Page 111 - Žagar, Igor Ž. 2021. Four Critical Essays on Argumentation. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
P. 111
perception, infer ence, and understanding in visual argumentation (and beyond)
And what about the other answers from Group 1? Two of the respond-
ents (7,7%) thought it was (a kind of) a joke, meaning/implying that smok-
ing is so widespread nowadays that even fish started to smoke.
Another two thought the drawing was an ad in an anglers’ newsletter,
its purpose being to alert the readers against the pollution of waters.
One of the respondents (3,8%) thought it was a joke at the expense of
non-smokers, another one that it was a teaser, a challenge to non-smokers
(pleading in favour of cigarettes). Another one thought the drawing was a
protest from the vegetarian viewpoint (emphasizing the feelings of a fish
when it gets caught), somebody took it as a kind of allegory (in her own
words): you can get hooked or you cannot (the choice is yours).
The remaining three (11,5%) couldn’t decide about the meaning of the
message.
Group 2 had much less to say about the appearance of the fish, for most
of them it looked ‘sad and bored’.
As for the message, three of them (42,8%) answered it could have been
an anti-smoking ad, two of them (28,8%) emphasized it could be either a
funny ad, a joke, or an anti-smoking ad, while one of them (14,3%) was re-
minded of the Rat Park Experiment, and one of the respondents thought
the drawing looked like an illustration from a child book.
From the Group 3, we got the following three answers: (1) advertise-
ment of the tobacco industry, (2) could be anything, and (3) I really don’t
know (33,3% each).
The discussion
The conclusion we can draw from all these answers is pretty obvious, I
think: Birdsell’s and Groarke’s claim that the argument that you should
be wary of cigarettes because they can hook you and endanger your health
is forwarded by means of visual images, is clearly refuted. Unless there is a
clear verbal supplement, ‘don’t you get hooked’, the interpretator’s infer-
ence about the (intended) meaning of the drawing (let alone its possible
argumentativity, which may not be inferred at all), obviously depends on
their historical, social, cultural and/or individual background, on the spe-
cifics of their education and/or their values (to name just a few parame-
ters)—as will become more and more clear with the following examples.
111
And what about the other answers from Group 1? Two of the respond-
ents (7,7%) thought it was (a kind of) a joke, meaning/implying that smok-
ing is so widespread nowadays that even fish started to smoke.
Another two thought the drawing was an ad in an anglers’ newsletter,
its purpose being to alert the readers against the pollution of waters.
One of the respondents (3,8%) thought it was a joke at the expense of
non-smokers, another one that it was a teaser, a challenge to non-smokers
(pleading in favour of cigarettes). Another one thought the drawing was a
protest from the vegetarian viewpoint (emphasizing the feelings of a fish
when it gets caught), somebody took it as a kind of allegory (in her own
words): you can get hooked or you cannot (the choice is yours).
The remaining three (11,5%) couldn’t decide about the meaning of the
message.
Group 2 had much less to say about the appearance of the fish, for most
of them it looked ‘sad and bored’.
As for the message, three of them (42,8%) answered it could have been
an anti-smoking ad, two of them (28,8%) emphasized it could be either a
funny ad, a joke, or an anti-smoking ad, while one of them (14,3%) was re-
minded of the Rat Park Experiment, and one of the respondents thought
the drawing looked like an illustration from a child book.
From the Group 3, we got the following three answers: (1) advertise-
ment of the tobacco industry, (2) could be anything, and (3) I really don’t
know (33,3% each).
The discussion
The conclusion we can draw from all these answers is pretty obvious, I
think: Birdsell’s and Groarke’s claim that the argument that you should
be wary of cigarettes because they can hook you and endanger your health
is forwarded by means of visual images, is clearly refuted. Unless there is a
clear verbal supplement, ‘don’t you get hooked’, the interpretator’s infer-
ence about the (intended) meaning of the drawing (let alone its possible
argumentativity, which may not be inferred at all), obviously depends on
their historical, social, cultural and/or individual background, on the spe-
cifics of their education and/or their values (to name just a few parame-
ters)—as will become more and more clear with the following examples.
111
