The definition of Visual Rhetoric is complex. Visual Rhetoric is a part of Digital Rhetoric, the two similar and overlapping. Though, based on Eyman’s reading and the quotes he provides (he really does quote everyone under the sun) there are many definitions and discussions on what the difference actually is. Even I was confused and lost while reading this portion of the article. But, from what I can understand, visual rhetoric can involve analyzing images or the visual aspect of anything handmade. A few examples being clothes and buildings. Though, with the second part in mind, it can overlap with the study of design. What the two do involves is partaking in different fields and disciplines. Along with this, both use rhetoric as the basic foundation.
The Gaze and its meaning
Another definition for Visual Rhetoric that is believed by others is the process of “looking”, focusing on what it called “the gaze”. With this definition, psychological and cultural implications are now woven in. I find this interesting since the psychological and cultural viewpoint will completely vary from one specific group compared to another. And further in that group, each person would still have their own slightly different viewpoint.
Roland Barthes
Eyman mentions Roland Barthes and their work as examining the deeper meaning in an image and where it is. Though this work involves aspects of ideology.
Definition is still unclear to me
In the end, the article goes on to mention that Visual Rhetoric works both as a practice and a field of study. What one person defines Visual Rhetoric as and the specifics of it may not be the same as how another person defines it. And even further in the various discussion is different methods on how to go about it. Which depends on a person’s definition. Since one might differ from the other, it makes sense that not every approach will be the same. It is indeed all a complex topic, but important as it is still deeply involved in Digital Rhetoric.
Leave a Reply