I nt er nat ional Journal of Com m unicat ion 1 ( 2007) , Book Review 162- 169 1932- 8036/ 2007BKR0162

W.J.T. Mitchell, W h a t D o Pict u r e s W a n t ?: Th e Live s a n d Love s of I m a ge s, Chicago: Univer sit y of

Chicago Press, 2005, 380 pp., $22.50 ( paperback) .

Rev iew ed by
Heat her Collet t e- VanDeraa &
Douglas Kellner
Universit y of California, Los Angeles

W.J.T. Mitchell has long argued that there has been a visual turn, or what
he calls a “ pict orial t urn,” in cont em porary cult ur e and t heory in which im ages,
pict ures and t he realm of t he visual have been r ecognized as being as
im por t ant and wort hy of int ense scrut iny as t he realm of language. While t he
“ linguist ic t urn” ( Ror t y) in t he 1960s called at t ent ion t o t he role of language in
cult ur e, t heory , and everyday life, 1 t he not ion of a “ pict or ial t urn” signals t he
im por t ance of pict ures and im ages, and challenges us t o be observant and
inform ed cr it ics of visual cult ure.

I n his engaging and only par t ially ironic t it led book What Do Pict ures
Want ?, Mit chell explores t he life of visual cult ur e in our individual and social
liv es, prov iding a com prehensiv e and int egrat ed discussion of t he hist orical,
cross- cult ural and t heoret ical im plicat ions of t he power of im ages and pict ur es.
Long our m aj or iconographer , Mit chell is Pr ofessor of English and Art Hist ory at

W.J.T. Mit chell t he Universit y of Chicago, and edit or of t he int erdisciplinary j ournal, Crit ical
I nquiry. 2

I n What Do Pict ures Want ?, Mit chell com bines a dazzling array of t heoret ical discourses t o
develop analyses, int erpret at ions and provocat ions t hat enable us t o bet t er underst and t he m odalit ies and
power of visual cult ure. Drawing on a dist inguished career as aut hor, lect urer , and edit or , Mit chell has
pulled t oget her m aj or art icles, addr esses t o scholarly conferences, and new work t o present his m ost
com prehensive and probing book t o dat e on cont em porary visual cult ure, one t hat was awarded t he
Modern Language Associat ion's prest igious Jam es Russell Lowell Pr ize in 2006. 3

1
On Rort y on t he “ linguist ic t urn,” see ht t p: / / www.richard- t - hull.com / publicat ions/ rort y _rev.pdf and
ht t p: / / cont ent .cdlib.org/ xt f/ view?docI d= ft 109nb02h&chunk.id= d0e5082&t oc.dept h= 1&t oc.id= d0e4388&b
rand= eschol.

2
For t he Crit ical I nquiry websit e, see ht t p: / / crit icalinquiry.uchicago.edu/ .

3
List ings and an overview of Mit chell’s work can be found on his hom e page at
ht t p: / / hum anit ies.uchicago.edu/ facult y/ m it chell/ hom e.ht m . His ot her m aj or works include I conology:
I m age, Tex t , I deology. Chicago: Univer sit y of Chicago Press, 1986, and Pict ur e Theory: Essays on Verbal
and Visual Represent at ion. Chicago: Univ er sit y of Chicago Press, 1994. The form er est ablished Mit chell’s
proj ect of cr it ical iconology , w hile t he lat t er est ablished t he “ pict orial t urn” and grounded his proj ect of

Copyright © 2007 ( Heat her Collet t e- VanDeraa & Douglas Kellner, collette17@ucla.edu;
kellner@ucla.edu) . Licensed under t he Cr eat ive Com m ons At t ribut ion Non- com m ercial No Der ivat iv es
( by- nc- nd) . Av ailable at ht t p: / / ij oc.org.
I nt er nat ional Journal of Com m unicat ion 1 ( 2007) , Book Review Collet t e- VanDeraa & Kellner 163

Organized as a syst em at ic archit ect onic, in What Do Pict ures Want ?, Mit chell div ides his subj ect
m at t er int o t hree part s on I m ages, Obj ect s, and Media, bolst er ed by t heoret ical analyses and
int errogat ions of specific const it uent par t s of pict ures and visual cult ure. The t ex t generat es engagem ent
wit h a dazzling panoram a of sources and lit erat ure, and a wide variet y of t opics concer ning t he life in
im ages in cult ure and societ y. His vision and t ools are highly eclect ic, drawing on ant hropology , biology,
art hist ory, Marxism , Fr eudianism , sem iology, and a broad array of cont em porary crit ics and t heorist s.
I ndeed, his foot not es provide a t our t hrough current discussions of a t rem endous diversit y of issues in
cult ural t heory , aest het ics, m edia t heory , and visual cult ur e.

Alt hough his work m ay be foreboding t o t hose not versed in t he profession of ar t hist ory and
discourses of cont em porary t heory, Mit chell excels in clear definit ions, det ailed exam ples, and provocat ive
and original insight s. He opens his m agnus opus by defining his t er m s and not ing t hat t he “ book as a
whole…is about pict ures, underst ood as com plex assem blages of v irt ual, m at erial, and sym bolic elem ent s”
( xiii) . Dist inguishing bet w een im ages and pict ures, Mit chell t akes pict ur es in an ex t rem ely broad sense
ranging from t hose t hings w e hang on our walls, t o t he “ pict ure show s” we see in t he cinem a or art
m useum s, t o “ pict ur es in t he m ind” t hat const it ut e our views of t he world ( xiii) . Aft er suggest ing t he
com plex it y of t he concept of pict ures and need t o reconceive of t heir nat ure and m ult iple roles in our lives,
Mit chell goes on in t he t hr ee part s of t he book t o int er rogat e t he key aspect s of pict ur es st ar t ing wit h
im ages, defined as “ any likeness, figure, m ot if, or form t hat appears in som e m edium or ot her” and m akes
it s appearance as a pict ur e ( x iii- x iv) .

Mit chell’s inst r uct ive st udies of im ages in Part One includes probing discussions of im ages as
“ vit al signs” t hat play a key r ole in social life, and of connect ions bet ween im ages
and desire and t he “ surplus value” t hey generat e. He opens w it h an ext rem ely
effect iv e gam bit of using det ailed readings of im ages of t he 9/ 11 t error at t acks
and of t he cloned sheep Dolly t o illust rat e t he sw ay of im ages and t he ways t hat
t hey can evoke powerful fear s, as well as seduce, at t ract ,
and illum inat e our daily liv es. While pict ures can be
dest roy ed, im ages can cont inue t o live on, haunt ing,
t em pt ing, and perhaps fright ening or inspiring us. They
are t hus part of what Freud and ot hers designat ed “ t he
uncanny,” and which crit ics t oday refer t o as “ st range at t ract ors,” or noxious
repulser s as t he case m ay be.

“ pict ur e t heory.” Bot h are adv anced in t he t ext under review, which cont ains st udies from t he m id- 1990s
t hrough t he following decade.
164 Collet t e- VanDeraa & Kellner I nt er nat ional Journal of Com m unicat ion 1 ( 2007) , Book Review

I n Part Two, Mit chell int errogat es t he relat ion bet ween im ages and obj ect s, w hile exploring
fascinat ing subcult ur es of found obj ect s, founding and offending obj ect s, obj ect s and em pir e, rom ant icism
and t he life of t hings, and original reflect ions on t ot em ism , fet ishism , and idolat ry . Mit chell’s reflect ions on
obj ect s and em pire are a t our- de- force, and his use of concept s of idols, fet ishism , and t he figur e of t he
t ot em t o explicat e t he working of im per ialism is brilliant . For Mit chell, t he const ruct ion and use of t hese
cat egories, oft en used t o denigrat e “ prim it iv e” or “ savage” people, can be seen as “ obj ect iv ist proj ect ions
of a kind of collect ive im per ial subj ect , fant asies about ot her people, specifically ot her people’s beliefs
about cer t ain kinds of obj ect s” ( 163) . Nailing t he role of t hese concept s in est ablishing and ideologically
grounding im perialism , Mit chell writ es:

“ Tot em ism , fet ishism , and idolat ry are t hus ‘secondary beliefs,’ beliefs about t he beliefs
of ot her people, and t hus inseparable from ( in fact , const it ut ive of) syst em s of racial or
collect ive prej udice. They involve quit e general not ions about t he operat ions of t he
‘savage’ or ‘prim it ive’ m ent alit y — t hat t he nat ives are invariably gullible and
super st it ious; t hat t hey live in a wor ld of fear and ignorance wher e t hese obj ect s
com pensat e for t heir w eakness; t hat t hey lack t he abilit y t o m ake dist inct ions bet w een
anim at e and inanim at e obj ect s” 162) .

I n a dazzling hist orical ov erview, Mit chell suggest s t hat : “ I t is t em pt ing t o sum m ar ize t he hist ory
of im per ialism as t he sequence from idolat ry ( em pires of conquest and colonizat ion of t errit ory ) t o
fet ishism ( m er cant ilist , seafaring em pir es) t o t ot em ism ( t he m at ure, t hat is t o say, Brit ish, for m of
em pire, com bing m er cant ilism and t errit or ial expansion, t he spread of t rading m onopolies and religious
m issions) ” ( 163) .

I n a subsequent st unning analysis, Mit chell suggest s

t hat if “ idols, fet ishes, and t ot em s w ere t he bad obj ect s of
im perialism , w e need t o ask ourselves w hat is t he bad obj ect of
em pire, of t he dem at er ialized, vir t ual world of globalizat ion w e
now inhabit ” ( 167) . The answer here is fossils, t hose m at er ial
rem ains of ex t inct life, which “ signify species deat h, t he ut t er
vanishing of an ent ire class of living t hings” ( 167) . While we
gaze at fossils in m useum s wit h great fascinat ion, t hey also call
at t ent ion, Mit chell not es, t o species ex t inct ion, raising t he
spect er of t he disappearance of hum an beings, a possibilit y
m ade r eal in a cybernet ic and post - hum anist wor ld, as Mit chell
will discuss in a lat er chapt er ” ( 167) . 4

4
The analysis of t he fossil and t he “ cult of t he dinosaur” ( 167) was t he t opic of anot her book by Mit chell
and Cary Wolfe, Anim al Rit es: Am erican Cult ure, t he Discourse of Species and Post hum anist Theory.
Chicago, I ll.: Univer sit y of Chicago Press, 2003, which can be explor ed at
ht t p: / / www .pr ess.uchicago.edu/ cgi- bin/ hfs.cgi/ 00/ 15356.ct l.
I nt er nat ional Journal of Com m unicat ion 1 ( 2007) , Book Review Collet t e- VanDeraa & Kellner 165

Part Thr ee engages m edia and as Mit chell put s it : “ I f

im ages are life- form s, and obj ect s are t he bodies t hey anim at e, t hen
m edia are t he habit at s or ecosyst em s in which pict ures com e aliv e”
( 198) . Recognizing t he im port ance of Marshall McLuhan for m edia
t heory , Mit chell proposes a less am bit ious proj ect for McLuhan’s
“ under st anding m edia” t hat he calls “ addressing m edia” ( 203f) . By
t his he m eans confront ing m edia “ not as if t hey w ere logical syst em s
or st ruct ur es but as if t hey w ere env ironm ent s w here im ages live, or
personas and avat ars t hat address us and can be addressed in t urn”
( 203) . 5

A m edium , Mit chell

suggest s, is m ore t han t he m at erial subst rat e of im ages, but
com poses, as Raym ond William s proposes, “ a m at er ial social
pract ice, a set of sk ills, habit s, t echniques, t ools, codes and
convent ions” ( 203) . But while William s w ant ed t o r eplace t he w hole
idea of m edium w it h social pract ice, Mit chell want s t o k eep m edia as
a “ m iddle ground bet w een m at er ials and t he t hings people do wit h
t hem ” ( 204) .

Aft er som e useful clarificat ion of concept of m edia ( 205ff) ,

Mit chell engages in ex t rem ely rich st udies of specific m edia, t aking
cert ain key art ist s or work s as exem plary or illust rat ive of his
t heor et ical per spect ives. A chapt er on paint ing focuses on a range of
abst ract ar t ; his analysis of sculpt ure uses Br it ish art ist Ant hony
Gorm ley as a case st udy ; his opt ic on phot ography t akes Am erican
phot ographer Rober t Fr ank, and m ore broadly Am er ican
phot ography , as it s subj ect ; t he engagem ent w it h film int errogat es
Spike Lee’s Bam boozled, and a st udy of “ The Work of Art in t he Age
of Biocybernet ic Reproduct ion” t ak es popular science fict ion and
cyborg film s, digit al cult ure, and som e cont em porary art as it s
dom ain. I n each case, Mit chell illum inat es t he part icular m edium ,
key illust rat ive exam ples and cases, and m akes m any original
observat ions and analy ses concer ning his subj ect - m at t er s.

5
Curiously , alt hough in t his quot e Mit chell pr oposes an env ironm ent al approach t o m edia t hat fit s int o
his v it alist ic perspect iv es, it seem s t o r ej ect a syst em s t heory approach in a discussion of Nik las Luhm ann
aft er fir st cr it iquing Luhm ann and syst em s t heory ( 208f) . Mit chell t hen seem s t o inv it e syst em s t heor y
int o par t of his m edia t heory ( 209f) , signaling his openness t o a wide div ersit y of t heories — but per haps
also occasional t heoret ical m uddle. Revealingly, Mit chell does not use syst em s t heory in t he st udies of
specific m edia in Par t Three t hat priv ilege ar t hist ory and cult ural st udies approaches.
166 Collet t e- VanDeraa & Kellner I nt er nat ional Journal of Com m unicat ion 1 ( 2007) , Book Review

For inst ance, t he reading of Spike Lee’s Bam boozled int er pret s t he film as a “ m et apict ure t hat
explores t he m edia of t elev ision, cinem a, writ ing, sculpt ure, dance, and t he I nt ernet , as well as specific
gener ic usages of m edia in fashion, advert ising, news, st and- up com edy , and t he m inist rel show” ( 295) . I t
crit ically int errogat es a wide range of racial st ereot ypes of African Am er icans, inspiring Mit chell t o a
penet rat ing analysis of st ereot ypes as an im port ant t ype of “ living im age” in t he m iddle ground bet ween
fant asy and ideology, a m ask and veil t hat separat es people, and yet an invisible and ordinary vehicle of
prej udice and racism ( 295f) . 6 For Mit chell:

Bam boozled is a m et apict ur e — a pict ure about pict ures, a pict ure t hat conduct s a self-
conscious inquiry int o t he life of im ages, especially racial im ages, and t he way t hey
circulat e in m edia and ev eryday life. Her e is Lee’s ow n com m ent on t his

I want people t o t hink about t he power of im ages, not j ust in t er m s of

race, but how im agery is used and what sort of social im pact it has—
how we t alk, how we t hink, how we view one anot her. I n part icular, I
want t hem t o see how film and t elevision have hist orically from t he birt h
of bot h m edium s, produced and perpet uat ed dist ort ed im ages. Film and
t elevision st ar t ed out t hat way, and here w e are, at t he dawn of a new
cent ury and a lot of t hat m adness is st ill w it h us t oday ( 301) .

Hence, in What Do Pict ures Want ? Mitchell carries out tour- de- force readings of specific im ages and
pictures like 9/ 11, Dolly the cloned sheep, the Golden Calf of Biblical lore, the dinosaur, m any icons of art
history, including the sculptures of Anthony Gorm ley, the phot os of Robert Frank, and lesser known works of
contem porary art, deftly deploying herm eneutics, sem iotics, rhetoric, and a range of critical theories. Yet
Mitchell insists that he is prim arily concerned “ to put our relation to the work into question, to m ake the
relationality of im age and beholder the field of investigat ion … to turn analysis of pictures t oward quest ions of
process, affect, and to put in question the spectator position” ( 49) .

I f pict ures, t hen, could be t aken collect ively as a person, W.J.T. Mit chell has writ t en a splendid
biography of a fascinat ing and highly com plex individual. While Mit chell argues against crude
ant hropom orphizing and v it alizing of im ages, it seem s im possible we will ever j ust let im ages be im ages -
—inanim at e spect ers wit h no int r insic value ot her t han what we, as liv ing t hings, im pose upon t hem . The
“ liv ing im age” seem s an apt m et aphor for t hese t hings t hat do seem t o dem and and desir e t hat invariable
“ som et hing” from us in our individual and social life.

Alt hough Mit chell resist s ascribing a prim acy t o biology ( 89) , in t he t it le and unfolding of What Do
Pict ur es Want ?, as a “ t hought exper im ent ” ( 30) , he adopt s a vit alist ic per spect ive, and asks us t o consider
im ages as liv ing, organic beings t hat m ake dem ands of us, em body desir es, and radiat e value. Of cour se,
we know t hat im ages fascinat e and som et im es horrify us, appall and seduce us, and t hat w e are deeply

6
From St ephen Duncom be’s review in t his j ournal, we assum e t hat Elizabet h and St uart Ewen’s
Typecast ing: On t he Art s & Sciences of Hum an I nequalit y provides a heft y and im port ant work on
st er eot ypes; see ht t p: / / ij oc.org/ oj s/ index.php/ ij oc/ ar t icle/ view / 133/ 65.
I nt er nat ional Journal of Com m unicat ion 1 ( 2007) , Book Review Collet t e- VanDeraa & Kellner 167

at t ract ed t o and liv e wit hin a world of im ages. Clear ly im ages have v alue and generat e surplus- v alue,
som et im es quit e significant v alue as art auct ions, copyright legal bat t les, and adver t ising budget s indicat e.
Yet Mit chell also suggest s, signaling t he quasi- irony of his t it le and quest , t hat perhaps pict ures want
not hing of us, but nonet heless we should consider t hem as living beings, t ry t o com pr ehend t hem on t heir
own t erm s, sit uat e t hem wit hin t heir life- hist ories and environm ent s, st udy t heir effect s and aft er- life, and
t ry t o det ect t heir m y st eries.

I ndeed, bot h idolat ers and iconoclast s at t est t o t he vit alit y and power of im ages. I dolat ers, who
fet ishize art w orks, art ifact s of m edia cult ure, adver t ising im ages, celebrit ies or t he lik e, dem onst rat e t he
power of im ages in our societ y, an alm ost t aken- for- grant ed assum pt ion of art hist ory and cult ural st udies
which indeed helps legit im at e t he disciplines. I conoclast s t oo t est ify t o t he power of im ages in our cult ure,
as when t he Taliban dest royed ancient Buddhist t em ples in Afghanist an. Or , t aking our own exam ple, in
t he early 1990’s Sinead O’Connor ripped up a pict ure of Pope John
Paul I I on Sat urday Night Live, subsequent ly st alling her m ainst r eam
career for well over a decade from t he backlash t hat result ed against
her decidedly polit ical st at em ent . O’Connor’s act ion and t he response
t o it indicat e t he confluence of idolat ers and iconoclast s alik e on t he
power of im ages. The pict ur e was m erely t hat —a phot ograph.
O’Connor did not hing t o t he Pope him self, nor t o t he chur ch, in t he act
of t ear ing t he pict ure, but t o m illions of pr act it ioners of t he Cat holic
fait h, she com m it t ed an act of sym bolic v iolence upon an individual
person and upon a collect ive belief sy st em em bodied in a r eligious social inst it ut ion. The act was recor ded
as anot her im age on Sat urday Night Live, cr eat ing a m edia spect acle of an iconoclast ic at t ack on t he Pope.
Yet , from a sk ept ic’s perspect ive, it was a non- ev ent — m erely a pict ure of a person dest roying a pict ure. 7

Arguing t hat we have a “ double consciousness about im ages” ( 8) whereby we are at t ract ed t o
t hem and can be dist anced and sharply cr it ical at t he sam e t im e, or cr it ical and yet t ak e t hem as serious
obj ect s of st udy, Mit chell proposes a “ t hird w ay” beyond idolat ers w ho sim ply celebrat e im ages, or
iconoclast s who want t o blast t hem away. Against t hese one- sided approaches, Mit chell recom m ends
“ Niet zsche’s st rat egy of ‘sounding t he idols’ wit h t he ‘t uning fork’ of crit ical or philosophical language. This
would be a m ode of crit icism t hat did not dream of get t ing beyond im ages, beyond represent at ion, of
sm ashing t he false im ages t hat bedev il us, or even of producing a definit ive separat ion bet ween t rue and
false im ages. I t would be a delicat e crit ical pract ice t hat st ruck im ages wit h j ust enough force t o m ak e
t hem r esonat e, but not so m uch as t o sm ash t hem ” ( 8- 9) . 8 Mock ing t he iconoclast , Mit chell not es in an

7
One can v iew t he or iginal NBC broadcast on YouTube by clicking here:
ht t p: / / www .yout ube.com / wat ch?v= Owa_CFBAWpw) .

8
Alt hough Mit chell opens by t aking “ pict ures” as his key concept and is fam ous for recom m ending a
“ pict orial t urn” in t he st udy of cult ure, oft en t he t er m “ im ages” for him st ands in for “ pict ures” w hen he is
discussing his proj ect and/ or field of inquiry. Likew ise, in Part One on “ I m ages” he has a chapt er t it led
“ What Do Pict ures Want ?” We suspect t hat his t endency t o collapse im ages and pict ures int o each ot her in
168 Collet t e- VanDeraa & Kellner I nt er nat ional Journal of Com m unicat ion 1 ( 2007) , Book Review

oft - quot ed bon m ot : “ Pict ur es are a popular polit ical ant agonist because one can t ake a t ough st and on
t hem , and yet , at t he end of t he day, everyt hing r em ains pret t y m uch t he sam e” ( p. 33) .

On t he w hole, Mit chell succeeds in conv incing reader s t o t ake pict ures seriously, and his
cat egorical dist inct ions ar e useful and enlight ening, his analy ses oft en brilliant , and t he scope of t he
proj ect is highly im pressiv e, but w e m ust adm it som e reservat ions about his occasional posit ioning im ages
as subalt er n and gendered ( 29f, 34ff, 46, passim ) . I t is t rue t hat som et im es im ages are denigrat ed, held
in cont em pt , or abused, but t he very power of im ages t o creat e idolat ers and fet ishist s, as well as
iconoclast s, at t est t o t he fr equent power of im ages’ over people. We are also skept ical t hat it helps t o
gender “ im ages as wom en” and analogize t he quest ion “ What do im ages w ant ” w it h Fr eud’s infam ous
query of “ What do wom en want ?” ( 35) , or Fanon’s query: “ What does t he black m an w ant ” ( 29) .

I m ages and t heir em bodim ent in pict ures m ay be an Ot her t o hum an beings and perhaps
subordinat e t o words in m any people’s view of t hings, but it is not clear t hat t hey em body subordinat e
subj ect posit ions, nor are t hey oppressed in t he sam e way s as wom en and people of color. Nor are im ages
in general gendered, alt hough t hey cer t ainly can be in som e discourses or inst ances. No doubt Mit chell is
being ironic and provocat ive and uses t he not ion of im ages and subalt ernit y t o provoke us t o reflect on
im ages and how we see and use t hem , but , lik e Spike Lee’s Bam boozled t hat he so cogent ly reads, t he
gam ble is a t r icky one in an era of int ense race and gender crit ical consciousness.

Moreover, we are skept ical of som e of Mit chell’s claim s concer ning what im ages desire, j ust as w e
were put off by his gendering im ages and posit ioning t hem as subalt ern. I s elicit ing a react ion t he sam e as
desiring one? Can we speak of im ages as anim at e
subj ect s/ obj ect s t o our flesh and blood subj ect s as t hings t hat
“ want ” from us as m uch as we want som et hing from t hem ?
Mit chell st at es: “ Pict ures w ant equal right s w it h language, not
t o be t urned int o language” ( 47) . We are not sur e, how ever ,
t hat pict ur es can dem and equal right s, as it is gener ally
groups of oppr essed people t hat dem and r ight s, but we w ould
agree t hat im ages are as im port ant as words in our
cont em porary societ y and ar e equally wort hy of our at t ent ion.
And when Mit chell says t hat “ [ w] hat sculpt ure want s is a
place, a sit e, a locat ion bot h lit erally and figurat ively” ( 250) , he is basically art iculat ing his own view of
sculpt ure, congruent in t his case w it h m any art hist or ians, rat her t han t he voice of sculpt ure it self.

Furt her , while it is easy t o agree t hat “ m edia want you” ( 221) , it is not t he m edium per se t hat
has t his wish, but an ent ire assem ble of inst it ut ions, pract ices, discourses, and hum ans finding t hem selves
in t his m at r ix. Mitchell’s prim ary focus is on I m ages, Obj ect s and Media and he defocuses at t ent ion on t he
artist or artifactor, the art/ artifact production apparatus, aesthetics, and audience reception or effects of the
work, although som etim es these issues arise and are in play in his rich and productive text. Mitchell is often

m any of his discussions indicat es t he prim acy of im ages in Mit chell’s im aginary wit hin his “ pict ure t heory,”
since for Mit chell im ages can be et ernal, w hereas pict ur es necessarily suffer t he ravages of t im e.
I nt er nat ional Journal of Com m unicat ion 1 ( 2007) , Book Review Collet t e- VanDeraa & Kellner 169

very good, m oreover, at inserting his analyses into socio- political contexts and developing what Walter
Benj am in called “ dialectical im ages,” as when he interrogates the im age of the raptor in Steven Spielberg’s
Jurassic Park that has its DNA code superim posed on its im age (figure 80 on p. 316) . Spielberg’s cybernetic
im age em bodies the m ost up- to- date cinem atographic and com puter technology and the m ost ancient form s
of life, highlighting a new cultural dom inant played against a once-dom inant species. Thus the im age
encom passes: “ The inseparable but contrary twins of biotechnology, constant innovation and constant
obsolescence, the creation and extinction of life, reproductive cloning and the annihilation of a species, are
fused here in a single gestalt” ( 324) .

Finally, Mitchell’s am bitious work also aim s at providing critical perspectives on the contem porary
era, as when in a discussion of fossils and dinosaurs, he notes how they point to the obsolescence of an entire
species and world, and rem ind us of the finitude of our own species and the social system of capitalism that
appears in the era of globalization like the final horizon of hum an history. Yet capitalism with its Moloch- like
greed and unrestrained consum ption of finite natural resources like oil, points t o
the possibility of a collapse of our ecosphere, as Al Gore and critics of global
warm ing rem ind us. Furt herm ore, as Mit chell indicates in his chapter on
“ biocybernetic reproduction,” with the forces of biotechnology and
com puterization working together new life form s are em erging that could
produce a post hum an era. I n a digital culture, culture, technology, and even
hum an and natural life are up for grabs, generating new types of texts, cultural
form s, people, and im ages, providing critical cultural and com m unication
theorists an ever- expanding agenda. In this proj ect of engaging the
contem porary, we can thank W.J.T. Mitchell for helping us along the way,
grasping t he im port ance of t he visual and t he need to take pict ures seriously.