“The most basic, and perhaps the most misguided, of these
assumptions is that we could ever draw a distinct line between the visual and
the verbal, or that concentrating on one can or should require ignoring the
other” (Hill 109).
For me, this is
the most provocative quote of the reading so far, and, I think, it will be the
most provocative quote from any of the readings, because it so directly counters
what Kress will argue in his book on multimodality (and in his work leading up
to that book). Kress argues that writing is giving way to the image, which, for
him, is a semiotic revolution in the cultural position of modes. However, by
making that argument, he implicitly lends credence to the convenient fiction that
the two modes can actually be separated: image can only “overtake” word if the
two are categorically different. And sure, I do agree with Kress that the two
have different semiotic capabilities and processes of meaning-making (and
Martha provides an excellent and succinct summary about why we have multiple
modes of semiotic representation in her blog), but there is no way to know or
to make meaning visually without language, just as written text is always
already visual (and that visuality inevitably affects the way it is read). I
think this quote and several of the points that Hill made in his chapter
resonated with me so powerfully, because they function as support for the work
that I did in my thesis. Anne Wysocki, Paul Prior, Jody Shipka, and Lester
Faigley all work against Kress’s “easy” distinctions between image and word and
work to challenge his now-canonical presentation of multimodality. Kress makes
a lot of really smart claims about design and the rhetoric of the (web)page in
his book, but he relies heavily on what Hill claims is the convenient fiction
that separates image and word. I think Josh would agree with me on this point,
because he too is uncomfortable with the separation that Foss places on the two
modes (and the way in which she seems to privilege the written word).
Like Molly, I’m also on board with Hill that
the Visual needs to be fully integrated into our understanding of rhetoric,
because written rhetoric is visual. It shouldn’t, however, end there. Rhetoric
can (and often is) aural, kinesthetic, and embodied. For me, this quote argues
for a more encompassing curriculum of rhetoric, because it emphasizes the ways
in which the different modes of rhetoric cannot be kept discrete. For me, this
quote allows for a more capacious understanding of literacy, communication,
meaning-making, and our semiotic tools of representation.
Logan, before I even got to the end of your post, you've already made connections :)
ReplyDeleteLike your provocative quote suggests, I agree that the line cannot be rigidly drawn between the visual and the written. Furthermore, I think this connects to the quote I pulled about the rhetorical curriculum and the university system. The system "divides" disciplines int interesting binaries (sometimes ones that make no obvious sense, it seems). I am interested to see how his curriculum could blur those lines to create the multidisciplinary utopia as well as blur that boundary between visual and verbal. Eek. Such upheaval is pretty darn intimidating.
I thought that Hill did a really great job showing how difficult is to separate the visual and the verbal in his section on "The Visual Aspects of Written Text." I think that too often, words on a page are seen just as a facsimile (I don't think this is the word that I want to use, but I can't think of another) of the verbal, and the visual aspect is disregarded. But as a quick example, if I were to read a scholarly article that was printed entirely in comic sans, I would have a hard time taking the author's claims seriously.
ReplyDeleteI, like Hill, and the two of you, would really like to see more discussion of the visual in our classes, and I'm hoping to integrate it into my FYC classes.