Page 118 - Žagar, Igor Ž. 2021. Four Critical Essays on Argumentation. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
P. 118
four critical essays on argumentation
And we could go on, but my bottom line is this: a presumably visual
argument that needs more than 3 pages of technically sophisticated, but du-
bious explanations in 10 paragraphs (but no visuals, even if they are availa-
ble!) to persuade/convince a rather thin layer of population of itself being a
visual argument, can hardly be called a visual argument.
Here are my arguments to support the above claim from my survey.
The results and the discussion
First (question a), what the students saw in the painting (all emphases are
mine):
‘I see a man, leaning on the chair, not showing any signs of life. We
could conclude from what the picture is showing that he was writ-
ing a letter and committed suicide.’
‘I see a person who committed suicide.’
‘A man lies on the table/chair in a motionless position, in his hand
he holds a letter he has just written, he is dressed inadequately, as
a matter of fact just in blankets/sheets.’
‘A man is sitting at the table. He has a turban on his head, so he
could be of Muslim religion.’
‘I see a man who leans on something. I suppose he committed sui-
cide, because there is a knife on the floor.’
‘I see a gentleman who dies while writing a love letter.’
‘I see a young boy, who has just finished writing a letter. From
what I see in the painting, I conclude that he is suffering from some
illness, and is writing about how he feels to somebody.’
‘I see a man who was killed in a bathtub.’
It is pretty clear from these answers, I think, that the respondents (ex-
cept, maybe, for the last one), despite the fact that they were told who was
depicted, and when the painting was created, didn’t have a clue about what
was going on in the painting, let alone of any argumentative potential im-
puted to the painting by Groarke.
Now let us have a look at the following answers on question a:
118
And we could go on, but my bottom line is this: a presumably visual
argument that needs more than 3 pages of technically sophisticated, but du-
bious explanations in 10 paragraphs (but no visuals, even if they are availa-
ble!) to persuade/convince a rather thin layer of population of itself being a
visual argument, can hardly be called a visual argument.
Here are my arguments to support the above claim from my survey.
The results and the discussion
First (question a), what the students saw in the painting (all emphases are
mine):
‘I see a man, leaning on the chair, not showing any signs of life. We
could conclude from what the picture is showing that he was writ-
ing a letter and committed suicide.’
‘I see a person who committed suicide.’
‘A man lies on the table/chair in a motionless position, in his hand
he holds a letter he has just written, he is dressed inadequately, as
a matter of fact just in blankets/sheets.’
‘A man is sitting at the table. He has a turban on his head, so he
could be of Muslim religion.’
‘I see a man who leans on something. I suppose he committed sui-
cide, because there is a knife on the floor.’
‘I see a gentleman who dies while writing a love letter.’
‘I see a young boy, who has just finished writing a letter. From
what I see in the painting, I conclude that he is suffering from some
illness, and is writing about how he feels to somebody.’
‘I see a man who was killed in a bathtub.’
It is pretty clear from these answers, I think, that the respondents (ex-
cept, maybe, for the last one), despite the fact that they were told who was
depicted, and when the painting was created, didn’t have a clue about what
was going on in the painting, let alone of any argumentative potential im-
puted to the painting by Groarke.
Now let us have a look at the following answers on question a:
118
