Perhaps one of the most useful aspects of his article was his distinction between persuasion and argument. I was having difficulty with some of our discussions of visual rhetoric: not in the sense that I did not believe the visual could be rhetorical. Actually, I believe I was moving towards the opposite extreme, thinking every visual could be construed as rhetorical in some sense. Blair's clarifications aided me in being able make some distinctions and not move towards the extreme of classifying everything as rhetorical. He presents his case rather clearly in this passage:
"What distinguishes arguments from other kinds of 'symbolic inducement'? It has to do with how they function. Arguments supply us with reasons for accepting a point of view. The fact that certain propositions are deemed true, probably, plausible or otherwise worthy of acceptance, is considered to provide a reason, or a set of reasons, for thinking that some claim is true, some attitude is appropriate, some policy is worthy of implementation, or some action is best done." (44)
Hence, something can be persuasive without being an argument. Furthermore, his initial discussion of the Aristotelian enthymeme also allowed me to understand why visuals can be rather powerful forms of rhetoric. He describes the enthymeme as, "...an argument in which the arguer deliberately leaves unstated a premise that is essential to its reasoning. Doing so has the effect of drawing the audience to participate in its own persuasion by filling in that unexpressed premise" (41). This appears to indicate that if a visual is rhetorical, the "ambiguity" of it is frequently not as ambiguous as we may want to believe. The effective rhetor will allow the audience to "fill in the missing pieces," yet effectively control what they are likely to fill in.
With the distinction between persuasion and argument made clear, and an understanding of how visuals function rhetorically, I imagine a host of more questions will arise. How many ways can a visual function? Can it be narrative and rhetorical? We seem to believe that the vernacular and aesthetic can become rhetorical dependent on context. Therefore, it would seem logical that a narrative could possibly make the same shift. Also, on a completely different note, if an image fails to be rhetorical, can it still be persuasive? This one really boggles my mind, to be honest. I would lean towards yes, but I imagine someone could produce an example to undermine this.
And I leave you with one last question to contemplate. Who could deny the rhetorical power of the gang from Sesame Street?
I'm curious about the nature of this image, if only because it doesn't necessarily leave much to the audience. I do agree that one of the greatest strengths of an image involves its ability to act similarly to an enthymeme, but what happens in an image such as this where a lot of the ambiguity is gone? Maybe I'm being too critical here, but the dialogue between the characters could stand on its own in many ways and remain comprehensible. Certainly the use of the characters lends the illustration some of the ethos associated with sesame street and serves to presence it more explicitly, but is it relying upon the strength of the image or the context? If this was only a photo of the three characters holding up that sign without the dialogue, would it be a stronger example of the power of images? Wouldn't it then allow space for the audience to make that implicit connection to Mitt Romney? Certainly it would become less "spelled-out," but by leaving the audience to make that associative jump, wouldn't it better enact the idea of an enthymeme (and a concept Scott McCloud calls closure)?
ReplyDeleteBret,
DeleteYou have some intriguing points here; however, I'd argue that the visual complements the words in this instance. Certainly an argument could be made for just the visual, yet the chalkboard Ernie holds would be difficult to understand without the words. In relation to the words though, I feel it creates a strong argument. For me, this is how the visual and the words function together--by using Sesame Street characters and a childish chalkboard demonstration, the creators are implying that Mitt Romney, in essence, has the cognitive skills of a small child. This, for me, is the enthymeme. While not directly stated, many viewers could make the connection and be persuaded by the underhanded insult.