Blog #4

After reading Birdsel and Groarke's text I have come to the realization that it is an argument within itself. The writer never tries to discredit the fact that a written argument is inferior to visual argument but the fact that both will have the same impact on the reader. I feel that their purpose here is to better explain how when a visual argument is presented correctly it will have the same and if not more of an effect on the reader. A great example of this from the reading is figure 2 from the reading. The picture depicts an artist painting what he sees in front of him in his own abstract way. Although the picture does not go deep into details, the painter does focus on a few key parts in order to get his argument across. “Someone who does not see his cartoon as an answer to criticisms of Soviet communism has radically misunderstood the point.”(4) I feel that in order to fully understand a visual argument you must be able to understand where the artist is coming from and usually some sort of text is needed for that.

Two terms that I can relate to the immediate visual context, verbal context, and visual culture are signs and symbols. Signs and symbols are used together for a means to communicate. Visual context is very similar to symbols in my opinion for the fact that a symbol represents something else by virtue of relationship and visual context is a series of frames to depict a scene. Symbols and signs also compare to visual culture for the same reasoning but just like an Icon, its meaning can change over time. Sometimes a sign and symbol could not be enough to explain an argument, so we add verbal context. Just like in figure 1 of reading, the picture alone would not explain the message of the picture so text was added to it.

Work Cited

Birdsell, David and Groarke, Leo. Argument and Advocacy; Summer 1996; 33, 1-10; Research Library