History & Visual Rhetoric

I will attempt a comprehensible answer to the question: what is the role of history in shaping visual rhetoric?

History, I believe, plays a vital role in shaping visual rhetoric. Let me draw on Berger to support that claim:

In life, meaning is not instantaneous. Meaning is discovered in what connects, and cannot exist without development. Without a story, without an unfolding, there is no meaning. Facts, information, do not in themselves constitute meaning. Facts can be fed into a computer and become factors in a calculation. No meaning, however, comes out of computers, for when we give meaning to an event, that meaning is a response, not only to the known, but also to the unknown: meaning and mystery are inseparable, and neither can exist without the passing of time…When we find a photograph meaningful, we are lending it a past and a future.  (89)

So, as Berger notes, meaning is something created by way of history, which is a continuous, connected development of a story (and thus of meaning itself): this both on an individual and on a collective basis. If it is true, like Berger says, that meaning cannot be created instantaneously, then it would follow that one must draw on their knowledge of/experiences from history to interpret images. Therefore, even for familiar images such as:

 one must draw on his or her prior knowledge of poverty, photography, and photographs that depict poverty in such a way. This all affects how accepting or resistant to the rhetoric of the visual the viewer will be. For example, the viewer’s personal history with poverty (e.g. first-hand experience, relief/volunteer work, personal acquaintances with impoverished people, ect.) will affect how the viewer is impacted/persuaded by the visual. If there is only a generic understanding of poverty (e.g. a “textbook” understanding) then, perhaps, the rhetoric of the visual will not elicit an action, or at least it will likely not elicit the same reaction. In the same way, a viewer’s historical experience/understanding/perception of photography and, more specifically, the genre of poverty photography (if I can call it that) will tremendously affect the outcome of the response to the visual. So, we can see that individual history plays a large part in the interpretation and reception of visual rhetoric.

Moreover, communal history plays a large part in the reception of visuals, I would wager. Take this image for instance:

Depending on what culture you were born into, the swastika might have very different meanings. In Asian cultures, it is a religious symbol of peace and harmony. Buddhists and Hindis alike display them proudly in their architecture and art. In Western cultures, the swastika is almost unanimously viewed a symbol of flagrant hatred and oppression. No matter that the Nazis appropriated the ancient symbol from Asian cultures, if you grew up in American, chances are the overpowering message you receive from this is linked back to its history in WWII, an impression you gain from the collective of Western culture. Admittedly, I’m not entirely sure how well this last example works, because I’m not sure how rhetorical it is anymore—i.e., does it really give the viewer agency to interpret it in any other way than the one I have already mentioned? Nonetheless, I think (hope) it gets at the idea of how collective history can dramatically influence the reception/impact of a visual that is rhetorical.