ARTificial Influence

Today I’m going to write down a few of my thoughts about art. Not classical art such as a painting by Rembrandt or van Gough, but rather about the art that we encounter every day. Illustrations in magazines, or an “artist’s conception” of a proposed building project. These illustrations are helpful to us in our decision making and understanding. But, they can also be deceiving leading us into holding false ideas, or unrealistic concerns.

I first got to thinking about this when I was listening to a talk given by a Roman Catholic Priest, an Exorcist, in fact. He was discussing angels when he mentioned cherubs, yes cherubs. You know, those chubby, child-like figures with wings, rosy cheeks and a halo over their heads. Yes, them! Well, the bible describes them as powerful, awe-inspiring, and even frightening! The cherub blocking the entrance to the Garden of Eden held a flaming sword in his hand! This is not quite the image that has been handed to us.

In wartime, the deceptions are often deliberate. Most of us have seen old propaganda posters from the second world war. You know, the ones in which every Japanese soldier has buck teeth and thick glasses through which he can barely see. The purpose was, of course, to de-humanize them. To make us see them as “vermin that need to be exterminated”.

I no longer remember his name, but prior to the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor, there was an American admiral who dismissed the concerns of others about such a possibility due to the Japanese having such poor vision. This admiral had actually begun to believe the propaganda illustrations! Fortunately, others were not so profoundly influenced.

Now, with all of that history behind us, let’s take a look at how illustrations are affecting policy even as I write.

More than twenty years ago, I received a letter from my auto insurance agent which contained information about recent auto safety research. The reason for this particular work was the ever increasing use of the then relatively new cell phones being used while people are driving. What was of most interest to me was a section about “mental imaging”. Mental imaging, in this context, occurs when the driver is so engrossed in the conversation that he no longer sees the real street and traffic ahead, but sees the face of the person to whom he is speaking.

We are told that we see with our eyes, when actually we see with our brain, and the eyes are merely the receivers of the color, light, sizes, and depth which is then turned into a usable image in our brain. If the conversation gets intense, intellectually and especially emotionally, the risk of not actually “seeing” increases.

Hands-free use doesn’t help either because mental imaging occurs just as easily if you have one or both hands on the wheel. Studies conducted since then have concluded that talking, and especially texting, distracts us as much as being legally drunk, but laws prohibiting or restricting such use do not seem to be enforced. Why? Why is there no outcry about this as there is about drunken driving?

I believe that a part of the answer lies in the images that we have of drunken drivers and “talking” drivers.

When we hear the word “drunk”, what image appears in our minds? Likely an old, dirty, unshaven man who probably smells from having urinated on himself.

Contrast this with our image of a cell phone user, or texter. A person who is clean, articulate, and polite. The journalists who are supposed to bring these issues to the forefront do it. In fact, our elected officials do it, and they certainly do not want to punish themselves  So, those who talk or text and drive are so much like…. us!

And that is what I believe to be a large part of the issue. The image conjured up by the thought of a drunkard as opposed to the image of a smart phone user.  It is unlikely to be the complete answer, but…it’s something to think about.