Chapter 5 notes and comments

The authors appear to be using a different term for "modality" than I've been previously aware... unless I've not been using proper vocabulary again, which is possible. In my experience, modes were methods for communicating. The thesis topic I'm working on concerns multi-modal professional development. Therefore, by putting word roots and suffixes together, I assumed that "modality" meant something about the method used to convey the information. Evidently, however, modality in this case refers to markers for reality. Using modality markers, images can set reference points for our experience in reality. Modality itself refers to "the truth value or credibility of statements about the world." (155) Ok, I'll buy that for now.

However, my relativist opinion of truth (which, by including here, will make Dan very upset) is that modality, as truth, is in the eye of the beholder. I subscribe to the opinion that truth is for philosophers to analyze and debate over. Our position is to use whatever means we can, including our own vision of what is true and what is not, to form coherent and successful arguments.

Modality, it would appear, fits this design scheme. The conversation on digital photography, especially that which emphasizes natural color saturation over eccentric color densities, is especially telling (160). My problem with this section comes from the stance that reality in photography is in the eye of the beholder. For example, the hardest thing to do in photography is shoot a black object in the snow. In that instance, a black and white image may work better than a full color image, as the photographer or photo editor can evade the pitfalls of white balance in a nightmarish light scenario. However, the chart on 160 seems to set a hard and fast example of what conditions increase modality and which decrease it. I don't like absolutes, especially in art. If you shoot a tree frog in the Amazon with a high color density, the colors will pop more effectively than if you use a natural or minimalistic color saturation. TREE FROG COLORS POP AS A DEFENSE MECHANISM!! Using a high color saturation increases the modality of the tree frog image, not, as the authors describe, decreases it.

Ultimately, I have a very hard time with their explanation of modality as it refers to art. A Pollock painting has less effect, and less modality, in black and white than in color. Kress and van Leeuwan espouse the opposite opinion for the modality of modern art. I suppose that my big question would have to be:

1) Can we really rate the modality for an entire class of an art form?