Reaction to "Image" by Kristine Nielsen

Ahhhh. What an awful reading. So painful. Using A LOT of words and citations, Kristine Neilsen states that everything except direct experience falls under the category of image: "So what is not an image: an image is not unfiltered, noise-free access to the world. It is not simply lived experience unless that experience is in some form "set aside," distanced, reproduced, or referred to in its absence by way of a semblance." What is helpful about this all-encompassing definition of image? Who knows. Maybe to push our understanding of this class? There is reason for breaking things down into bite-sized chunks. Maybe "media" could be defined as such, but why not let "image" stand for creations in the visual realm? why not stick with Webster: "a visual representation of something"?