To Theory...maybe.

What is required for an adequate theory of visual rhetoric?

Though I am pretty sure I am, as of yet, far from qualified to truly answer this question... I'm going to give it a go anyway.

For me, a theory of visual rhetoric is situated in a space of interaction. Here, I tap into a section of Blair I found most useful when he states "visual arguments are typically enthymemes--arguments with gaps left to be filled in by the participation of the audience" (53). A theory of visual rhetoric must negotiate the space wherein the audience fills in the gaps a visual sets forth. This, however, begs the question of how we define rhetoric. As argument? As persuasion? A visual artifact can do both, either or neither of these things. In case you thought this was going to be a clear cut theory... clearly, that is not the path this blog is taking.

In addition to interaction, I see a need for boundaries...even though those are my least favorite of things (they frequently are binaries... sigh). But, we cannot say everything is visual. There has to be some sort of gatekeeper here. I think I am most worried about how we can explore words as visual artifacts without stepping to far into an analysis of the content (what is "said" vs. what is "shown").  Written text most definitely has a place within a theory of visual rhetoric because as Hill points out "the visual aspects of writing can have as much to do with the effectiveness of one's message as choosing an appropriate tone or sentence structure" (122). Visual written texts have meaning beyond what they "say". This makes me think about all the political signs that currently line the roads and yards. They are "written texts" but they are a visual artifact. They have strong messages. For instance... how about this one:

Here. One single word is conveying a visual message?/argument?/persuasion?. Without additional content, we know this is a campaign sign for Obama/Biden '12. But where do we draw the line for written texts as visual artifacts? How many "words" is too many before we are study a written text? This is where the boundary  might prove useful... at least as we try to find stable ground.

I also think it is important when laying the foundation of a theory to think about the different places we can theorize from or about... Are we creating a theory of visual rhetoric as producers of visually rhetorical artifacts... or are we creating a theory for the analysis of visual rhetoric. Or... are those pesky boundaries less rigid than that. Do these two positions within the theory interact with one another and inform one another? 

As we saw with Berger, we cannot ignore issues of ambiguity. An adequate theory of visual rhetoric needs to explore how the rhetorical situation is informed by the points of ambiguity. These are points of meaning making. These are places of rhetorical potential.  Here... history and context are key components of how visual rhetoric can explore and frame ambiguity.

As if thinking about visual artifacts as both "images" (not quite the right word) and written texts wasn't enough, a theory of visual rhetoric must also negotiate the space where they interact with each other to create a visual that relies upon both. For me, an example of this can be found in comics strips and memes.  So, I shall leave you with a meme. Of course, the context (the debate) heavily informs the effectiveness of this meme.