They didn't say we suck, just that our nature images are forgettable. And, frankly, I have quite a few that I wish I could forget. Seriously, I'm glad they didn't' try to relate memorability to quality, significance or value.
I'm guessing people images are more "memorable" because, to most people, they're a more familiar type of imagery, and, possibly, there are more conspicuous details for the memory to recognize, store and recall. It'd be interesting to do a similar test, but only on nature images.
MIT also imposed the folly of Noam Chomsky's brand of intellect on the world, so I take anything they say with skepticism.
Posted by Doug Koepsel on May 30, 2011 at 11:52 AM
Wonder how many would hang a picture above their sofa of people in the produce isle just because it is more memorable.
Can I get a refund on my tax money.
This is an relevant topic among some geographers who involve themselves in 'participatory mapping', a technique used for cultural analysis of some area of interest. I'm not going into the details, because I'd bore the heck out of everyone.
If this is in fact the case, go make memorable images!!!!
I'm sure Ansel Adams would've been greatly disillusioned by this study if he had lived to read it. Of course, if he had lived to read it, he would also know that some of his landscapes are considered the most enduringly remembered "art" photographs ever taken. The MIT study seems to lump art photography in with portrait, photojournalism, and family snapshot photography. This is the fundamental flaw in their logic. Doing so makes no more sense than comparing the relative worth of a doctor, a teacher, and an MIT engineer.
I don't think the MIT researchers were making any judgements about good vs. bad images. They were just trying to understand how the brain processes and remembers images. They didn't say images with people in them are better than landscapes. They merely said people are more likely to remember those images.
Seems to me they should have taken into consideration the likes and dislikes of the people who did the viewing. A person who loves being in nature as opposed to one who loves to bar hop and party, may remember a particular nature image over an image of a person. In other words, did the researchers bias their results by not including the various viewers biases?
Discussion
9 repliesI'm guessing people images are more "memorable" because, to most people, they're a more familiar type of imagery, and, possibly, there are more conspicuous details for the memory to recognize, store and recall. It'd be interesting to do a similar test, but only on nature images.
Can I get a refund on my tax money.
If this is in fact the case, go make memorable images!!!!
Bill Brennan