Visual rhetoric has three interpretations. After reading the specific portion in Douglas Eyman’s “Digital Rhetoric: Theory, Method and Practice”, it was clear. This rhetoric is not only something physical. It is also able to communicate something. It is deeper than that. When looking at something physically, you see it for what it is. Yet, visual rhetoric digs deeper into what the piece actually means. Take abstract art for example. It can look like absolutely nothing when you first gaze over to it. After some time staring at it, you can pick apart what the artist was trying to create with their piece. The even greater part of it, is that even if you view it as one thing, another person can view it as something completely different.
Both rhetorics work together in numerous ways, but the difference is the production and analysis. An example of visual rhetoric used in the reading was the evolution of the infinity symbol. It spoke about how it was first a ribbon, then became a puzzle piece, than was finally an enclosed infinity symbol. It also explains that this is the type of visual rhetoric analysis that can be done by doing simple research. Many get digital and visual rhetoric confused, as they do work alongside each other, but they aren’t the same.
In my opinion, when thinking about digital rhetoric, I would think more about things that are manipulative in order to think about a difference. Visual rhetoric, I would think more towards things that catch my gaze, like art or posters. Something that you have to pick apart in order to truly capture the meaning of what is in front of you. It is important to understand the difference between the two, as though they can work together, they can also stand alone.
Leave a Reply