After reading the Digital Rhetoric Visual Rhetoric section, I gained an understanding of what visual rhetoric means. But the connections between visual and digital rhetoric somewhat makes sense to me. Digital would be something that could be on the screen, and with that visuals could also be on the screen. However it could also be its own thing that doesn’t have to only be displayed on a screen. ” Considerations of visual rhetoric also extend beyond the screen”. How I am taking that is when we refer to visuals it could be anything. The sight of nature being one of them., sight of copies of a picture, and or the sight of a physical object.
Visual rhetoric isn’t just tied to digital spaces. It’s everywhere. A billboard, a painting, even the design of a sneaker—all of that falls under visual rhetoric because they communicate something through visuals. But what makes digital rhetoric different is how it layers multiple forms of communication together. It’s not just about what something looks like; it’s about how it’s presented in a digital space and how people engage with it.
The biggest difference between the. Two being that “visual rhetoric’s methods address only one aspect of digital rhetoric analysis and production.” Although there’s similarities the differences are complex. That quote opens up my mind that visuals only look into one aspect while digital looks at production. The production can contain multiple different factors. Because of all the complexities that can go on with digital rhetoric.
Leave a Reply