in pictures, it’s a fascinating way to go about sharing knowledge and encourages the use of images as sources in their own right, rather than simply illustrations. I would suggest creating captions for the images, not only so they can be properly cited, but also to give readers not as familiar with the material a better chance at following the argument. Done as such, public historians especially could get a lot of use out of this medium.
~~~
*More of Staley’s work can be found in the archives of the Journal of the Association for History and Computing. All articles are listed by author’s name, and Staley is, of course, in the S section.
