StudioBendib.comBirdsell and Groarke quote David Fleming's claims that "visual images ('pictures') cannot, he claims, be arguments" (309). My first reaction: Really?! Someone actually believes this?!!! (Exclamation points just for Frances) Secondly, I remembered the cartoon that Jeanne brought into class recently--an expression of her disbelief that some still consider the visual as unable to argue.
Of course, Birdsell and Groarke also disbelieve this notion and come to the conclusion that any discussion of visual argumentation must do the following:
- identify the internal elements of a visual image
- understand the contexts of the image
- establish a consistency of an interpretation of the image
- indicate the changes in visual perspectives over time (318).
The above example meets this criteria in the same that the "hooked" fish does in the chapter--through a mixture of verbal and visual rhetoric that depend on each other equally for effect.
2 comments:
Hey Sarah! I haven't read this article yet, but I bet I will have the same reaction as you did.. What?!! Unfortunately, I cannot see the image you posted very well :( But I like how you went and found an image that supports the author's view, very cool! I might even try that... hmmm :|>2
I think I'm doing to much on my responses. I guess I need to be more like you; summarize briefly and give my response or reaction to the actual reading. I also cannot see the picture.
Post a Comment