I am a little biased, and as much as I agreed with Neil Postman in the past, Camille Paglia made a very compelling argument that brought a different perspective to my ideas on the argument on the written word versus the image. Postman and Paglia were the perfect example of what modern (Postman) and what postmodern (Paglia) ideas look like. Personally, I have always been an advocate for the written word over the spoken, but the strength images play into our everyday lives is daunting and Paglia shows how evasive it really can be. When the argument starts off with the two Bible verses, I thought it was very intriguing the way she mentioned how nature and all its pleasant and unpleasant images came before any Word of God. Pagan images and idols were more accessible to the people, and one can see why Moses had to lead everyone out of this "cultist" environment to succeed with his intentions for the Ten Commandments and the written word.
I agree with Postman in that the utilization of certain images and symbols in commercial aspects "drain the symbol[s] of the very meanings" (287). Particularly it is with the religious symbols that I believe should not be used. His idea of using Jesus to promote Gallo Pinot Noir was a great example of how ridiculous it seems to use such a highly respected figure in a capitalist commercial way. It almost comes off as a perversion of the religious icon. Companies don't even really need these kinds of icons to promote their products.
When Paglia argues that "popular culture is an eruption of paganism," I thought this was another critical point in her argument that made a lot of sense to me (288). The twentieth century in the Western world has created these images and celebrities for us to follow in almost a cult-like fashion. Elvis Presley and the birth of rock 'n' roll thrust these pop culture icons into the mass media spotlight. We continue to look towards Hollywood stars as role models. Celebrity endorsements have become a huge industry on its own. In advertisements, companies use these celebrities to encompass what they are trying to promote, and use the celebrity icon as their own product icon.
What I really liked about Paglia's argument was that she seemed to really put into perspective to someone of modern thinking how powerful and influential television and images can be. She equated TV to the constant fire in the hearth in the home (289). I know that I stopped watching TV for a long time, simply because I had a deeper appreciation for movies. Movies are in a sense a translation of the novel into moving images. But nowadays when my TV is on, it is simply background noise, and I only really pay attention when something catches my attention. I may not remember everything, but I remember certain details. She doesn't see TV as some crisis to our intellect.
I agree with Postman on their last point about how a big part of teaching in education is getting any hold of the student's attention. I remember taking a Poli 100 class and there was a video shown on The Constitution and the Founding Fathers. As boring as the subject may be to college students, the way the video presented these topics actually made it interesting, and comprehensible. But it took drama, constant moving images all over the screen, humor, and music to keep me awake. I did feel like it dumbed down the context of what we were learning about, but that is what Postman’s argument is about. As long as we get the gist of it all then that is all that matters these days in academic settings for students, and to many professors this is a good thing, but to those like Postman it is a horrible consequence of those living in a fragmented and disconnected reality.