The single thing I want to touch on in this blog entry is the reading from Birdsell and Groarke. I definitely did not find myself totally immersed in the reading, anxious to flip to the next page, but I did enjoy the argument that was being laid out. I immediately was in disagreement with David Flemming, the guy who says, "visual images cannot...be arguments".
His opinion seems foolish, especially after the authors lay out two visual images that surely state a point and pose an argument. The cigarette-smoking fish that is about to get "hooked" is without a doubt an image targeted at warning people that smoking is addictive. Another anti-smoking ad that came to mind—one that without a doubt proves an argument without any words having to be displayed—and it argues something a bit different than the fish. I am positive anyone can decipher the purpose and meaning of this ad:
This visual image is hilarious. To me, the image throws an abrupt statement in a smoker's face: you are what you smoke. Maybe a lame one-liner, but is that not what the visual image is arguing? A person that smokes for a long time better bet that their lungs are deteriorating—maybe not turning into literal cigarrettes—and are going to waste—or burning away, as the image communicates. I think Flemming is totally wrong; visual images CAN be arguments. Words can definitely express an argument, but I would argue that words are sometimes less instrumental than an image. Take this image for example:
It is likely that a caricature like this will carry the point across to just as many or more people than if a an opposing politician were to come right out and call Bush an ass.
I did not intend to waste blog time on this Flemming guy, but I couldn't help it. I agree with Birdsell and Groarke that visual images can in fact be arguments.
That is all.
From:Argumentation, Article. "Outlines of a Theory of Visual Argument.(Essay) - Argumentation and Advocacy | HighBeam Research - FREE Trial." Research - Articles - Journals | Find Research Fast at HighBeam Research. Web. 19 Jan. 2011.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment