Constructing A Way To Live

So there's this supposed opposition between narrative and argumentation--but how much are these two distinct?  Was Berger, to some degree, making an argument for something? If not, what was he doing? (I immediately recognize a straw man fallacy going on here, but I'm going to keep going).

Starting with Lange, I was particularly interested in how there was an idea of constructing a style that compliments a lifestyle--a way to live in Victorian middle class.  Their construction of their visual style is also constructing an ethos.  The style was somewhat like a narrative similar to the art exhibits that were discussed in Helmers' chapter;  the public corridors of the Victorian homes were specifically constructed to be consumed and to reflect a lifestyle--the narrative is making an argument on their ethos.  This, at least, is how I connect image as narrative to image as argument--however, as some others have pointed out, they both involve rhetoric--and like Jason and others, I too am not ready to categorize things as rhetorical confidently quite yet.

So what does argumentation offer to our idea of visual rhetoric? For one, I feel like Blair's use of the Aristotelian enthymeme is what I've been waiting for--especially when he further brings Pierce's concept of "index" into the picture.  Like David, I was also unsure of whether a visual can be a syllogism, but it works as an enthymeme.  The audience can then look at an image and anticipate it's index: what preceded it, what comes next (or could come next)?  By constructing an index, we're constructing a narrative aren't we?  But then, is every narrative making an argument?  In honor of Google's Winsor McCay tribute, this image (though one panel from presumably many) is inviting the viewer to construct an index.  But is it making an argument?

I'd probably say no, but why? It's probably because this isolated image's function is to tell a larger story--to help the story progress. but if the whole story is making an argument, does this single image become an argument in comparison to the other panels? I'm somewhat just rambling off the thoughts I've been having.  I guess I'm just thinking about the sequence of images in a narrative is probably rhetorical (arguing a way to live), but the isolated picture in that sequence may not be making an argument--or is it?  I'm trying to understand argumentation and rhetoric without diluting either word.

Jumping to something completely different, I just wanted to say that my favorite of the three articles was definitely Hill's--I'm not typically a fan of triangles, but his relationship between the image, the value, and the emotion was pretty useful for thinking in terms of argumentation. Strong emotions seek to be balanced (for unpleasant ones) or continued (for pleasant ones)--an action is needed (some sort of action either mentally, physically, voluntary, or unconscious).  Does an image that calls for action equate to an image making an argument? I'm just curious if my line of thought is being rational.