barefooted's picture

    Optical Illusions

    They say a picture paints a thousand words. There's a reason that phrase has been used in song and prose, spanning the years and provoking our imagination. We believe those six words to be true because they speak to the very core of who we are, what we innately desire communication to be. A pure, unadulterated description without motive or hidden agenda -- we see in a picture an innocence lost in words. Yet we rarely consider that pictures can lie.

    Perhaps it would be more succinct to say that pictures can manipulate, by virtue of the fact that they can be easily manipulated. No, I'm not referring to Photoshop or the like, although it would be the easiest example. What I am suggesting is a far more insidious method of alteration, one that carries the heft of a new word: Optics. Ah, therein lies the rub.

    In political lexicon, optics are fiercely important. Pictures have always mattered in a kinder, gentler sense, but optics target key receptors by honing in on an unsuspecting demographic. A picture can tell us whatever we choose to hear, while an optic demands that we listen to the story. Democrats and Republicans alike have always been masters of the spin game, anyone surprised by that has not been paying attention. However, in recent years the game has devoted more and more time to show-and-tell. A new bonus round,, if you will, where the stakes are high but the payoff is huge. We're the audience ... the player with the best optics wins. And winner takes all.

    Consider the ado surrounding the lack of optics being presented by the Obama administration. The world is going to hell in a handbasket and he's too busy fundraising, campaigning and speechifying about domestic issues to give a damn. If he cared at all, there'd be optics to prove it. He'd be at our southernmost border, looking somber and engaged, spending his Sundays on talk shows discussing the Middle East conflict, calling Putin a thug in the Rose Garden and having tea with Republicans on Capitol Hill. And there'd be optics! Drinking beer and shooting pool in Denver? Round of applause for the red team, please. Feel free to boo our president as he works backstage, out of the limelight to actually do something. The cameras aren't watching, there's no film at eleven. All we see is a man dutifully raising money for, and promoting, his party. All we hear is him, at podiums across the country, explaining to the American people where he stands and in what he believes. He has shown enough knowledge of current events to convince us that he's still actively engaged in the game, but he just can't win without optics.

    Is that true? Are politicians on both sides of the aisle and talking heads on competing networks right? Somewhat sadly, they very well may be. In this age of lightning speed information that is anything but consistent, it's difficult to digest circumstances on a good day. During troubling times, such as these today, it can seem utterly overwhelming. Perhaps we need that picture to translate the words, to paint over the noise, to tell us the truth. Maybe the optics really do matter. Even if we know we're being handled, even if we.know it's all fluff. Illusions, like a desert mirage, may have no substance or basis in reality, but they do keep us interested.

    There's a glitch in that argument, though. If the optics of any given subject are allowed to supersede the subject itself, then all frame of reference is lost. It isn't enough to watch the movie instead of reading the book. Manipulation of facts is nothing new, and it's certainly not limited to politics, but encouraging it is not a good idea. The best optics are the ones that add flavor to a bland dish, garnish the plate and cleanse our palate. But they can not, under any circumstances, change water into champagne or prime rib into chicken. Had President Obama accompanied Governor Perry to the Texas border, we'd have had a veritable feast of optics. Perry would have catapulted to Republican stardom and Obama would have gotten his picture taken. And later, while the public fed on the optics and the media gurus were sated, the kids would still be waiting for something real. Hey, it's the optics, man! He coulda been a contenda!

    So while we applaud the game, let's hope the real players are behind the green screen, ignoring the fantasy and doing all they can to find answers. If they keep trying, who knows ... maybe one day we'll all win.

     

    Comments

    So very true. 

    What gets to me is to watch people in office lie to the public in order to spin their ideology. Some of these guys can't be as stupid as they sound.  They would not have been able to get into law school. They do it for the optics.  No one in the media ever calls them on it.  


    When Cruz and company "joined" the protesters at the WWII memorial, it was ludicrous. But it fed the base, so even though they were widely panned the optics paid off.


    Show-and-tell or dog-and-pony-show ... it's all the same thing ... touchy-feely and warm-fuzzys.

    I suspect the "optics" win simply because no one cares for cold hard facts, substance and effort ... they have no substance in the visible spectrum. Their attributes are ethereal and are easily molded into shape and form as necessity dictates many times contrary to their original purpose and intent. 

     

    It's the observer who must decide if they should believe their lying eyes.


    I suppose it's fair to say that if Obama had gone to the border while so close, it would have done a great deal for his approval ratings. That's the thing about optics - they can be a double edged sword.


    that makes it a dog-and-pony show ... no substance ... but I see your point ... being seen creates a fictional impression something is being done even though the appearance was nothing more than a face showing exercise for the public.


    Not always. Visuals play a role in expression, and can be a useful part of a larger narrative. But when what something looks like is given an inordinate amount of weight in deciding the merits of an issue, then there's a problem.


    I agree, Barefooted, that "optics" are way overblown.  Even with this example of visiting the border, I have no doubt that the TeaBaggers would have immediately complained that resources were wasted on security for the Prez rather than going to the border guards who needed it more. It would have been played up as nothing more than a distraction, and probably showboating. Look at what happened when a local cop kept a woman IN EARLY LABOR (she still had not delivered a day later) from crossing the President's motorcade path!  They managed to blame it on President Obama, who had no idea of the situation. What childish pricks they are!

    He's damned if he does and he's damned if he doesn't, so he may as well go ahead and do what he thinks is best. 


    You have a point, there. I was a bit uncomfortable when he spoke briefly about MH17 before beginning his scheduled infrastructure remarks in Delaware. It seemed ... minimal, and out of place. But what were the options? Say nothing? Cancel a speech about an important subject? It was far too early for him to say anything more than he did at that moment - but he caught hell because the optics were bad. Well, at least we had McCain to watch as he spouted his usual hawk-bile at the first camera he saw.


    Latest Comments