In Doug Eymans “Defining and Locating Digital Rhetoric”, visual rhetoric is described as a set of methods and theories that we can use within a digital rhetoric context. It draws on different fields and disciplines and uses rhetoric as the common foundation. However, just like everything else, there was a debate for the proper definition. To some, the term “visual” solely consisted of analyzing images. To others, it meant anything created by human hands such as a toaster or written document. This makes the study of visual rhetoric overlap with the study of design. The only thing that was agreed upon was that visual rhetoric requires observation.
The Gaze
Another way they defined visual rhetoric was by participating in the process of looking, “the gaze.” In this definition, psychological and cultural implications are involved. I found this interesting because psychological levels vary from person to person and not everyone has the same culture either. So either way, people are still forming their own conclusions.
Analyzing Connotative & Denotative
Eyman also refers to Roland Barthe who claims images function both connotatively and denotatively. To me that makes sense because connotative means how you view something and denotative means the literal meaning of what something is. What comes to my mind when hearing these terms is an art gallery. Although the whole gallery is categorized simply as art, no one looks at one painting the same. Everyone creates their own notion of what they see in the paint splatters. Most of the time, that is the artist’s goal anyway. They won’t have a meaning behind their painting, they let others determine their own interpretation.
Overall, I learned that how one person defines visual rhetoric will not be the same as how someone else defines it. It works both as a practice and a field of study. There are various methods to use depending on how one defines visual rhetoric. Although it is complex, it is still important as it is intertwined with digital rhetoric.
Leave a Reply