Foss_Visual_2 - gHzflipTER FOSRT’EEN Framing the Study...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–11. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 4
Background image of page 5

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 6
Background image of page 7

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 8
Background image of page 9

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 10
Background image of page 11
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: gHzflipTER FOSRT’EEN Framing the Study of Visual Rhetoric: Toward a Transformation 0f Rhetorical Theory Serge K. F053 As the chapters in Defining Visual Rhefm‘ics suggesr, recent werkin rheteric 11 as {alien a pictorial turn. "l'll'iree exigencies are prompting this move from exclu— sive attention {0 discnurse to the 3m d}: of visual images anal material objects as z‘hezeric. One is the pervesiveness oi' the visual symbol ané its impact en mm temporary culture. Visual arzzifacts Commute a major par: of the rhetorical en Vimnment and to ignore them to feces only an verbal discourse means we understand enl}? a miniscule portion ef the symbols that affect us daily. The study of visual symbols {mm a rhetorical perspeczive also has grown wiih {he emerging reeogfimitiam that such symbols provicle access t0 3 range of human experienee me? always available through the study of discourse Asjean YV Audigiei“ explains, human experiences tiger. are spatially orienfed. nonlinear. multidimensional, and dynamic often can be communicated only through sual imagery or other nondiscmsive symbols, To understand and arn’culaze such experiences requires attenzien to these kinés of Symbeisy as Marguerite lwlelmers and Chaz‘les Hill el amend}? suggest in their analysis of the Thames Franklin phemgmph that @133 came in be lmmam as Ground Em) For me. the most impermm reasen fer ssudgsing Visual rhemric is; in éeveiep rheéeriml {hear}; Elie: i5 atomprehensive and; inclusive Thmugheut rhea— erie’s long traiiifien, difiifurfiiE'E 50133321163 and {henna have enjejgeé iiieniegiv cal hegemtm}: delimiaing {he {erritnry a?" study {0 iingnészir anifeezs‘ Suggesting {fiat visual Syznlmlg are insignificant er inéerior, amfi Sarge? ' leg the impacts of {he a- 2:3 in an? world. Eectanse fl‘fifififfil {heavy hm; 33m: Crezned eémefl exelzzeieely {Earn the 3:55;}: 05 disceurgei yheanweiann largely lack sephmicateé Liniifil‘fiéinélifig (if {he Conventinns through Whieh meaning: is creaieé in visual arz'ifizgczs and {lie priticeeses in}; which they infiaence 3 {I 3 364 _ fl mm M“ mm 7 1 m mag"; As 5 udias of Viguafl rimmin generate rhetoz‘ica‘a meow; then, {hit}; chaficmge 311d quesfion the Zingmstég boundaries of our z'hsmricai theorifis and gravide a mam: heiistic picmre {3f symbai use. in response t0 the pfirvasivaness of visuaé :hemric ECCESS to mahidimenw sic-1:31 humafl experiences, ané a desks for comprehensiveness i2: whamrical them; rhamricai schoiars are. analyzing photz‘graphs, drawings, paintings, graphs and tables, inzerim design anci archiiecmra, SCUEPEUI‘Q inmme: images, emd {iiin The ciiversizry that characterizas these cfibri‘s exciting and energiz- ing, bu: it 2350 can be: bewiédering, as He‘imcrfi and Hi}? note in {he begizming (3f {heir chapter, for {hose seeking {<3 unfisrs‘cand ethe. r01e of visual aiemems in {hemricai :heory. The studies in {his hawk provide an cpporwnétg to propose a frame that might ordei" {but as: unnficsssarfly confine} {he Staci}? of Visual rhemric. They suggest that {'hl‘éit‘ major pfilars create the frame: within which the: study a? visuai rhétgric currently is configmrfid: {_ 1} ifiefinitious a?“ visual fiwwm‘c; 2'; Areas of focus in {$1.6 study 0%“ visuai rimmyic; and {3) Approaches {'0 Kim: rhfimricai stuciy 0f visuai artifacta This is a frame, I wili argue, that has the pommial a) ti‘ansibrm rhéms‘ica‘i thaw}; in significant ways. DEFINiTiONS Bswiicierment canceming the a‘heiorica‘i sandy 0i" visua‘a symbols can begin at the definitiona‘i level, so that it: perhaps a geod piace to star: in my proposal of a frame Eha: 16083}? organizas {he infiiscipline of Visua} rhetoric. The chapters in {his book suggest that {hfi term , vism‘fl rhetoric, has; {we meanings in the disci- piine of rhetoric. It is mad to mean both a Visual object 61' artifact and a per” spective {m the stuciy' of Visual chit-5L i3: {he first muses Visual rhemric is- 23. product individuals cream they use visual symbcis fur Ehfi purpose 0f comv municatirzg. In thfi second, it is a pcrspecréve scholars apply {hat focuses on the symboiic px‘owsses by which Vii-ma} artifacts: peg‘fcxm communicaiéon. ViStiai Rhetoric as a Communicative Artifact Concagiuahzeé a comflmnicaiém artifact “9153.522 fluftmia: is £336 actuaE image or ubjecz rhatms genfi‘aze i—K—‘héfifi {ha}; 1236 @3122}. symbaéb‘ {by :he purpozae a)? inmmumcaimg it is Kim: {angihia evidmm‘c 0f pmdua a? fin: craative act, 5116?} a paiming, an aévsriigermenfi a phmagmph, er a buééééng constituzes {he Liam Of sméy 5m rhez.<2ricai Sahaiays inim‘asrcd in visual gymbo’is. “figuai rhaarfi; as against, {hi-:32, the * urpasive pmmuczigm m arrangement of comm. form; and {fiber eiemcnzs m cgmfimtmicatt‘: with an audience. A5 Cam E‘innegm gaggfiszs, i: is a profiuaz {keg mamas a (:gsfigmiy C25 rhfimical discuurge {baa {513% i311 gimmichmg {Ell-ht"? $29213 words 91' 323? the cemzmsiiim at? SS. mmmng. "Jj‘ézms Characzer‘isiics aggpear m aiefine arifiémg GI‘ pméuctg concepmaéézeé as; yisuéfi rhfiimicz Thai? mus: be Symbuiéc, EWGZW hum-an inmwmfiem anafi be WM 395 presented {0 an auriimce for {he purpcise (if communicating Visual rhemric is symbolx action in that the relaiionship it dcsignaws heave-3m image: and reflex."- eni is arbitrary: in (:03.th m a Sigii, Wham a natural relatiomhip exists her iwegn the Sign am? the ohjiscz m which it is connected. Visual rhgtm‘ic also imvelves human action of. same kind in $1.21: the creaiian of“ an image; iflVO‘iVES the {anxious decision in mm municam as wall as {anxious choices about the. strategiefi to (employ in areas Such as color. fawn, medium, and size. in in; ad, ress {0 an audierxe, Visual rhetoric is aim communicatiw. Visual elements are arranged semi modifiaci by a mam? not simply for the purpoge {if emo- tional diS€harge but for commui‘iication with an audience, even if the creator is the sole audience for the: image. or Object. The aliazgtez‘s in this; book represent the. breadth of visual obimtis that now an: conceptualized as visual artifacts apprepréaze for study visual rhemric, ’I‘WQ—dimensiomi image; are the subjécts 05 {h c: chapters Helmets; and Hill, Finnegan, Heimei‘s, anéjanis L. Etiwai‘cis, who study phemgmphs, pziiijiiings, ami cartooms. Threedimensicmai ariiihcts an? analyzed in GregDickinsoii and Casey Malone Maugh’s chapmr on the embodied space. {3f 21 grater}? store. while moving images receive attention by}. Anthony Blair in his analysis {if television commercials and by“ David Blakesley' in his study 8f film. Thai arii fads includecl under the rubric of visual rhemric equally broad in terms Of theirfunctions aim is highligh tad in th ese ciiapiers, 30th aesthetic and utiiitari iaa im ages constitute visual rhetoriii, with {he utilitarian a more: domimnteni phasis; the aesthezii' images studied by i-iclmeirs, in comma 2:0 {me expiiciily persuasive and utilitarian biogi‘agliicai candidate films analyzad by j Cherie Strachan and Karhleen E, Kendall, tide afivertising images ssiidied by Siam: Hope, the atlasex explored Charles Kestelnick, and tile decorative home- making {was examined by Andrea Kastcn 'fimge cxamplify such work. Maureen Daily G<3ggin’s Cl‘i Expat-1r on Iiaecilework as a semiaric practice. com- plicazeg and most thermighly exploms the, leififii‘i‘im’i of vimai tartaric a5 arti~ fact. Six: notes that a focus (in the mazeriality {if semiotic practice challenges a clear division of rhemric into me imags and {he woni becausa when images and words appear mgétlii-rr, Wfiifcn wiring}. rhetoric is; visual rhetoric. She uses Elie. hégmiy of sample; making to demonstrate. the w. in which {he Finii'lUfi‘ ship izeiwcttn Fl’lEEGI‘lC (if Shir warm? anci i’hffi'EiIETié‘ (if :im imagv is mam finial than is: @"gicaily ihgitzrizeé. 3316 suggests that rhemric' 5;?" fig. visual might be imam? tsrm to 33315 {hem viii/£615? ?’i§f£0?‘i€ {a} label mmmingnmiémg iiiam‘iaé practicas‘ and aitifaczs {first fingaga in. graphic rcpmgfintmiefi. Visual Rhetoric as a f’erspee’tiva ‘35sz flaw/£5 :‘ééi‘éérs m3}: {WEE}; i0 rim vésual whim? as; :2 cammiisiiiiazive affiflii‘t but also re a §?E§Sp€3€iiv€ sclmiai‘s {aka} an visual lfi'éagfiffii or visual data. in mania-1g of {fig {arm Vifififég fizeivfi: mnszimzzcs {hem-filial pgzapacriw $312.! gee Miss inveives {he 9f {he symboiie {)2' emmnueieetive aepeeie of Visage} are} fans. it a critieainafiaiyticei [(30% 01‘ a way of approaching and aua‘gyzing viv’ euai dam that highiights {he eeriimuiiieative fiimeesiens (:3? images at ObjCCIS. finnean :OY‘GV‘iCiCS 2m exeeiiem definitien 0i" this geese of the term when she 5:3 {hat visuaé rhemric “a made (if inquiry, defined as a crizieai and they aria/imam that makes issues of viseaifi'}; r‘eiemm w rhemrimi zecm’y” {193‘ A riiei’oricei pmpeetive m»: vised zmifmfzs: eemziz-eies a extender way (if eiewing mu set q?" cones}; e111 Eenses 151 which visage? xymbois Became ierwwabie as mmmenieetwe e? rhewricai peenamem. ie a rhetorical perspeei'ive 01.1 View} artifacts is; its feces on a rhetoz'icai response {<3 an artifact gather {ham an aestiietie (me. An esstizetie response eon- :«iazs of a viewer’s direct perceptuai encounter with [he sensery aspects of the artifact. Experience of a work at an eesfiaeeie Eevei migh: enjoying iES eeior, sensing its farm, or vaiuing its texture There is m) purpese governing the experience ether than simpiy having the experience. in a e‘heta‘r‘icei respeese, in mums; meaning is aztribuited t0 the artifact. Coiors, lines. textures, and :hythms in an artifact provide a basis for the Viewer to inier the existence of images, emedons, and ideas‘ Understanéing these rhemrieai responses to vi- sual artifacts is the purpese of visual rhe: Hie as a perspeezive, exempiified in Heimei‘s’s Chapter on the fine are; He: purpose is net {<3 deveiop insights into the aeszhetic eifects of paintings but to discover how they funcrion rheaerik eaiiy. A I‘heterieai response, She suggests, is a preeess of accrual in which past experiences merge with the evidence of the canvas to constwet a meaning. Another major feature of the rhetorieai perspeczive on visuai symbols is e pez‘tieuiar conceptien of the audience {by the ai‘tifacis smdied‘ Visuai rheun‘i» eians are intei‘egteci in the impact of visuai symbeis en E213; Viewei‘s~»viewe:‘s Whi‘) (is not have techuieai knowiedge in areas such as design, art hismz‘y, ae5~ [h€€§C.S, er are educatien. Lay viewers' responses {0 visual; artifaeis are assumed to be camsizmeteci 0n the basis {if vieweys’ ewe. experiences 323d knowledge, Lie veiepeei from living and looking in the worid. Hiii’s chapter iiiustmtes such e fetus cm Ehe ways in which Visuai symhois communicate E0 lay audienees. He begins with {he queseien cf how images permede and describes the psycho» legieai giecesses invoked in viewing, meme-5ing aspects such as visuei percep— tien and. {he efieets 0? images {in emezionei reeeeiens and emaiyiieai theeghi, Tee preeeeeee he deseribee eye 30'; dependent 0i"; viewers‘ posseseiori of an pre‘teeeie the: priviiege the are expert’s kimwiedge (2%" are conventions for a? zri’emimr meaning to images but are pmeeeaes that eye anieerse‘; far 2133 view— Hie Chapzer iiiufii'ezes have visuai {hewric {auctions as a pei‘gpeeti‘ee :0 discover the meme 0%“ rhemi'ieai respenses {e by iey‘ euéieeeee, {he euihers‘ (if me ehagters in {his velume {if}, meet Seheiez‘s e? visuai :‘heiwfie empiey the ten? fieei regime in 561%: ii: thee“ smdiee, 'i'iiey an» aEgz-e ‘zisuai data of seme igimimvimai eytéfacisi {ibjeeia er imagesw—ene aise uee visual rhetei‘ie as a perspeczive {rm their {jam Whaz the}? de in their 33., FREE Mi NC; Ti- 39? ,. data am dwe‘mpaci as {138}; rows an parriwia; aspects of visua artifaci‘swwamas a}? foam {hat them function [a trazisfm‘m rhemricai {hairy-y. aflaiyses of" visua‘: data. and tha 5121mm 0f the perspective the}: rake or: $2056. 3 i AREAS OF FOCQS The shapzarg in this back suggest the: {Mimic-a} sd’mlars {and to study Visuai ob§€ct5§ with a focus an one Of three areaswnamre, function, or eva§uazion in thig pfiia: a}? £136 fiamework 502‘ studies of ViSLmE rhértorécg mane daais with the cc-mpcmeats, qualities, and characteristics of visuai artifactsthnctian concerns the Communicative efii‘ctg Uf’ visuai rhetorir Cm audienccs; am}: emifiszzéam is the precess 0f assessing Vim-a} artifactsv Nature of the Artifact Essentiai :0 any study of Visual rhetoric is expiication of €136 distinguishing feai tunes of (he, Visuai artifact igseif. This area of fbcus is prémary and is para of aE‘: studies of visual rhetaréc because to QXpEicatc the function of G? to wakiatfi images or objects requires an undfirstanding of the suitssgantivc and. styiistic {134 ture of the artifacts being explored. {)«esmipfjon of {hfl nature of the visual rhetoric inveives atzention to {we primary componentsw~presented eéements anti suggested elements. Identification of {he presented eicments m" an arti— facr involves naming its; major physicai f’eamras. such as space, medium, and color. Identification of tile suggesmcfi eéemems is a pmcess of diswvering {he concepts, iéseas, themes, anti aflusions that a Vifiwer is iikdy to infer fmm the presmlmd cifimems; fur example, the amaze gold ieafing fijunci an Samque buiiémgs might sugges: weakh, priviiegeg and power {Kanengietar 33va Anaiys‘is of time presented and suggested elemfims engendérs an understand— ing of the primary cammuaictativs elements of an image: ané, cansequenfl}: {3f the meanings an imaga is Eékfly to have: 501“ audiences. An amiysis 50w sad cm nature of the artifact i5“ exempiified in the chapmrby HGp€ or; gfindfircd siixrironmfinzs in adwnising. She suggesm 131:1: aha: cz‘eazizm of gendamd savirzmmmfis is a domain an: simiagy 0f imagfiibasad advertising. SE23 identifies: she mmpanems of this rhetoric :0 how aévertiséng ever comes fine re gangs 0f fimimnmentafiy awam audiences m advez'tésingh“ ap- prapriatéézg imagézs of magma. Emmy: of the presented afiememb‘ of {hssc gig am? 538%? staggesz Eénks :0 fbminénity and mascuiézzitg Ehe {Cazxiuciaa {1163: are able :0 construct a dwia} 0? connection berwem {:omumpfion am}; any? mnmmt. Smdéas of ‘Jésuai :fiémr‘éc with £65225: (3% thaw Mimi: <35 {he Eiszsaé 335mm)? pig}: 3 czrézisai mie if} 1318 axpamgéim 0:” Ezransigrmazéon a? iiésammswbgsw :hémflcai theory “by mtczufzfprzmgéziflg ti}: basic Eg'éfméffitfi a? rhemn'f. Such smdicsz mmagfi rhetoricaé atheiam m Expiore hoax; fraciiiicmai :fismrécai eifiménts Liam 388 be Emmi-21w two forms {hat siege}; {:3 visual {hemzécwcéemenis such as meww phorc argument, enchymeme, amass evidence marrazive, and stasis. A1: the same time, {hcsze audies gush rhetorical cheery {0 deg} with an entirely new set of Vim 51:31 constructs, such as c0101: space, texture, and vecteriaiizy. rhemfieal {hstl‘}? once ceemcteci to fine a: linguistic symbols {has explodes into one characterized by muitidimensiona‘iityj ciynamism, and cemgiexiiy as visual unics of meaning are. when into acceum; in rhetorica‘; chewy. Function 9f the Artifact second focus for scholars who adopt a rhetorical pergpective on visuai sym— bQES ‘33 the funnier; or functiens the Visual I‘hGIGTiC serves for an audience. The function of a Visual artifact is the aczjen it communicaiges {Foss}. gunctéens of visual artifacts, for exampie, might range from memoriaiizing individuals to creazmg feeiings sf warmth 21211:; coziness £0 enceuragieg viewers to explore selfiimposed limitations. Fumedcm is not synonymous with purpese, which ire valves an effect time is intended or desired by the creator of Ehe image er eb- jecc. Scholars who adopt a rhetoricai perspective on visuai actéfaccs do no: see the creator’s incentions as determining the correct interpretation 6%" a work. Not only may the scholar not have access to evidence abeut the intemions cf the creators of artifacts, bu‘c a privfiegimg of creators" inzerpretations over the interpretaiions {if viewers closes eff pessibilides for new ways (2f. experiencing the artifact. Once an artifact is created, these scholars beiieve, Stands inde— pendent of its creator's intention. Edwards’s chapter or: the construction of cuicural memory chrough im- ages iiiustrates a focus on function in the study Of Visual rhetoric She notes that one use of iconic images is their appropriation to new contexts, where {hey funczion to create amalogies {hat recaél past mements and suggesc future possibiliees. Focusing he: analysic on the ghotogmph efjohn F. Kennedy, jr. Sake;ng his father’s funeral carnage, Edwacés cxpleres haw i: was used at the cime cf the deaths ofjackie Kennedy and the 303,}01‘19 Kefinedy She can— ciudes that the phetegraph connecied the past and {he press-em threugh ice Symboiic twin expressmm Of oucrage and regret. Two chapters analyze visuai rhetoric fer ideoiegicai funczions thaz con.» Szz’ucc Viewers’ identifies in particuiac ways. in Dickineee and Malone Maugh’e maiysjs of the W’iid Oats E‘éarketpéace, the}; seek an disccver have EVER Gats :esponds E0 the abssmctiome ans? éiscemferzs of globalizee‘ peeinzedem consumer cui’cure. The}? suggesz {323$ the score rcpackages {he psfieibiiéties cf géebaiizacien m cam-"en iz‘zdivéduals mice 30:17:33}? weuld be ace Satan: :0 such seizure 131:0 censumers cemfertecle we the wide cange a?" gueais avaéiabée to them a5 a remit of it The emijggée by 8:23:93: Tenge of" the émegeg in ‘v’icmriaa beam deveced :e {caching home arcs higéfiighzs a sémfiar feectéen. Socks tha: comamed fies}; plans, pictures at”? fumémre, drawmgs Q? ls, FRfiMIE‘Q 3TH}: 30,9 winds“? treatmants, and diagrams: of haw t8 set a table, {Gt example, amt only gm: diffictltms on lmw to ElChjffo} the hams the readers desired but also helped cream the timirc for a home. and. consequemly a midtfiefi class. Studiés such as these that have function as their fetus have the gapacit}? to transform rhetorical them}? in. that they entourage a canceptualizatitm of a broader array OfffifiCEiOBS tbrsymbols. Althcmgb disrm‘sixfe thEUE‘lC can serve an infimte number of functiens, the. {unitions expltired in thetorital theory {and {8 lat: persuasivc ftmctions. with symbols; designacl to change audignce members in partitulat ways. Such agingular functitm is much mare difficult to attribute ‘50 many Visual symbals given that greatfir ambiguity“ 0V6? verbal dis» ccurezc. Exactly What the message is of" an artifact is often {>an to myriad inter- pretations, limiting its persuasive: potential but expanding its potential to cammt‘micatfi functisms that may be less dominating and more invitational. {$053 and Griffin}, mere eclectic, and more Fragmantaci. Study Of tht Visual, than, may help move thetotiial theory away from a fecus on Changing others {0 attention to a much broader array of functions for symbels and thus to a grcatei‘ understanding of the infinitely varied acticns that symbols can and do perform for audiences. Evaluation of the Artifact A third area in which scholars focus as they analyze visual rhetoric is evalua- tion or assessment. Some scholars choose to evaluata an artif‘a (:1: using the crik Ecrion of whether it: accomplishes itS apparent {wisdom if an artifact functiens {ii memorialize someone, ftir example, such an evaluation would in- vtfive discovery of Whethez‘ its media. COlOi‘S, forms, and content actually 30 complish that function. Other Scholars ChGOSC to evaluate visual symbols by scrutinizing the functions thfimSE’lVCS that are pettbtmed by the symbsls. re~ flfictitig on that legitimacy (3f soundness {lfiififlfilned largely in}: the implécw tith and consequences of those. Magnetism—«perhaps. flat example, whether an artifact is congruent with a particular ethical system or whether it Offers emancipatoty pfififii’ifial. Strathan and; Kendall’s analysis Of political {andidatesi mnventien films is an Example (if a fetus on avaluatien in rhetotital studies of visual artifacts. They are interested in imdtsxstamling the ziattitt: of the biographical mntlidate films aiteti at palitical parties" ccmvmtizms aml anglyze 333d waluate the: films {if Gmrge W. 3123?; anti Al Gem iii the 399$ praisiclmtial campai for this EBB?" 3.3038. The QQFC film, tiittfz assert, failtmi to up :0 the. {all pfBEt’i‘gtial it)? its game btitausmé it did m3: adémss fiat: audimce‘g pathetic: and thus did nut Quilts strong Ematiémai teattiani to the t‘aiifiidazc. "Flip Elm Bligh filifif}.I13iéf€pi§$€ii$0lf§ at; an artifact <31“ ‘Cl’lf’. $311275 it}? the tom-ti :EiGI‘. film b€« {725.236. is celebrated values; through {immtimiaé zippsals and pi’fscmed Bush 35 a raggcd inaliviéuaiist szzmillng for ffii‘l’EEZ‘lCa. Lilia: (flit-Er schtilats win; {trims GS"; that.th Stmchafi and Kamia‘i‘: arc, ii‘siéi‘ES‘ifid in understanding haw the quai— étjg ef the mammal emimrzmmt is afiéctaé by varicjms kimis, of images and other véguzfl artifacts. A focus on waiuatéom Eékc {33936 on nature: and function also has the putty:w rial to tz‘ansfm'm rhatoricai than-y. in partécuiar, sud) a focus encouragt‘s a quastionmg of the tmdétéonai gutter: of cfi‘ectivensss. DiStfiGurS€ at the inter; petsamfi Gi‘ smafl-gt‘eup tease} typicaiiy’ is evaluated on the basis of whether an audietace has changed in the direction desireé by {he thsmr after 63303113: to thi: rhemz‘"s message. Haw such a criterion REV-"(mid be: apphed {0 visuai rhetoric that is nGmmrepwsemationai and perhaps 53.1%}.ng for audience members is my dear. Catalinly, standard t‘hcturica} criteria fat assessing the. 9016mm} of 111€S~ sages to swam Change: Stich clarity at" thesis, relevance 0? supparting matéfiais, vividnéss of metaphets, appmpriatancss of mgaaizational pattern, dynamism {3f style, and credibiiity‘ of the rhetor are iargely irrdevant. in thc {:{mtéixt of pubi‘ic discount an additicmai criterion for effectiveness often is. added t9 the criterion of audienw changewcemributi(m to rationaé« From this perspeaive, rhetoric is supposed to contribute to raticma‘; debate about issuas in the public sphere, and visuai rhetoric @3311 is judged to be 32153;“ mg according to this criteri{:m.. Rafi Postman, for exampla, argues that the m} 51:31 Epistemology a? television "pailutes pubiéc communication" {28‘} and contributes to a dedine ii} “tht‘ seriousness; Clarity and, above 23:31, vaiut of pub" ii: disceuzse” {29]. Similariy, David Zarefsky suggests that rhetorical farms such as Viguai images "stand in fat 2i men: complex mality” {4}. 2}, contributing t9 tilt: deteriozatmn of “a rich and vi‘m‘am cancept of mgummt, of pubiic (faith eratétm” {4E4}. Visual rhétan‘ic may act be used to persuade audiences in diréctions inw taunted E}? a {hater and may net be cantributing to standard écfinitians of ra— tmna‘i public communication, but its effects are: sigtificam and certainiy not . atys negative. The wet} ; pi‘educed by Visaai thematic. is mot afiwaysmor even ofténwrcéear, W63 organized, 01“ ration-:43: but instead, a werlé made up of human experiences that ma 3 Emotional, fragmented, siil}: serious, and éisorganizfici‘ Such {:Xperiences are not Often captured it"; rhetorical theory that peséts criteria for aggcssment that require: {hat viguaE rhezoric be judged zwgativeij: i}? igmmd entire-fig. Studies at“ visuai fiat-3mm: that focus on evaiuaw tam, than, Expand t‘tmtoricaé them“? to indmié broazifir criteria fer {ha cvaiuzy mm 0? meant: that magic amat‘atfiiy capttn‘i: and adazmkrdgte the méa 9%“ {at $3113? in 08;." wwridv APPROACHES The athajatrsrg; in $235 vaélumi: aid 3 thigx‘l {ail-Eat" of tégi': {tame a? the c 7 Km swat; 0t viguai rfit‘tafic {ig- éafin.ét§<m am? areas of feats in. that they stzgnggt haw 3316137613 {3? yisuai images anti {'Ebjfit‘tfi 339mm}; that amass 0f fetus; ta tmasferm ’ aijzzwggT'g-aéa£11,332“ 3:1 rhemriczfi them; Some schoiars dedacsiveéy appéy rhetoricai zééségz‘ées anti constructs m vim-a} symbols; to ézwegtigate quastions about rhetcg'éc and to centribuié: to Existing rhetorical {haories generated from {he stud}? of désv comma A seconci approach impflvm; an inductive investigasz of visuai am; has; degigned m highiight features a? the aytéfaczs themfieéves means to gamma: rhetorimi theory that is E‘XpBiEdEd to irzciudré the mama?” Deductive Appiication of the Rhetorical to the Visuai Scheiars who appiy a rhezoricafl gez‘gpemmc to visual symbols deciuctiveijz use visual artifacts to magnate, explain. or invastigate rhemafiica} consrmcts and [Matias formulated {mm the. study of discourse. They begin wézh rhetorical constants and {hearies and use them m guide. them thmugh {ha visuafi arti- fact Undcrlying this agjpmach is the. assumption that visual symboig 339356.53 Iargeéy the same characteristics that discursive symbols do. These smdies pro— duce a contribution to a rhetorical? than"; focused on verbal dismuz‘se and {has one that {ends to be unidirectional. The. them}? affects {Thfl undarsmnding of the artifact; hm what is disc<>v€.z‘t:d in the. artifact has 16.53 afflict on {he nature. of thfi thaw}? in that analysis of the. visual}. iargely affirms rim discursive features of the thaw}: Aifirmadon is not insignificant howwer, because ii suggestfi which aspects of I‘hQ’ECB‘iCEfi {hem}? appiy to bozh the visuaE and the verbal, that; marking areas 0f study where attentien m the visual is likely ‘50 be less produc- iive. because, in £12035 areas, verbal and visual rheteric are functioning simi— Early. Finnegan’s chapter on photographs exemp‘xifiefi the approach in which a rhetoricaf {hear}; or censtzuct' gencmied fmm discaugrse i3 applied to Visual data to ganeraie insights; into that :‘hemricai {hear}: She expkyms {215 place 0? rhemrécai hismry in visual rhemric and cié'mons’n‘atcs how the rhetoricai his- torian mighg engage visu 21E imagtfig. H61." {impair models a rhetorical hfiszmy of {he Visual based {m her anaijgsis of Farm cavity Adminigiratitm phamngraphy' of sharficmppérs publfished m LGGR’ magazine anegan’s {hapzer demon» strates, {ha deéuarive, z‘heamicvbased 219pr03:h<;f§ers ease of connection :0 isting {hemréca’é $16033; 365mm: it be.ng with rhetez‘émi {hairy and 31393565 existizrzg {hwy}; {0 visuafi data, thee: iicai Cannectioms are Eagily be» twaen the vim-2d 3335: the: wrbai if: :hé Lzea‘siagsmmz 323d eéahmazéon at? E‘hi’jifii’é- (a? $53.02*? inductive Emigration of the Visuai to Generate the Rhetericai .52 Swami apprcmz‘h to the Sinai}; a? wiugfl FE: .C is {$38 mvi‘fizigaiiim of {exams of visua‘i images m g: "c macaw} 32mm? tha: mks; mm . the CESHECI Cimracmrészics 0i thy visual samba? Schoiais who pursue? {his routs: begin witfi an expkma‘géim a? WS’LEEE az'iifzzzxs and opmam inductévshx H.W.uw..m“mmw-xwm~ gfimtraréng {'hm.<>'s‘§(2si film 1h : {3% Sana)“ rs. wk": véguaé <1>§jmtis am ' 33:32pm 2333033. The?“ Elam; gm {he pamméaz‘ quagizéés a? x’iszéiié :‘hezm‘zc m dcvs'ing cxpiaaazicms of how visuaé symbcsig (33:96:32 m an effort {0 deveiap rhtmricai {$159131 {rm}: v13 5m? gyzfnirmés- an imam my; éi‘ 3.22%;33 1mm gamma {Em dime 131.0;13 a?“ visuaf ibi‘ms: (,1? x‘heéwm 'i"'v;<",s {gimme ” - " E w. ‘2’ ié’gduaix‘fi apps'aach m {h 11:33; a)? visual I‘hiii" E3135;- aségs wimfiwr {ham mm Em: visuai mgmnrrflis Whéfi}. argmnczzis as mmafij; 1111.130“? Sher: vagina? Hg. ar‘zévuéaicg gum pyimary wagons afi'breci agaimt {he §mssibii§zy of azmg‘umm‘us as visas-L11" ambiguous and that aryufi ’1 has; the 23523321? is: incgtapa‘oiy tims mug: have praposétiunal a? mam ----- --and an swczis both i)bj€€ti€)fi$. HE mnduécg by MEI-Eng; a def‘initémz of Visual argL1~ marma- t‘nai (:xpmads tradimmai Licfimiions of argument and gums on a} swan: 1113: the particu‘w‘ {111361353 (1? the visa; 1 flange. make visual} at‘gummtS ciifi'er- cm {rem verbal} (mass m iha’i visas? has am immeéfiacy, a vei‘isémiiizude, and a confirm aha: he}? infiuencc accepiance in ways; no: avaiéabie to the wz'v baé. He. thufi {ixpzmd 2m ufidersmndifig of argumcmazmm 1‘<‘3{)€ed in the: panic Maritich of {he visuai. Bavid }'§§ak(357ic?}5’5 aimiysis of i. iiichmck’g film, Vance}, is anmhcr Exampifi m" an approach tha: iactgi wizh a focus r321 characu, N, ‘m <2? :th visuai. Hr: proposes; {our appmarims {:12 film rimmriq iifii‘i‘v’é'fd 5mm LEV: characiez‘igtics 0? Sims ~~~~ -~i.anguage, idea‘mgy, interprsmimn, and icicntii‘icatétm. Rim Mandi}- L‘fiUOG is; this {$61.13 in his; azmiygis, ha mggests {hat Ewiiichcock employs a waist}; of visual techniques: to 5' ms aticmicm or: the: mythologicai musc— quénces 0f the 5m sire {at}? Mantificaiézm (Bf ia‘iezzzity ESctcamse: uf its; visual quali/ $6522. noz’cs, film makm écimLiE’i-cariim oxen. mare. inviiing ihaax it might ha in a vm‘ha? 1:}? L ’E‘ha izzaiucziw. mama—mm apprmch cxcmpiéfieci by Eéiair dmfi Efiiakmity; because. i: bagging wézh {he mamdcz‘iszécg 0%" araifimtg bufids rheioricai the» or“ m: Eh: basis: sf {hum chazragtma‘itszigs. of En [he most oppm‘mniziiss far Phi: and 3“he§;(i§z‘£€.al Ehéz‘fl‘}; quaééE-iax. chamczcr- isiégs, amid campoieems is)? Whid’é CLarz‘cna :‘Emmrécai thug}; 2mm}: Mama‘s. Enrica; expaméma. E: E235; {ha fffiatg‘x‘i pméméai :0 s :‘hswzé cjgamd 0f ciiscrmrse as: 2': L CfifiCLfiifi‘SEGN ’E‘he séiezpmrs in {his $013333? I'éfpfirfimli iii-a: €543? {taxis in azmévsés a? [h 3 than}; ELLEE 2>¢e.;§.':amgs <3? 231.63“? 323;»: um ‘ r éé‘snufiwmk Eur Such gunfi- ~~飧§§i§t1<i>§1 (“if Vism‘ii 2133.132 mama.” m Brzwédé $"§1{}C§i‘§§ $011th said? (1:. , E _ k ‘ Emma‘;tfi:. i {3N3 C(EEEEEQECEE‘E'L 33.32 {I M n i Y ’7 a ' 1; as [mi QE'CLES (":3 fix‘ns 9:5: iééiui'i: fizzdién. or avaiuav in: {35‘ p8:fi$}:fit§. 5' 1 42; 2:13:52 za'aczhimguidgimé fi.}:§7§i‘<)§£h€$ 5:5 ciadzzrtive {3r inductive in ‘ifiéiif‘ Emma A. 3:2. Hie": ME mam baa-1* f'E‘EUEEQ‘éJt'EE‘k for an amcia‘rsmndéng {.35 “2.52133 a‘izcémzia hrawavry. be}: 255:5; "E'gfzfiéfi' 2mg? {Ecté‘é‘y TEES fizzma-‘Wafn'ié mamfin‘mmg L‘zésccmrserbabcii yiéé'a'my m waist-U33? rhm'aréc, i: (may; up {0 pmsi’rsi?’ ' ’I'E‘bakf mat-a Emiész'ic views- of rammmpomz‘v 5:2 WORKS CREE! imagfl'y” (701:: mamécz: 5m: : :‘a Propumfi 3m: $3“ if 9033mm Y?)ka A ‘. M mung”- .. H wwwwwmw.%mfiflfiw“? ...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 12/12/2011 for the course COM ARTS 374 taught by Professor Melissa during the Spring '11 term at University of Wisconsin.

Page1 / 11

Foss_Visual_2 - gHzflipTER FOSRT’EEN Framing the Study...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 11. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online