Visual rhetoric is similar to digital rhetoric but can work within it as well. A lot goes into it though, as it can seep into different studies like design or “the process of looking” as Hill and Helmers described it. The meaning of images is to make the audience feel something, or at least thats the rhetoric of images. That is the backbone of visual rhetoric.
Images are “‘symbolic artifacts’” as Linda Scott mentioned and I agree. Images are things that make up a culture or demographic. Like memes for instance, there are different kinds for all ages. Some people still may not know what a meme is but many do and there are memes catered to everyone. These memes or images represent a certain community or audience that can be visually percpeted by all.
I find it interesting that like digital rhetoric this can be something you practice or study. Learning about all these different forms of rhetoric is a bit boring (sorry) but it can be interesting. The fact that these things are constantly changing and “adapting” to the times allows it to be studied. Then you practice it? lol that’s my guess.
Visual Rhetoric Analysis
When you first saw the image at the start of this what did you think? What did you feel? When I look at the picture as a whole it reminds me of overconsumption, advertisement, etc. Times Square is just a whole bunch of ads that you can’t X out of because the dot is so small. It’s incredibly cluttered, with people and materials, that hold no real meaning.
The entire rhetoric of Times Square is to get consumers to pay for something. Whether it’s a musical, a comedy show, propoganda, food, technology, etc. It’s meant to shove media down everyone’s throat. Instead they don’t have to tell you by word of mouth or even write it. They can simply put up big, colorful pictures and it works.
Leave a Reply