ABSTRACT
In this chapter, I shift the focus from words to images and introduce the concept of “visual pollution”, arguing that it is both useful and effective in providing an explanation, also highlighting the complexity its application involves given a correct interpretation of the conclusions reached by audience theories. These theories suggest that different individuals, when faced with the same iconic text, see things that are at least partially different. Furthermore, I propose simultaneously considering that we are the images we see, and that we tend to see what we are. When applying the concepts of pollution and sustainability to the social imaginary, I claim that: (a) without images, the self cannot contemplate itself; (b) while it is not always true that we are the images we see, it is certainly true that the images inhabiting our thoughts derive, with a very high degree of probability, from the contemporary social imaginary in circulation; (c) therefore, at least some of the images we see tend to become a structuring and constitutive part of our inner world, in that we certainly are the images we think. A short digression follows on Marc Augé’s “war of dreams”, which serves to illustrate how imaginaries become the Lego building blocks of society, used to construct and/or dismantle highly toxic ideological formations such as racism, homophobia, or sexism (in more technical terms, these are the resources employed to “naturalise” social inequalities). Hence, I emphasise that visual pollution simultaneously has an individual and a collective dimension. I also claim that the images we think can be considered as the aesthetic forms of our self; they are the elements with which we furnish the dwellings of our subjectivity. In the second part of the chapter, I demonstrate how certain television series have significantly contributed to shaping the social imaginary we refer to in our daily lives. The images from television series, in fact, serve as the elements with which we furnish the dwellings of our subjectivity, constructing a shared heritage of ideas, values, beliefs, and lifestyles. We draw upon this heritage to think, converse, dream, speak, smile, and co-exist. Therefore, the practical question that arises is: what kinds of imaginaries do we want to expose ourselves to daily? I clarify that only individuals are capable of identifying the type of imaginary that is right for them. A negative imaginary may have a cathartic quality for someone, while for another person it can become highly polluting. In this sense, the concept of visual pollution is a useful tool to carry with us in daily life but should not be understood as a tool for censoring authorship or limiting the creativity of visual texts. In the last paragraph, I conclude with a brief theoretical digression on the concept of intersectionality.
