Having my Cake... and eating it too?

I'm wondering if seeing visuals as rhetorical creates a way to blur Berger's narrative with the position of argumentation from the chapters in Hill & Helmers. I know. This might be situated in my want to not fully commit yet; however, I'm wondering to what extent narrative can function parallel to or within the construct of visual argument. I don find this plausible in Blair's claim that "visual arguments are typically enthymemes--arguments with gaps left to be filled in by the participation  of the audience" (53). Though the emphasis is my own, I'm going to suggest that the audience fills the gaps with a narrative. For me, this also taps into the potential rhetoricalness a visual holds because the visual may not actually function in a rhetorical sense. If we think of Berger's narrative position for the visual, I'm interested to know how the narration connects to the purpose of a visual or set of visuals.

With this blending of the two, I connect back to the problems with my first project. I concede that the collection of images do not work as a cohesive whole, and I'm now wondering if this could be supported by the need for gaps so that the viewer participates or interacts with what it presented. I should probably hang onto that as we progress toward the project where we actually create a visually rhetorical text.

So maybe I'm arguing for a visually rhetorical narrative and argument? See what I did with the words... I know, it is only partially clever. However, I do see this surfacing in Helmers discussion of using narrative theory where "Lewis establishes rhetoric as a form of narrative and visual persuasion based on conventions of representation, tropes, and formalized addresses to audiences that, in turn, engenders reaction and reflection" (67). This suggests that the establishing visuals as rhetorical creates a space for a pairing of narrative and argument.

On another note, relatively unrelated to having my cake, and eating it too... I am interested in the question Ryan raises regarding color. Though I'm not quite sure, I think that Tange chapter talks to the question of color, though not fully. I'm wondering if the value we place on color's place in making the visual rhetorical is couched in the fact that we interact with the "multimedia, multicolored, technology-driven onslaught of visual images" (297). I'd also potentially argue that our response to black and white visuals could also grow from our expectation of the presence of color. I'm still stewing on this. But I do hope we can explore color and how it could affect visual arguments and the rhetorical value of visuals.

Anyway, want a piece of this cake metaphor?