For this week, I found the argument for all readings to be similar. The authors all come from a place of inclusion, to advocate for visual theory in a rhetorical space. In the reading Toward a Theory of Visual Argument Birdsell and Groarke argue that visual rhetoric should be legitimized, and there is more than enough background to warrant the visual. The argument is then put to the test as the author(s) take opposing arguments and debunk them using scholarly support (309). Similarly, in Building Visual communication Theory by Borrowing from Rhetoric, Kenney explains visuals in a similar fashion. However, he explored the controversy of visuals communication theory in such a way that allows scholars to attain better knowledge of all their different forms. Kenney uses the experience of a journalist trying to fight against billboard visuals in his community, showcasing the tactics one could potentially use to create rhetoric (53). In Visual persuasion: Inferring Communicative Intents of Images the writing was set up to explain the different way pictures can be interpreted, specifically the intent of the image when portrayed. It was stated that visual argumentations were popular for its way of changing one’s views of politics or political figures, either through emotions or otherwise(216). Finally, moving towards a more picturesque reading (ha!) The Vocabulary of Comics. Mccloud defines many ideas that surround visual theory and the relationship between the mind and the ink that would eventually turn into an icon or a symbol. He defines the significance of the icon and the sociological aspect to the theory, all between the gutter of visual squares.
Chapter 8 in Visual Methodologies, the focus is on iconography and how the discourse of rhetoric has affected the power of intent and interpretation. The idea is that social construction among discourse has a prominence in the argument towards visual images, however this also becomes a source of problem as one cannot release their preconceived notions from the visual material (205). Intertextuality then plays a role in all thing visual and, the argument is made that there needs to be a clear time when the connections to images and text need to end.
One of key ideas that I received from the readings are that some scholars don’t seem to care if visual theory are legitimized. There is so much push (from what I read) to dismiss visual theory, but as we look at any media platforms, so much of what happens online has a very prominent visual aspect to it. But luckily for us, we have more than enough evidence to back up visual theory. For example, in Birdsell and Groake, the opposing argument is that it is far too complex of one to understand pictures alone, and we should not use them without proper explanation or understanding (313). This argument has the appropriate rebuttal of how textual influences often need context as well, which gave me the idea of the way Twitter operates. I was thinking about visual influences in prominent social media platforms and what that means for the user. However, while I considered platforms like Instagram (engulfed in visual aspects), I forgot about the popular platform like Twitter. The comparison between the two platforms seem as an appropriate one as one platform is almost completely textualized, while the other is on the visual side.
This also led me to further analyze the reading “Visual Persuasion…” as its assessment of visual theory falls close to “how-to” accurately portray politicians for personal gain (propaganda, if I’m not being too forward) became more or less the focal point of today’s political climate. However, between every reading of the legitimacy of visual theory, I found the idea that we all see things alike (not identical), comforting. With a rhetorical foundation, it’s easy to understand why or how we see things in a similar scope.
McCloud brings up the notion of the smiley face, and how our selfishness brings life too inanimate objects. What do you make of this phenomenon of how our brains all work in the similar fashion? How then does this effect rhetoric as a whole?
I really love your comparison by analog of visual and textual via more visuals-based or text-based platforms and the current uses of each. With so many reminders of how text, too, can be ripped from context, it's a wonder why so many scholars ever thought the visual world could be *uniquely* ambiguous.
ReplyDeleteAs for your questions, I think it's worth noting that not all "faces" we see are necessarily human, but rather anything of "readable" expression (even if very differently so) -- be it a dog, cat, or frog, etc. We want to generate visual cues from anything and everything we can, almost always through the lens of discourse. Even when we look at McCloud's picture of the man holding a wine glass and the woman grinding her heel, we read it specifically for nonverbal cues that act, quite nearly, as actions or actionable states. It kind of brought the whole idea of interface right back around again.
As for the second question, I think the above points out doubly all that Foucoult did in Chapter 8, or alternatively all that is discussed in Chapter 6 -- we bring to every "reading" certain signal-signifier relationships based on the discourses we come from and/or are participating in presently. Most of those signifiers, as per Joo et al., are fairly broadly shared (at least up to the point of cultural preferences or taboo, such as one culture perhaps finding an adult ruffling a child's hair endearing and another finding it atrociously rude), but how the signifieds interact to create our larger, overall perceptions is highly dependent on the discourse.