the rhetoric, possibility, and actuality of visual arguments

reviewing J. Anthony Blair

prepared by dr. bonnie lenore kyburz

Visual Rhetoric

​

note: all quotes are from "The Rhetoric of Visual Arguments." citations omitted to enable clearer reading (see link at blog for pages)

"The Rhetoric of Visual Arguments"

Blair sees key move is to "address relationships between rhetoric, argument, and the visual," and asks:

​

1.) "How can there be visual arguments when arguments as we usually know them are verbal?

​

2.) And if there can be visual arguments, what is their rhetorical aspect?"

​

note: what kind of rhetoric is at work in the image, above? do you see an argument? can you guess at the nature of the image's persuasive meaning? HOW? what tools are you using to do this guesswork?

​

​

persuasion ...

​

​

1.) "Because arguments are supposed to be tools of persuasion and rhetoric is often thought of as including (but not exhausted by) the study and use of the instruments of persuasion, I begin by exploring the relationships among rhetoric, argument and persuasion."

​

2.) Blair is asserting quite a lot, here. Arguments as "tools of" persuasion and rhetoric (as though they are one and the same) seems problematic. Why? Maybe this view can be liberating, instead -- arguments as subsets of the larger phenomenon of rhetoric, of persuasion.

​

re #2: Guess which version i prefer?

​

rhetoric & argument ...

• since antiquity, linked to the verbal ... via Aristotle. Persuasion via demonstration via the enthymeme (at least one initial premise is left out, sort of an invitation to the audience ... non-condescending, room for ambiguity ...)
• because of the emphasis on audience, the enthymeme is thought to give way to argument, as the audience is moved to respond to the premise in some particular way. (rhetoric is the skillful, artful ability to shape the argument and so to move or persuade -- this is me, dr. kyburz)
• emphasis on the verbal, speech, ... the orator. (the verbal as the rhetorical mode for rendering the argument through which an audience is persuaded. you can see the the terms are not interchangeable but so very closely related -- this confuses many in these conversations. i see Blair as attempting to shape a particular set of terms and definitions so as to render clear the complexity of visual rhetoric)

​

so: what do you think? is it only possible to argue via speech? can one be persuaded absent argument as conceived by tradition? what are the problems of this "free wheeling" approach? what is productive in this conception?

​

rhetoric & persuasion II

• late 20th C. Olivier Reboul tried to limit rhetoric "to the use of language to persuade" by way of speech (only). speech essential to rhetoric, even though there exist non-argumentative aspects of speech [oh?], says Blair.

​

• Foss, Foss, and Trapp later sought to

"define rhetoric broadly as the uniquely human ability to use

symbols to communicate with one another," even something like

"an artist presenting an image on canvas"-in other words, visual rhetoric.

• But as Blair points out, they went on to nod to tradition: "We believe that the paradigm case of rhetoric is the use of the spoken word to persuade an audience."

doh!! so close!!

"to see how there can be visual arguments"

​

​

​

• so Blair wants to discover "a rhetoric of the visual." So, (rhetorical) skills suited to making arguments in the context of the visual and capable of moving an audience (persuasion).

​

• drop the connection to speech (Reboul) and let's just think logically -- we know images move us (attitudes, beliefs, actions). so, how? in other words, what are the tools of argument in the context of the visual? and how can we know that it is the use of these tools in this way that moves or persuades?

persuasion & causality

• Blair teases out that if we are to call a rhetorical move "persuasive," we must be able to identify a causal connection between a strategy and an effect. Given the wide range of affects emerging from image encounters, it's complicated to know the precise nature of the rhetoric, of the strategy used skillfully, artfully, to generate that affect in the audience.

​

• Blair asserts that in order to know that the affect emerged from a specific rhetorical move made in the composing/design process, we must be able to know that the audience member sort of agreed to be so moved. That is, there must be a conscientious assent. But here, we must contend with the unconscious, for we cannot always know the many factors shaping our response (even assent). However, we can analyze using our awareness of some common rhetorical moves we have sensitized ourselves to. Right?

​

• Thus, We can certainly argue for the persuasive or moving value of a certain rhetorical move or combination of moves (say, design principles that imply or assert relationships among elements in a visual). And this ... is what The Usual Suspects project is about.