Rhetoric-as-Promotion

What we’re discussing this week is how we are defining “visual.” Visual-as-narrative? Visual-as-argument? Visual-as-aesthetic? Visual-as-vernacular? Visual-as-rhetorical? To answer this question, I think we first need to define what we mean by “rhetorical.” 

Based on Hill, Tange, and Blair, I’d like to offer the following definition: rhetoric-as-promotion.  For Hill, a rhetorical visual promotes a certain presence (28) and specific values (35).   For Tange, a rhetorical visual promotes ideologies (279), a specific narrative (292), and consumerism (298).  For Blair, a rhetorical visual promotes specific reasons (44) and a change in some sort of belief or attitude (49).

So, what does it mean to see visuals functioning within rhetoric-as-promotion?  To me, this mean there is an audience – someone to whom something is being promoted.  In order for visual to work towards promotion of some value/belief/person/ideology/etc., there needs to be an identifiable audience targeted by the promotion. An act of promotion without an audience fails; promotion requires a recipient.  Blair agrees that an audience is necessary for visual arguments. He writes, “In communicating arguments visually, we need to attend particularly to the situation of the audience” (59).  I would add that the importance of an audience extends to non-argument visuals as well, especially if we are trying to consider what it means for visuals to be rhetorical.

Beyond consideration of an audience, to see visuals rhetorically means to consider the creator/sponsor/promoter of the visual.  If a specific ideology, product, belief is being promoted, for example, who stands to benefit from this promotion? What are the motivations driving this promotion?  Tange’s chapter speaks of various promotions through rhetorical images, including the promotion of specific middle-class roles and desires for men, servants, women, and guests (279), middle-class tastes (283), social ideals (287), narratives (292), and morals (298).  The targeted audience of these promotions were those of the middle-class and those who desired to be a part of the middle-class (presumably those who were, according to social standards, classed lower than middle class).  Who benefitted from such a promotion? Tange tells us that the visuals produced during this time “depend[ed] on one another” for a complete picture of ‘proper’ domesticity (296).  In doing so, “these books ensure their own continued marketability” (296).  So, the book publishers/writers benefitted financially from these promotions.  Furthermore, the images promote “the exclusivity of middle-class taste” (292), benefitting those currently living within the middle-class bracket.

Jason mentions feeling compelled to choose between the lenses of narrative, argument, and rhetoric for images. Perhaps my thoughts are a way to reconcile how rhetorical visuals can be narrative and argument and much more, depending upon who/what they are promoting, the audience they’re targeting, and the creator/promoter of the visual.  Further considering Jason’s post, I’m not sure that I would consider the video game still he posted to be a rhetorical visual (at least not with the explanation I just gave about what makes visuals rhetorical). Is this visual promoting something? The truth is I don’t know much about video games or that one in particular, so perhaps I’m just not the targeted audience.

Seeing visuals as rhetorical (if “rhetorical” functions within rhetoric-as-promotion) means identifying and understanding the importance of both the intended audience and the promoter/creator of the image.  (Also, it might be interesting to consider that the promoter does not necessarily equal the creator.)  Furthermore, the audience and creator/promoter might not be the expected; for example, in the visual Bruce included in his post, Sesame Street is usually directed at children; however, despite the direct reference to “kids” from Ernie, the content of the visual makes it clear that the intended audience is politically-aware adults.  The promotion?  I would say that the image promotes an anti-Mitt campaign.

With all of this in mind, where do we see rhetorical visuals most often? What venues are most appropriate/useful/effective for the rhetorical use of visuals?