Persuasion, Argument, Rhetoric: Can they be Separated?

 I am a little confused about how the definitions visual rhetoric, visual persuasion, and visual argument differ. It seems to me like they are all involved in the process of what Christine defined as “promotion.”  Hill focuses on visual persuasion: “how images work to influence the beliefs, attitudes, opinions—and sometimes actions—of those who view them” (25). She focuses on the “presence” of an image, or its staying power: “the extent to which an object or concept is foremost in the consciousness of the audience members” (28). The rhetor’s goal is to increase the presence of rhetorical elements so that these elements completely fill the minds of audience members so that they won’t stop to think about other arguments or opinions. Since visual objects receive more presence than verbal forms, Hill argues that visual images are more persuasive than non-visual images.

Blair asks, what does being visual add to arguments? He makes a link between visual persuasion and argument to see how visual arguments can exist. I am mostly confused when Blair uses rhetoric, persuasion, and argument all together in one statement: “assuming there can be a rhetoric of the visual, is to make the connection between visual persuasion and argument—to show how there can be visual arguments” (42). Blair states that not all persuasion is an argument, and that visual argument is one type of visual persuasion among others. Blair brings all the terms together in the conclusion when he states, “rhetoric as related to argument…is the use of the best means available to make the logic of the argument persuasive to its audience. Blair also talks about having a lady stick her tongue in his ear, which was traumatic to read.

So it seems to me that rhetoric, persuasion, and argument fit together in the work images do. I noticed both authors brought up narrative in their essays also, so maybe that’s also a term that can’t be separated from the mix. Christine mentioned that there may perhaps “be a way to reconcile how rhetorical visuals can be narrative and argument and much more.” I would agree that it seems like the terms cannot be so easily separated as one works with the other in the jobs they do. I guess we need to go back to defining and deciding on what visual rhetoric is.

I didn’t include the Tange essay in this mix, but I did really enjoy reading it and think it offers interesting revelations about the ways images create and grant access into middle class society. The way the housekeeping texts made middle class ideals “seem at once accessible and exclusive” at the same time particularly intrigued me (297). Victorian middle-class society seems like a terrifying community to try to fit into; it reminds me of middle school.