Page 121 - Žagar, Igor Ž. 2021. Four Critical Essays on Argumentation. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
P. 121
perception, infer ence, and understanding in visual argumentation (and beyond)
If, for a moment, we neglect the fact that the doctor of philosophy
thinks Marat might have been a ‘fictitious or real historical personality’
(ignorance that speak in favour of my point of view), we finally get two an-
swers, relating the painting of dying/dead Marat to the dying/dead Christ.
But the first respondent in question is reminded of the death of Jesus
because the way Marat died. And her first argument is ‘similarly wrapped
head’. But while Jesus was on the cross, when he was taken of, and while
in his mother’s hand, his head was not wrapped. He was only wrapped for
the burial.
Also, Jesus is usually described as expressing suffering, not tranquility.
The other respondent mentioning Jesus is reminded of the crucifixion
of Christ, ‘because of the position of the body’. That is, Marat’s body. But
Marat’s body is not in the crucifixion position, it is in the pieta position.
In short, the only two persons reminded of Jesus by David’s painting
of Marat, are actually reminded of different attributes of Jesus, even of dif-
ferent versions of Jesus, which are historically not attested or were trans-
formed in the (enchronic) process of inference. They somehow recognize
the similarity between some depictions of Christ and David’s depiction of
Marat, but they are far from attributing any arguments or claims to the
latter.
Group 3
Rather interesting were the answers of the 3rd group. Already under a, not
b, two respondents (out of three) started to literally quote what Wikipedia
was saying about David’s painting, while under b, they were quoting the
same source about who David was and what was his role in the French rev-
olution and later.
(The 3rd respondent wrote: ‘If a revolutionary dies while soaking in a
bathtub this is not a heroic death worthy of a revolutionary.’)
It therefore is obvious that the third group was not addressed by
David’s painting in any way, even more, they didn’t have a clue what the
painting was about at all. And since the questionnaire mentioned the name
of the painter and the title of the painting, they obviously thought that cop-
ying the relevant entry from Wikipedia would be the best solution ...
In place of conclusion: A perceptual-cognitive grid
This small research (which is to be continued and upgraded) persuasively
shows that direct - linear, uniform and ‘objective’ - argumentative impact
121
If, for a moment, we neglect the fact that the doctor of philosophy
thinks Marat might have been a ‘fictitious or real historical personality’
(ignorance that speak in favour of my point of view), we finally get two an-
swers, relating the painting of dying/dead Marat to the dying/dead Christ.
But the first respondent in question is reminded of the death of Jesus
because the way Marat died. And her first argument is ‘similarly wrapped
head’. But while Jesus was on the cross, when he was taken of, and while
in his mother’s hand, his head was not wrapped. He was only wrapped for
the burial.
Also, Jesus is usually described as expressing suffering, not tranquility.
The other respondent mentioning Jesus is reminded of the crucifixion
of Christ, ‘because of the position of the body’. That is, Marat’s body. But
Marat’s body is not in the crucifixion position, it is in the pieta position.
In short, the only two persons reminded of Jesus by David’s painting
of Marat, are actually reminded of different attributes of Jesus, even of dif-
ferent versions of Jesus, which are historically not attested or were trans-
formed in the (enchronic) process of inference. They somehow recognize
the similarity between some depictions of Christ and David’s depiction of
Marat, but they are far from attributing any arguments or claims to the
latter.
Group 3
Rather interesting were the answers of the 3rd group. Already under a, not
b, two respondents (out of three) started to literally quote what Wikipedia
was saying about David’s painting, while under b, they were quoting the
same source about who David was and what was his role in the French rev-
olution and later.
(The 3rd respondent wrote: ‘If a revolutionary dies while soaking in a
bathtub this is not a heroic death worthy of a revolutionary.’)
It therefore is obvious that the third group was not addressed by
David’s painting in any way, even more, they didn’t have a clue what the
painting was about at all. And since the questionnaire mentioned the name
of the painter and the title of the painting, they obviously thought that cop-
ying the relevant entry from Wikipedia would be the best solution ...
In place of conclusion: A perceptual-cognitive grid
This small research (which is to be continued and upgraded) persuasively
shows that direct - linear, uniform and ‘objective’ - argumentative impact
121
