It seems that visuals as rhetorical just complicates it the more. After the readings for this week, we now have to define rhetorical in regards to how we study visuals. Easy task? No. If  rhetoric is the study of persuasion (in broad terms), then why is visuals as argument not in fact the condition of being rhetorical.  Focusing on persuasion, this would not only include all visuals with persuasive influence, but also argument. In other words, how do we seperate a visual as argument and a visual as rhetorical? This is, of course, why visual rhetoric is so hard to define.

To great delight after reading Tange, I can now understand how I might differentiate visuals that are merely persuasive, and those argumentive. (yet I still think both are visuals as rhtorical) I now understand why there are so many sub genres (at least that's what I will call it), such as narrative, aesthetic, and argument. I can determine its properties and constraints in some degree, but also see how they can mesh with other genres. It seems that if argument is a form of persuasion, then all these subgenres are a form of rhetoric (if it is defined as persuasive). How overly inclusive is this? How are we to define something so large, with so many components?

If anything, visuals as rhetorical add to the field, and goes beyond the classroom, more than we could ever have imagined. Through technology, there are so many ways to "see" texts as not merely textual. We as a field have much to look forward to, and many papers yet to be written