Page 336 - Gabrijela Kišiček and Igor Ž. Žagar (eds.), What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and argumentative perspectives, Digital Library, Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana 2013
P. 336
What Do We Know about the World?
ily and stopped by the “vociferous objections” (Foss, 2005: 142) of lan-
guage-centred interpretations. Current definitions of the discipline tend
to support the development of visual rhetoric; this suggests an easier fit
between the visual and the rhetorical.
Visual rhetoric, as a subdomain of the classical discipline, endeav-
oured to purport rhetorical literacy, for the visual, and to provide a
framework to interpret and produce visual artefacts rhetorically. In rhet-
oric, the visual perspective indicated, also, the emerging recognition of
the significance of images in human understanding, discursive practi-
ces, and media communication. On defining visual rhetoric, scholars
distinguished between at least two meanings. One conceptualized vis-
ual rhetoric as a communicative artefact, a product, made of images and
visual symbols (analogously to a speech), whilst the other understood
it to be an analytical tool with which the creation and performing of
communication, by visual symbols, could be examined (Foss, 2004). Al-
though this dualistic view of visual rhetoric reflects rhetoric as a prac-
tice and rhetoric as a theory, it is not sensitive enough to the possible tri-
partite division of rhetoric. This assumes that rhetoric is either a product
(a multimodal “speech”), a procedure (mechanism), or a process (com-
munication). Following the latter division, we conceive visual rhetoric
either as a product to address public, a persuasive, visual representation,
or a procedure, logic to experience and to see and form pictures, images,
or a process with which we interpret the world around us (Ott-Dickin-
son, 2009).
As a product, visual rhetoric is the counterpart of verbal rhetoric,
namely, the rhetoric of persuasive speeches. To put it simply, we replace
the verbal with the visual and apply the strategies of rhetoric to produce
and analyse persuasive, influential messages. Commercials, campaign
spots, and billboard pictures are the kind of visual, or visual-verbal mes-
sages which address the public and are structured rhetorically in order to
achieve the planned reaction. However, this functional refiguring of the
classical discipline and its adaptation to the visual domain, is not with-
out obstacles. Traditionally, rhetoric, used for verbal interactions, feels
non-socialized within the field of images when it comes to the analy-
sis of their persuasive power. Forcing the terminology once worked out
for speech to function satisfactorily with the visual, scholars have to face
the organic difference between the constitutive nature of words and pic-
tures. Nevertheless, in the context of vigorous debates about visual argu-
ily and stopped by the “vociferous objections” (Foss, 2005: 142) of lan-
guage-centred interpretations. Current definitions of the discipline tend
to support the development of visual rhetoric; this suggests an easier fit
between the visual and the rhetorical.
Visual rhetoric, as a subdomain of the classical discipline, endeav-
oured to purport rhetorical literacy, for the visual, and to provide a
framework to interpret and produce visual artefacts rhetorically. In rhet-
oric, the visual perspective indicated, also, the emerging recognition of
the significance of images in human understanding, discursive practi-
ces, and media communication. On defining visual rhetoric, scholars
distinguished between at least two meanings. One conceptualized vis-
ual rhetoric as a communicative artefact, a product, made of images and
visual symbols (analogously to a speech), whilst the other understood
it to be an analytical tool with which the creation and performing of
communication, by visual symbols, could be examined (Foss, 2004). Al-
though this dualistic view of visual rhetoric reflects rhetoric as a prac-
tice and rhetoric as a theory, it is not sensitive enough to the possible tri-
partite division of rhetoric. This assumes that rhetoric is either a product
(a multimodal “speech”), a procedure (mechanism), or a process (com-
munication). Following the latter division, we conceive visual rhetoric
either as a product to address public, a persuasive, visual representation,
or a procedure, logic to experience and to see and form pictures, images,
or a process with which we interpret the world around us (Ott-Dickin-
son, 2009).
As a product, visual rhetoric is the counterpart of verbal rhetoric,
namely, the rhetoric of persuasive speeches. To put it simply, we replace
the verbal with the visual and apply the strategies of rhetoric to produce
and analyse persuasive, influential messages. Commercials, campaign
spots, and billboard pictures are the kind of visual, or visual-verbal mes-
sages which address the public and are structured rhetorically in order to
achieve the planned reaction. However, this functional refiguring of the
classical discipline and its adaptation to the visual domain, is not with-
out obstacles. Traditionally, rhetoric, used for verbal interactions, feels
non-socialized within the field of images when it comes to the analy-
sis of their persuasive power. Forcing the terminology once worked out
for speech to function satisfactorily with the visual, scholars have to face
the organic difference between the constitutive nature of words and pic-
tures. Nevertheless, in the context of vigorous debates about visual argu-
