Malcolm Gladwell’s piece “The Picture
Problem: Mammography, Air Power, and the Limits of Looking” parallels the
multi-million dollar photographic technology that has played a role in warfare
throughout history and the medical imaging equipment that promises to detect
breast cancer early enough for the greatest possibility of survival. While one
guarantees to destroy, the other guarantees to extend life, but Gladwell
reveals that neither image produced may be as beneficial as they are touted to
be. Both images require human interpretation, which, of course, vary from
person to person and therefore, affect the information gained from the image.
For instance, the LANTIRN could take a photograph of a four-and-a-half-mile
area, but required human analysis to determine which area to bomb. Mammography
reveals some of the calcifications in a woman’s breast tissue, but a skilled
radiologist must examine each spot to determine whether or not it is cancerous.
The image itself does not contain the necessary information; it merely provides
a visual map to begin upon. Furthermore, while this visual map provides
direction, it may lead to the wrong destination altogether. This is evident in
an issue Gladwell calls the “Schweinfurt problem.” In World War II, the Allied
Forces determined that German ball-bearing factories must be destroyed, as ball
bearings were an important element of airplane manufacture. The bombs were very
accurate, and the factories were successfully demolished, however, the
machinery was not. That hardly mattered, as the Germans had stored away ball
bearings, and they were not as imperative to airplane manufacture as the Allies
had originally believed. Mammography’s Schweinfurt problem lies in a specific
type of breast cancer called ductal carcinoma in situ. Nearly every case of
DCIS is removed upon discovery, resulting in thousands of cancer removal cases
a year, but despite this statistic, the death rate of cancer has steadily
risen. As it turns out, medical science is not yet advanced enough to know from
a mammogram whether or not cancer has metastasized, and it is not known whether
metastasis is affected by the size of the tumor – one of the only pieces of
information a mammogram can effectively give.
Malcolm Gladwell ends his article on a
peculiar note. It seems as though, while there are limits to looking, they are
subjective. They depend on the situation the photograph is being used for. When
it comes to mammography, the benefit outweighs the risk – it is better to be
safe than sorry. Mammography still saves lives, despite its limits. When it
comes to waging war, perhaps the picture should be just a little clearer.
2 comments:
I like the end comments of your response because Gladwell really does try to jump on the fact that the limits of looking are different in each situation photography is being used for.I immediately tried to think of other cases where photography is used for documenting important information and also where the photographs might easily be interpreted differently by various people. I thought of photographs taken for underwater and aerial archaeology, as well as ones taken in space and of Earth's weather. After reading the article I wouldn't be surprised if there were cases related to the other things I mentioned where photographs may have needed to be clearer to get a correct interpretation, or received a myriad of interpretations by different people.
I agree with your response. I found it very interesting to read about the parallels between the role photography has in warfare and in the medical field of mammograms. The point you made about the limitations being subjective and depending on the situation the photograph is being used for is strong and valid. I also think the point you made about the image being a "visual map" to begin is crucial for people to remember. I think people often forget that a picture is a starting point and that it still needs to be paired with skill and human interaction to become anything more, especially in the health and war fields. Different audiences may yield different interpretations. Documentary photography, for example, is powerful on its own, but when given context such as a caption, in addition to a specific viewer’s previous knowledge on the subject it has the capability to spark so much more. Without the human interaction with the photograph, the photograph would lose its documentary purpose in sharing that particular story to all types of audiences. I found it also particularly interesting to meditate on how visually dependent our culture is and how quick we are to jump to conclusions (although in some cases such as the mammograms, it is better safe than sorry, as you stated).
Post a Comment