Visual Rhetoric, an Introduction

Understanding Visual Rhetoric in Digital Writing Environments
Author(s): Mary E. Hocks
Reviewed work(s):
Source: College Composition and Communication, Vol. 54, No. 4 (Jun., 2003), pp. 629-656
Published by: National Council of Teachers of English
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3594188 .

Hopefully this will take you to where you need to go:

http://www.jstor.org.proxybz.lib.montana.edu/stable/pdfplus/3594188.pdf?acceptTC=true

This is the abstract from the piece--
This essay illustrates key features of visual rhetoric as they operate in two professional academic hypertexts and student work designed for the World Wide Web. By looking at features like audience stance, transparency, and hybridity, writing teachers can teach visual rhetoric as a transformative process of design. Critiquing and producing writing in digital environments offers a welcome return to rhetorical principles and an impor- tant pedagogy of writing as design.

My Rhetorical Situation

I'm not certain if this constitutes a rhetorical situation, but I'll give it a try:

This past weekend I was diagnosed with Celiacs Disease (don't worry, it's not contagious; it's genetic) which prompts a change in my diet--the elimination of any wheat, rye, and barley products.  No bread, beer, pizza, pasta, cereal, ect...  Naturally, I have been resistant to the change because in case you hadn't noticed, that is a pretty tasty list of things that I am not supposed to eat for the rest of my life.  But my mother, the doctors, and the literature regarding the disease are all determined to get me to change my diet.

Exigence: my eating habits/health
Audience: Me--Brady J.
Constraints: Self interest, I enjoy eating those foods!  Societal constraints, eating gluten-free in our food-based society isn't easy!!

The only logos Romney has are on his shoes.

I cannot stand to listen to Mit Romney speak.  I do not mean to speak as Democrat, for I do not consider myself a Democrat.  I do not speak as an Obama supporter, because I consider myself an Obama supporter on principle.  Romney continually back-tracks, and contradicts himself.  He refuses to take a stand and always seems to hiding his plans.  Do I think that Obama did the best job he possibly could have in the past four years?  No, I do not.  But at least we can say for what Obama stands.  The same cannot be said of Romney and this annoys me to no end.

Almost everything that we find out about Romney's plans comes from Obama!  How does this make sense?  I cannot possibly be the only one who feels this frustration!  If Romney wins the election in November, I will sincerely lose faith in the American people.

A couple more notes on the debate:  Why didn't Obama and Romney just throw down the gloves and have a Battle Royall!  In this situation, each candidate calls the other a liar.  When will we, the American people, get the facts that we need to be able to make an informed vote?

I feel like a lot of questions were asked, and very few answers were given.

If a picture's worth a thousand words, I still barely made the word count.

Note to reader: This didn't transfer very well from Word, so I apologize in advance is any of the pictures aren't exactly where noted in the text (ie, if the picture "at right" is on the left)

Rhetorical Analysis

            During the 2012 Democratic National Convention (DNC), many speakers stepped up in support of the Democratic Party and millions of Americans tuned in to watch the action.  One of the most interesting things regarding these speeches is that the majority of people who watched the speeches were not in the audience at the convention.  Instead, they watched the action through their television or computer.  These mediums open up many rhetorical possibilities.  Assuming that the Democrats are in control of what is broadcasted (which I believe is a fair assumption), it is important to look at some of the images that were displayed along with the speeches that give the audiences at home a different view of the convention than the people sitting in the audience, namely: members of the audiences themselves.  While one of the pictures I will discuss is of a speaker, I want to focus on the fact that these photographs can stand alone as rhetorical units, and how they can be displayed during any speech, even outside of the convention to convey an idea.  In an attempt to keep things interesting, I will not weigh down this paper with filler, but will instead make several concise remarks about each photograph, emphasizing how each can stand alone and still maintain its rhetorical nature.

            The first picture I would like to analyze is shown on the right.  These two gentlemen are sitting above the rest of the crowd, reading the convention pamphlet.  The first thing that this picture brings to mind is a comment on Ethos.  However, instead of adding to the character of an individual speaker, it is a comment about the Democratic platform.  These men, reading the pamphlet, which is obviously marked with the red, white, and blue symbol of the Obama administration, shows just how widely the Democratic party is supported.  I think that this would reach out to other minorities, not just the Muslim or Indian communities, but it would also speak to  other communities such as Asians and African-Americans.  I believe this will happen because this picture shows that they will not be alone if they support the Democratic Party.  Something else that this photo contains is an enthymeme that says: “Voting for/electing the Democratic candidates will help create/ maintain good foreign policies.”  These men may have been United States citizens for their entire lives, yet they seem so ‘exotic’ (I hesitated when writing that word), or so far from the norm of an American citizen that one cannot help but connect the Democratic party with foreign countries.

            The next picture, to the left, shows woman sporting a hat emblazoned with the American flag and democratic glasses.  Similar to the picture above, another minority is displayed.  Here we get into the discussion of Topics and the excessively patriotic nature of the woman’s hat falls into the category of a “necessary good” (Aristotle 62).  While Aristotle doesn’t list patriotism as a necessary good, it is not too much of a leap to think that is should be considered in our list today, especially considering that virtue, happiness, honor, capacity for action, and justice are on the list, and all of these things are components of American patriotism.  This hat, with the pairing of the glasses gives the effect of a visual asyndeton, though instead of pairing words closely without conjunctions, we are getting two images.  In the eyes of the viewer, this will link the Democratic Party and platform closely with patriotism and the values thereof.  This leads to a discussion on Ethos.  When it comes to patriotism, it is easy to stir up emotions.  “The land of the free and the home of the brave” is more than just a motto to some people; this images taps into all of the emotions associated with patriotism: the pride of nationalism and what it means to be American, the happiness that we are allowed personal freedoms that allow us to have happiness.  This list could continue ad infinitum but the point is clear: playing the patriotism card is a sure way to pull at the public’s heart-strings.    

            This next picture is slightly different from the other two because it is actually a picture of a speaker, but I thought this most interesting because this image was continually appearing during my search.  The most important thing here is body language, and not the language itself.  The picture below is another example of someone who is, arguably, one of the greatest speakers in the past couple hundred years.  Perhaps there is something in the universal subconscious which drives humans to relate, or be driven by this demonstration of power, I know not what exactly to call this display, only that is has been demonstrated to be effective and has obviously been repeated throughout history.  By having this picture be so prevalent among campaign images, I think it attempts to add a sense of Pathos to the Party’s stance by showing just how strong the Party really is by tapping into the part of the brain that recognizes this stance as dominant.

            Without any reference to what is going on at the convention, it is apparent that these images can stand alone to help the Democrats convey their message that Obama is the proper choice for the presidency this year.  However, it is important to note that these images were not shown by themselves.  They were accompanied by speeches and by speakers of incredible celebrity.  I think the point here that I find most important is that rhetoric is not simply contained to speech and words.  In the twenty-first century, we have moved beyond that (if that was ever solely the case).  With the advent of mediums such as television and the internet for viewing speeches, the ability to manipulate the images shown can have great rhetorical consequences.  The first two images could have been shown during any or all of the speeches to help persuade the public to vote for the Democrats this November.  Rhetoric is all around us; and it is more than just words.

 

 

 

Works Cited

 

Aristotle. On Rhetoric. Trans. George A Kennedy. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Print.

"That's not my plan, That's not my plan, That's not my plan"

Being fortunate enough to not watch the debate until today, Thursday, I was able to hear various responses to the results of the debate via facebook, word of mouth, ect.  From what I heard, it was a Romney domination, and from hearing that and then watching the debate, I think both candidates need to add more funding to education.  I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican, but this debate made me want to side with Obama.  Romney's refusal to name any specifics of his plans has become so frustrating that I can't quite find the words to describe it at the moment.  I'm just going to jump into my rhetorical reflection with a little discussion about logos (or lack thereof).

Romney:
My favorite piece of wisdom that came out of Romney's mouth during this debate came in two different sentences that were some space apart.  The first was "I like coal."  The second: "I like green energy."  Pick a side, buddy.  Clean coal is a myth, in order to filter coal exhaust to the point of it being "clean" is not financially viable.  Another dandy of his was: "You can't have a free-market without regulation."  Anyone else see the paradox here?  Things like these run so rampant through all of Romney's platform that I could barely stand it.  An intelligent listener will pick up on these things and the rest of the speech will come across less convincing.

Obama:
While Obama's speech wasn't nearly as rife with logical inaccuracies as Romney's but to be fair, I will make my argument for this side as well.  While there may have been more, the one I noticed from the Commander and Chief was in the sentence: "Let's hire more math and science teacher so we can maintain our technological lead."  The key here is 'maintain.'  The US is currently ranked number 17 in the world for scientific education, that doesn't sound anything like a lead to me.

An interesting point that I thought Obama made was humanizing himself with the comment about his anniversary at the very beginning.  It has nothing to do with the election/debate yet it brings up, perhaps as a way to reach out and show that he is "like everyone else."  I'm not sure what I would call that in rhetorical terms, but it seemed interesting.

Next is the topic of topics.  As we have noted in class, and Obama noted, and the commentator of the debate noted: Romney's plans lack specifics.  Every single one of them.  I had never really seen this first hand until I watched the debate and it is ridiculous.  Romney appeals to general topics, topics of happiness.  He highlights things that would make the most people happy, and I agree that if he could do all the things he says he would like to do (generally) then a lot of people would be happy.  Creating jobs, decreasing the deficit, reforming health care would make people happy, but Romney refuses to let anyone in on his plans and then become exceeding upset because everyone has his plans wrong.  "Economists can't say that my tax cuts will cost 5 trillion dollars."  You're right Mitt, but not because it's not true, but because absolutely no one knows what your plans are.  Obama on the other hand starts out his first reply to Romney's statement with the words: "let me talk specifically about what we need to do." He then proceeds to walk through the steps of his plans (which I can't really name because I had lost a considerable amount of interest by the point they were talking specifics).  Either way, the point of addressing specifics seems to be a very powerful move the Obama's platform, and will help him gain the trust of the audience.

The final point I would like to address is that both speakers make appeals to the Clinton administration.  By attributing parts of their platforms to the Clinton administration, their party becomes more credible by resting on the success of president Clinton.  Just interesting to not that both candidates make the appeal.

My Bouquet

Acryon-- The use of the word repugnant or contrary to what is meant.

"Never could I have hoped for such great woe" Aeneid 4.419

I don't have much to say about this one, just thought it looked cool!




Bdelygmia--  Expressing hatred and abhorrence of a person, word, or deed.

 "I do hate a proud man, as I do hate the
engend'ring of toads." Troilus and Cressida 2.3.158-159

I picked this word because of the delightful consonant clusters.  This seems particularly prevalent in these elections because the political ads seem to express hatred towards the other party and candidates instead of promoting their own platforms.

Diazeugma-- The figure by which a single subject governs several verbs or verbal constructions (usually arranged in parallel fashion and expressing a similar idea); the opposite of zeugma.

"The Romans destroyed Numantia, razed Carthage, obliterated Corinth, overthrew Fregellae." —Ad Herennium

Obama promotes universal health care, support educational equality, and protect the working class.


Pysma--  The asking of multiple question successively (which would together require a complex reply).  A rhetorical use of a question.

This reminded me of the Romney/Ryan tax programs where multiple questions can be asked, but they can't quite seem to give any answers.