10/30/2015 Visual rhetoric ­ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_rhetoric 1/5

Visual rhetoricFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Visual rhetoric is the fairly recent development of a theoretical framework describing how visual imagescommunicate, as opposed to aural, verbal, or other messages. Visual rhetoric generally falls under a groupof terms, which all encompass visual literacy.[1] Purdue OWL defines visual literacy as one's ability to"read" an image.[1] In other words, it is one's ability to understand what an image is attempting tocommunicate.[1] This includes understanding creative choices made with the image such as coloring,shading, and object placement.[1] This type of awareness comes from an understanding how imagescommunicate meaning, also known as visual rhetoric.[2] The study of visual rhetoric is different from that ofvisual or graphic design, in that it emphasizes images as sensory expressions of cultural meaning, asopposed to purely aesthetic consideration.[3] Visual rhetoric has been approached from a variety ofacademic fields of study such as art history, linguistics, semiotics, cultural studies, business and technicalcommunication, speech communication, and classical rhetoric. As a result, it can be difficult to discern theexact relationship between different parts of the field of visual rhetoric.[4] Some examples of artifactsanalyzed by visual rhetoricians are charts, paintings, sculpture, videogames, diagrams, web pages,advertisements, movies, architecture, newspapers, or photographs. Visual rhetoric seeks to developrhetorical theory in a way that is more comprehensive and inclusive with regard to images and theirinterpretations.[5] Visual images and material objects have become more relevant in light of recenttechnological developments for understanding general communicative means.[5] Visual rhetoric is aconscious, communicative decision; the colors, form, medium, and size is chosen on purpose.[6] However, aperson may come in contact with a sign, but if they have no relation to the sign, its message is arbitrary.Therefore, in order for artifacts or products to be conceptualized as visual rhetoric, they must have threecharacteristics: they must be symbolic, involve human intervention, and be presented to an audience for thepurpose of communicating.[7]

Contents

1 History2 Areas of focus3 Semiotics4 Art history5 Science6 Composition7 Classical rhetoric8 Visual rhetoric of text9 See also10 References11 External links

History

10/30/2015 Visual rhetoric ­ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_rhetoric 2/5

The exact history of the field of visual rhetoric is difficult to trace, as it could be argued that "visualrhetoric" has been studied and practiced as long as images have. The term emerged largely as a mechanismto set aside a certain area of study and to focus attention on the specific rhetorical traits of visualmediums.[4] In the history of rhetoric, study has been geared toward linguistics.[5] Visual symbols weredeemed trivial and subservient, thus were largely ignored. As a result rhetorical theory has been createdwith a significant exclusion of visual rhetoric.[5] As visual rhetoric is studied, it catalyzes a series ofchallenges against linguistic rhetoric altogether. Linguistic rhetoric alone creates many boundaries, and theholistic picture emerges with the introduction of visual elements.[5] According to Sonja Foss, scholars ofvisual rhetoric analyze photographs, drawings, paintings, graphs and tables, interior design and architecture,sculpture, Internet images, and film.[5] From a rhetorical perspective, the focus is on the contextual responserather than the aesthetic response.[5] An aesthetic response is a viewer's direct perception with the sensoryaspects of the visual, whereas with a rhetorical response, meaning is given to the visual.[5] Suddenly, everypart of the artifact has significance in the message being conveyed; each line, each shading, each person hasa purpose.[6]

Areas of focus

Sonja Foss states that while studying visual objects, rhetorical scholars tend to have three areas of study:nature, function, or evaluation.[5] Nature encompasses the literal components of the artifact.[5] This is aprimary focus of visual rhetoric because to understand the function of an image, it is necessary tounderstand the substantive and stylistic nature of the artifact itself.[5] For Foss, function holds a somewhatliteral definition—it represents the function (or perhaps purpose) an image serves for an audience.[8] Theemotion an image aims to evoke is its function.[5] The evaluation of an artifact determines if the imageserves its function3. For example, if the nature of an image is dark and edgy, and the function of the imageis to instill fear in the audience, the evaluation would determine whether the audience was scared.[5]

Semiotics

As shown in the works of the Groupe µ,[9] visual rhetoric is closely related to the study of semiotics.Semiotic theory seeks to describe the rhetorical significance of sign­making. Visual rhetoric is a broaderstudy, covering all the visual ways humans try to communicate, outside academic policing.[3]

Roland Barthes, in his essay "The Rhetoric of the Image"[10] also examines the semiotic nature of images,and the ways that images function to communicate specific messages.

Art history

Visual tropes and tropic thinking are a part of visual rhetoric (the art of visual persuasion and visualcommunication using visual images). The study includes, but is not limited to, the various ways in which itcan be applied throughout visual art history.

Science

10/30/2015 Visual rhetoric ­ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_rhetoric 3/5

Although visual rhetoric is more commonly linked with areas such as marketing, advertising, and art, itpervades in every medium in culture­ even science. Critic, Nathan Stormer, offers such an analysis of visualrhetoric surrounding images of reproduction, using The Miracle of Life [11] as his scientific artifact.Although producer Lennart Nilson, rejects any responsibility for establishing “apparent truths” saying “I amnot the man who shall decide when human life started. I am a reporter. I am a photographer”, Stormerargues that the portrayal of the reproductive journey found its way into political definitions of “life”exemplifying American people’s reliance on biology and science to understand all unknown humanprocesses. Stormer argues that the film is deeply problematic because its effect “deems the creation ofhuman life a value that supersedes cultural and individual considerations and that centralizes life’s worth inreproductive structures and practices.” [12] Nilson’s inspired images of the fetus became a central part ofpro­life visual claims that life is real after conception. Stormer argues that his portrayal of the virtual bodyserves as the foundation for medical discourse about life versus death and supports a vision of the“normalized”, gendered, heterosexual individual for the public to consume as scientific truth. [13] He callsupon specific examples in the film such as the visual power given to sex hormones that appear to dominatethe cycle of reproduction and create a gendered narrative. The sperm are “proactive agents” who “makerational decisions based on the economy and politics of the woman’s reproductive system” while the egg“waits” and then “nurtures”. [14] Stormer critiques the reproduction cycle as primal, based on gender, andbeyond our control in the exterior world as well. He urges consumers of visual rhetoric, even if it appears tobe absolute truth, to be aware of its construction as purposeful, bias, and reflective of culture. “Whenconsidering definitions of life and our bodily rights in terms of sexual practices, we should questionestablished truths carefully because rhetoric such as Nilson's is often unwittingly accorded the status ofabsolute truth.” [15]

Composition

Main article: Visual rhetoric and composition

The field of composition studies has recently (re)turned its attention to visual rhetoric. In an increasinglyvisual society, proponents of visual rhetoric in composition classes suggest that an increased literacyrequires skill not only with writing but also with visual communication. This skill relates to anunderstanding of the mediated nature of all communication, and to an awareness of the act ofrepresentation.[16][17]

Classical rhetoric

The "canonical approach" to studying visual rhetoric relates visual concepts to the canons of Westernclassical rhetoric (Inventio, Dispositio, Elocutio, Memoria and Pronuntiatio). In the textbook DesigningVisual Language: Strategies for Professional Communicators,[18] its authors list six canons which guide therhetorical impact of a document: arrangement, emphasis, clarity, conciseness, tone and ethos. According toKostelnick and Roberts these canons can be defined as:

Arrangement – “the organization of visual elements so that readers can see their structure”Emphasis – making certain parts more prominent than others by changing its size, shape and color.Clarity – helps the reader to “decode the message, to understand it quickly and completely”Conciseness – “generating designs that are appropriately succinct to a particular situation”Tone – tone reveals the designer’s attitude towards the subject matter

10/30/2015 Visual rhetoric ­ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_rhetoric 4/5

Ethos – earning the trust of the person receiving the message.

These six visual cognates provide an extension of classical rhetoric that can be used as a starting point foranalyzing images rhetorically.[19]

Visual rhetoric of text

Visual rhetoric is usually used to denote non­textual artifacts, yet any mark on a surface—including text—can be seen as "visual." Consider the texts available at Project Gutenberg. These "plain vanilla" texts,lacking any visual connection to their original, published forms, nevertheless suggest important questionsabout visual rhetoric. Their bare­bones manner of presentation implies, for example, that the "wordsthemselves" are more important than the visual forms in which the words were originally presented. Giventhat such texts can easily be read by a speech synthesizer, they also suggest important questions about therelationship between writing and speech, or orality and literacy.

See also

Media influenceVisual cultureMedia theory of composition

References"Visual Rhetoric: Overview". Purdue Online Writing Lab. Retrieved 2013­10­21."Visual Rhetoric/Visual Literacy: Writing About Photography" (PDF). Duke University. Retrieved 2013­10­21.Kress, Gunther, and Theo van Leeuwen. Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. New York:Routledge, 1996.Hill, Charles, and Marguerite Helmers, eds. Defining Visual Rhetorics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, Publishers, 2004.Foss, Sonja. "Framing the Study of Visual Rhetoric: Toward a Transformation of Rhetorical Theory" (PDF).Retrieved 2013­10­21.Foss, Sonja. "Framing the Study of Visual Rhetoric: Toward a Transformation for Rhetorical Theory" (PDF).Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "10.2F21.2F13" defined multiple times with different content (see thehelp page).Foss, Sonja. "Framing the Study of Visual Rhetoric Toward a Transformation of Rhetorical Theory" (PDF).Retrieved 2013­10­21.Foss, Sonja. "Framing a Study of Visual Rhetoric: Toward a Transformation of Rhetorical Theory" (PDF).Retrieved 2013­10­21.Groupe µ. Traité du signe visuel. Pour une rhétorique de l'image. Paris: Le Seuil, 1992.Barthes, Roland. "The Rhetoric of the Image." Image, Music, Text. Ed. and trans. Stephen Heath. New York: Hilland Wang, 1977. 32­51.name= "Nilson1983"name="Stormer1997"name="Stormer1997"name="Stormer1997"name="Stormer1997"Hill, Charles. "Reading the Visual in College Writing Classes." Intertexts: Reading Pedagogy in College WritingClassrooms. Ed. Marguerite Helmers. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2003.

10/30/2015 Visual rhetoric ­ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_rhetoric 5/5

George, Diana. "From Analysis to Design: Visual Communication in the Teaching of Writing." CollegeComposition and Communication (2002).Kostelnick, Charles, and David D. Roberts, Designing Visual Language: Strategies for ProfessionalCommunicators. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1998.Willerton, Russell, “Visual Metonymy and Synecdoche: Rhetoric for Stage­Setting Images”. J. Technical Writingand Communication 35.1 (2005): 3­31.Handa, Carolyn, ed. Visual Rhetoric in a Digital World. New York: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2004.Rose, Gillian. Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to the Interpretation of Visual Materials. London: SAGEPublications, 2007.Stormer, N. (1997). Embodying Normal Miracles. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 83(2), 172­191. NationalCommunication Association.The Miracle of Life. Dir. Lennart Nilson. Time­Life Video. 1983

External links

visual rhetoric in social campaigns (http://www.visualrhetoric.nl/)viz.: Rhetoric, Visual Culture, Pedagogy (http://viz.dwrl.utexas.edu/)Semiotics for Beginners (http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/sem07.html)Pictorial Semiotics (http://www.arthist.lu.se/kultsem/sonesson/pict_sem_1.html)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Visual_rhetoric&oldid=639660936"

Categories: Communication studies Graphic design Rhetoric Semiotics Scientific modelingVisual arts theory

This page was last modified on 26 December 2014, at 06:24.Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution­ShareAlike License; additional terms mayapply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is aregistered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non­profit organization.