History and the Visual

In my visual rhetoric class with Dr. Neal during my undergrad, we read some Bakhtin on his theory of the utterance and it has definitely shaped how I address the question of how history shapes visual rhetoric:

"Each utterance refutes affirms, supplements, and relies upon the others, presupposes them to be known, and somehow takes them into account... Therefore, each kind of utterance is filled with various kinds of responsive reactions to other utterances of the given sphere of speech communication."


Like Bakhtin, I think that history is absolutely integral in shaping visual rhetoric. Every image that we view is viewed in the context of every image we've viewed previously, and all of our (both individually and collectively) past experiences. Every image that we create is created in the context of every image we've viewed previously, and all of our (both individually and collectively) past experiences.

I think one of the best examples of history shaping visual rhetoric can be seen when you take a look at the toothbrush mustache. It has been so tainted that most people don't even know it's called the toothbrush mustache, they just call it the Hitler Mustache.

Because of the history surrounding the mustache, it can be added to any image of a person, and everyone who views it can understand what you're arguing:

There are countless other examples of the Hitler mustache as argument in action, but I think these two get the point across. Slap the mustache on a picture, and because of its history, we all immediately know the argument that's being made.

Although, sometimes people decide to try and divorce the mustache from it's context, and it makes you wonder what they were thinking:

"I don't know what the hell he was thinking. I don't know what Hanes was thinking. It was just stupid." - Charles Barkley reacting to Michael's mustache fiasco.