THE INFLUENCE OF THE VISUAL IN PUBLIC

POLICY MAKING

VISUAL CULTURE

“being concerned with visual events in which information, meaning or pleasure is sought by the consumer in an interface with visual technologies” (Mirzoeff, 1999)

• Increasingly important

• Fragmentized and disrupted

• Not in a vacuum

VISUAL TECHNOLOGIES

• Functions

• Registration

• Transparency (analytical, informational, integrative)

• Communication

CLASSIFICATION

Non-motion motion

Real Photo Film

Not real Drawing Animation

FRAMING

• Types of stories

• Forensic evidence

• Persuasive

• Imaginary

• Actors in arena use these stories to push their idea, problem, solution or alternative forward

Technology to create and distribute

visual events

Framing by story telling

Shaping interaction

Course, content and

outcome

Technology Policy phase Field

Minarets Drawing Agenda-setting Integration

Fitna Film Agenda-setting Integration

Sicko Film Agenda-setting Healthcare

Riskmap Animation+drawing Policy making/ decision making

Dangerous substances/ urban planning

HIS Animation+drawing Policy making/ decision making

Water management

TSN Animation+drawing Policy making/ decision making

Contagious diseases

Queensday drama Animation Policy evaluation Public safety

Sunset grooves Animation+drawing+film Policy evaluation Public safety/police brutality

Schipholfire Film+animation Policy evaluation Housing/safety

CONCLUSIONS

• Direct influence (new information)

• Integrative transparency

• Technology for integrative transparency

• Big data

• Indirect influence (frame change)

• Technology matters – frame attribution (creation and distribution)

• Type of story

• Integrative transparency

CONCLUSIONS II

• No influence

• Enforcement existing situation

• Renewed attention

• Anticipatory action

• No new information

• New Arena