Visual Rhetoric
I concur with Doug Eyman in regards to his section on Visual Rhetoric. This concept is most certainly intertwined with digital rhetoric while simultaneously having its own set of practices and fields of study. Much like digital rhetoric and digital literacy, visual rhetoric is what I have referred to the aforementioned systems as an “umbrella” system. Eyman mentions great difficulty defining the term, quoting Charles Hill and Marguerite Helmers. “To some, studying the ‘visual’ seemed to consist solely of analyzing representational images, while to others, it could include the study of the visual aspect of pretty much anything created by human hands— a building, a toaster, a written document, an article of clothing” (ix). Similarly, digital rhetoric is directly related to the use of technological persuasion to some. To others, it simply means using non-analog methods to communicate.
Visual rhetoric, from my standpoint, is an umbrella within an umbrella. Much of what goes into digital rhetoric relies on sight; small things that gear viewers to see and eventually watch, read or listen. Yet, visual rhetoric stands on its own as well, as its own form of rhetoric. This is the alternative definition Hill and Helmers describes – the broader human-made aspect. Almost anything created by humans has an aspect at which audiences look. For the visually impaired, the art is described in great detail otherwise; Braille text, audio description, etc. Humans have used images as rhetoric for a long time. Political propaganda art is a major example. In the modern world, folks use memes, screenshots and other such visual media to convey messages. Perhaps here is where we can apply digital literacy to visual knowledge.
Visual… Literacy?
For the longest time, I have seen so many T-shirts, blankets and flags of a particular driver’s license card. And for the longest time, I had no idea what it was, what it meant, or who the kid in the picture was. Upon learning about the film Superbad (2007), I discovered the context. The kid in the ID is Christopher Mintz-Plasse’s character Fogell, or “McLovin.” In this sense, I did not have the “visual literacy” with which I would be able to identify the reference. I have never seen the film, yet this driver’s license was everywhere. Because the film is, of course, a form of media, I can safely say I also lacked the digital literacy required to understand the reference. Upon further research, I found that McLovin’s fake ID is a symbol for both “teenage audacity” and “ill-conceived plans” (Deekshith Marla, Arya.ai).
“Hearing” Images
A form of digital literacy that I have obtained is “meme literacy” (in some cases at least). A meme template that stands out to me is the caption “Teacher: You can’t hear images. The image:” followed by an image related to a specific reference only given audiences will understand. In order to understand the meme, one must be familiar with the reference provided. Visual rhetoric does not only coincide with digital rhetoric, but it also stands as its own form of rhetoric, with a foundational set of literacies required to understand it. Eyman provides a fascinating look into the concept. He draws on other researchers’ studies to conclude that this is a necessary element of digital rhetoric.
Leave a Reply