The question of “What is visual rhetoric?” has been somewhat plaguing me this week— not like a non-stop sort- of thing, but rather just a here and there type. I can’t say I’ve struggled with formulating an answer…maybe tangled is a better choice. As a paced my feet during a seven mile run through the stifling cold streets of Philadelphia this morning, I made several attempts at cracking this question. By the end of my run, I came to a simplistic conclusion—one that may or may not be the actual answer, but rather, my own interpretation of it; it’s merely a form of visual communication. That’s it? Well, no. Like all definitions, it’s merely the surface, with much more sitting beneath. Visuals, like words, require the same type of analysis. For instance, our in-class exercises required us to look a little deeper into the changes of several corporate logos. Those who designed them didn’t merely draw them for the sake of being noted as pretty pictures; they designed them with certain ideas in mind, such as what they wanted the reader to believe about the company based on first impressions, and what kind of inviting connections would be made between the company and the consumers.
How we reacted to the pictures in class is similar to how we interpret text. We often stare endlessly at the words, searching for something a little deeper. We Google, pull out a dictionary, or put it away and return to it when we have clearer heads. Images may conjure the same reactions, and perhaps more. Picture and video can invoke emotions; so can words, of course, but visuals bring out something else in us—like Steve McCurry’s portrait of the Afghan Girl in the June 1985 issue of National Geographic, or the multiple angels of footage featuring jets flying into the World Trade Center.
We are living in a visual age, where pictures and video capture our attention and emotion differently than text. Visuals are effective, and impact what we do, how we feel, and what we believe. I think our readings from this past week are meant to convey that message. Somehow, we all seemed to connect to one another during our presentations. We referred to each other’s points, built our ideas upon other readings, and developed conclusions as a whole.
Visual Communication Example: Vaguely, I remember reading an example from John Berger, a media theorist, during my undergraduate critical thinking seminar. He used the example of a circle. Try describing it. Draw it. Which one is easier to remember?
Visual Communication Example: Vaguely, I remember reading an example from John Berger, a media theorist, during my undergraduate critical thinking seminar. He used the example of a circle. Try describing it. Draw it. Which one is easier to remember?
Photo: Property of National Geographic. Top photo, Steve McCurry © National Geographic Society.
4 comments:
You are right to say that images lead us to deeper thinking and emotional reactions in the way that words do, and maybe even more. It's interesting with all of our talk about technology to think about the history of photographs and how much more we are able to capture and convey now because of the technology we have. It's more than the website designs - its the evolution from black and white to color, from print to digital. Technology that works with visual rhetoric opened up a new arena for expression that many people didn't have access to before. And because of the increased media circulation, many of us CAN say we recognize the image you posted.
Visual rhetoric is difficult to define. I agree that visual rhetoric is a form of communication. The neat thing is visuals can deliver the message on their own. Yet, visuals can also enhance and/or be enhanced by other forms of communication such as printed text or recorded audio. The challenge is in being understood once the public views your work because in the end it's left to interpretation.
Mark,
I like the McCurry pic. Those always will always remind me of a cold Afghan snow that was blowing on Mike Wallace (I think) dressed up like an Mujahedeen in Afghanistan. This was '86 I think. Anyway, this is visual rhetoric. For me, the mid to late eighties will always be synonymous the covert Afghan war, fall of communism, Tiananmen Square, Guns 'N Roses, hair spray and the AIDS epidemic, and I bet you those all stuck in my mind because of newsreels, and photographs.
I agree with your statements that images and videos capture our attention. I remember being unable to look away from the television as the news showed the planes crashing into the World Trade Center on September 11. There are images from newspapers that stay in my mind while I can no longer remember the text in the article.
Post a Comment