In testing notions and concepts the last several weeks by way of Twitter, I have noticed that the response to a digital image is quite different from the response to reality. For example, one day I posted three images of local beauty, all from Comox Street in the residential West End of Vancuver—the apartment garden with its fountain, the English garden at the Tudor-style house, and the pedestrian walkway to Nelson Street. To the eye in reality, easily the most attractive is the English garden, and then the fountain and the walkway. However, both the images of the fountain and the walkway gained three times as many impressions as the English garden. It thus appears that many readers will accept the imperfect copy of reality, which leads one to consider not only the imperfection of the reader but also that the verisimilitude or illusion or derivation of what works of art contain and intend to express will, in general, be more acceptable to their audience than is the reality in which surrounds the audience itself.
I have also noted that information about someone is received with preference to that someone providing the information. For informational reportage online by the CBC of Julie Payette’s appointment as Governor-General received four times as many impressions as the speech of acceptance by Payette herself; which leads to the possibility that readers prefer, and accept, an interpreted summary of the event, however dispassionate and from a perspective not that of the person central to the event, rather than the communication, however poised and graceful, from the individual herself, for that requires the development of an understanding of the communication, of the communicator, and of the context within which the communication is given; which is, it would appear, more demanding of the recipient of the communication.