Nick Sousanis - Unflattening-Harvard University Press (2015)

Traditionally, words have been privileged as the proper mode of explanation, as the tool
o f thought. Images have, on the other hand, long been sequestered to the realm o f spectacle · and
aesthetics, sidelined in serious discussions as mere illustration to support the text- never as
equal partner. The source o f this historical bias can be traced to
Plato, who professed a deep distrust o f perception, citing its
illusory nature: "The object which appears to bend as it enters water
provokes a lively puzzlement about what is real" (Murdoch, 1977,
p. 44). For Plato, human life was a pilgrimage (p. 2) from the
world of appearance in the cave to the reality of pure forms -
o f
(Jay, 1994, p,·2.7). If appearances were deceiving, images were far more treacherous, these
"shadows ·Of shadows," capable o f obscuring the search for truth -
•, i>
mistaking fi.re for the sun.
Plato considêred tbínking as a ki ~fif"inner speech" (Murdoch, p. 31). Thus, despite a similar
. d "
distrust ofwritingas an ~'infê'qbr
tolerated the written word as a
for memory and live understanding" (p. 22), he
that all h e perceiveô might be a de
o f wax in the presence of fiam e
evil spirit. His observations
remained unchanged:
But Ln~ed to realize that the
nor animagining. Nor has ·
is an inspeçtion on the part
confused, as it was before,
I.pay atteption to the things
.-,:
This reasoning abo\t wax raised
: ~\ >:~ ", ' ·; ·'&
anything, ~~ 'lllltÍi~ :thlngs that had
,: .··· .· .•. ~". ::·.' .. . :;.. ·: ~
than the illusiênis o( hly dreams" (p. 8
with his prog;am ~ofradical doubt,
'•,}
'"'\\;, ~ _,.,
he'd cOme tb believe, h e could buíld'up from what h e knew with
54