I am in complete agreement with what Jill and Ben said in their prior posts, suggesting that there are many things that cannot be completely captured with a picture or a video. The old adage suggests that a picture says a thousand words, but seeing an experience first-hand sure says a lot more than that. I do not think any documentary on the Grand Canyon and adequately qualify the experience of seeing it -- this is why thousands of tourists go there every year even though they can google a picture. If pictures really did an experience justice, then there would be few reasons to get out of bed in the morning. I can find most things on YouTube, so what would be the point.

But! I think that it is unfair to totally disregard the relevance and importance of pictures and video as a way of conveying an experience. In fact, there are some things that REQUIRE pictures and video to actually convey a certain experience. I immediately think of the television show "Planet Earth" on the Animal Planet. There are scenes of the earth that range from tiny microscopic images to far-reaching clips of the entire planet. If you have not seen this video, take a minute (or three): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5eJkjMLIRM. In case you don't have the time, it is a slow motion video of a shark attack. I can say with almost complete confidence that I will never have the opportunity to see this experience first hand in my entire life. I do realize that the experience was unique for the photographers who shoot the film and could be classified as an "phenomenological experience" that cannot be fully captured. But what can be said about microscopic images that no one can actually "experience" or take in? For me, the media arts often fills this void, allowing me to see an experience that I will never be fortunate enough to see in person.