Points of Praxis

My Blog Reflects on Visual Rhetorical Theory and Disability Rhetoric and their Connections to Classical and Contemporary Rhetorical Theory

Preface:  I decided that I need to work on my writing stamina.  So, in addition to the weekly blogs on visual rhetoric as I've done all semester, I'm going to also start posting "practice responses" for "practice comprehensive exam questions" at least once a week.  I'm going to attempt to do as much as I can each week from memory but, of course, there will be times that I will have to consult my books and notes--hopefully, though, I will commit that material I've looked up to memory by typing it here.  I'm going to try each week to alternate between rhetorical history/theory, applied rhetorical theory, and visual rhetoric.

This week I'm starting with visual rhetoric (since it's been on the brain because of my Film as Rhetoric paper).  And, I'm going to pretend that my question is to address an issue or concern regarding visual rhetoric.  In my response, I will identify that concern, place it within an historical-theoretical framework, and then predict the significance of this issue in a broader context.  So, next week?  Something to do w/ two cannons of rhetoric or something like that...

Cool?  Okay... Runners to the starting line.  And, "Go!"

Theorists such as Anne Marie Stewart Barry in Visual Intelligence, Donis A. Dondis in A Primer of Visual Intelligence, and Rudolf Arnheim in Art and Visual Perception respectively address the means in which the human mind interprets images based such aspects of color, shape, subject positioning, lighting, and subject orientation (to name only a few).  As such, Barry's, Dondis's, and Arnheim's respective works focus more specifically on what is shown in within a tangible, physical image.  For instance, Arnheim addresses how the mind perceives the spatial distances between two identical dots in a square and Dondis discusses how viewers attribute motion to images of eagles presumably in flight. 

While significant in their own rights, Barry, Dondis, and Arnheim's works do not address the ways in which those factors that exist beyond the confines of the physical image, itself, contribute to the images' constructed meaning.  One could argue that Barry, Dondis, and Arnheim examine the semiotics of the image; to borrow Ferdinand de Saussure's classifications developed in his Course in General Linguistics, Barry, Dondis, and Arnheim focus on the ways in which the image, as the "signifier," stands for or represents the "thing" itself, or the "signified."  Barry, Dondis, and Arnheim primary concerns are with the ways in which viewers understand the "sign" as a whole unit of "Linguistic Value"--as Saussure refers to it.

However, rhetoricians are typically not concerned with just the "sign," itself, but also with the ways in which contexts shape discourses' constructed meanings.  Therefore, just as context or situation appears in the middle of the "communication triangle," influencing the sender, receiver, and message, images' constructed meanings are shaped by similarly by the contexts in which the images appear and the contexts in which viewers interpret the image.  As such, the language that appears with images or the languages used to describe or interpret images also shapes that very interpretation.  Roland Barthes discussed this relationship between images and language in his essay "The Rhetoric of the Image" in his book Image-Music-Text (1970).  Similarly, visual rhetorician W. J. T. Mitchell in Picture Theory (1995) is concerned with the ways in which language shapes images' meanings.   In this case, the "meaning" of the image goes beyond just the physical constraints of the image, itself.  As Roy A. Fox notes in the introduction of his book, Images in Language, Media, and Mind, "the most important kind of meaning is constructed from personal interactions with images; we use images, often mediated by language, to make sense of our world, and this activity resides at the core of thinking and literacy development."  Therefore, in the following paragraphs, I will, first, identify Barthes' theory of the "linguistic message" and Mitchell's theory of "image-text."  Within each discussion, I will address how language shapes images' interpretations and Mitchell's concerns to the limitation of language, or ekaphrasis, in regard to visual rhetoric.  Finally, I will conclude this discussion by addressing the importance of understanding this intrinsic relationship between images and language as it relates to our era of "new media."

An arduous relationship, for lack of a better word, between images and language seems to be one that wouldn't necessarily exist.  After all, textual discourse, itself, is a symbolic image that is associated with meaning; "texts" are just symbolic images strung together in forms that are recognizable to readers. Specifically, the English language uses an "alphabet" with graphemes, or symbols that represent different phonemes.  Similarly, the Chinese language uses logograms, or symbols that represent single words.  However, the relationship between pictorial images--images that are iconic or indexical, like photographs or drawings--and language is not quite as simplistic.  Are "texts" needed at all to the convey meaning of an image?  And, if so, how much "text"?  Or, can the image simply "speak for itself"?

Roland Barthes' structuralist essay "The Rhetoric of the Image" discusses how texts can either "anchor" or "relay" the messages conveyed in an image.  Specifically, texts that anchor an image's meaning tend to reaffirm what is shown in the image; inversely, texts that function to relay information add new, additional, or alternative meanings--meanings that would not have be conveyed simply by the image alone.  Barthes referred to this "message" of the text as the "linguistic message."  However, Barthes' "linguistic message" was restricted to those texts that appeared within or in conjunction with an image.  For instance, Barthes discussed the "linguistic message" of a label on a bottle of spaghetti sauce as within an advertisement for the sauce.  However, Barthes' essay did not address the "linguistic messages" that existed beyond the boundaries of the image--the texts that make up a larger context of the image.

Contemporary scholar W. J. T. Mitchell examines how those texts that belong to the context of the image shape interpretations.  In postmodern fashion, Mitchell argues that the relationship between images and texts are not arduous at all and argues that scholars should not attempt to compare the functions of images and texts within a context separately.  Instead, they function as an ensemble, each picking up where the other left off.  Therefore, Mitchell terms this cooperative relationship between images and texts as "image-text."  Mitchell argues that there is no way to divorce texts from the interpretation of images.  After all, as I noted earlier in my discussion of Fox, we use texts to understand what is shown in an image.  Cognition and perception are not mutually exclusive.  Therefore, visual rhetoricians must concern themselves with not simply the image as a "sign" but with the contexts in which those images appear.  Images and texts are only "forms" within a larger picture. 

For instance, images are intrinsically ambiguous and humans often attempt to use language to "fill in" those ambiguities.  Mitchell discusses how through ekaphrasis, we attempt to use language to completely describe or erase visual ambiguities within an image.  However, as Mitchell notes, humans desire to completely represent an image in language is a mission that is ultimately doomed.  Most individuals are all too familiar with the phrase, "A picture is worth a thousand words."  Mitchell's argument would perhaps increase these "thousand words" by several thousand more.  While Mitchell looks at the art work of William Blake as it is represented (or inadequately represented) in his poetry, Mitchell's essay works well within this discussion of the relationship between images and language since Mitchell is concerned with this interconnected relationship between images and texts.  When trying to describe an image completely in text, one will always come up short--just as Blake could never completely describe his art in his poetry.  Similarly, when trying to capture a text completely in an image, one will always fail--just as filmmakers are often criticized for "cutting so much of the book out."

However, Mitchell (and even Barthes) isn't succeeding the failure of the image or text to convey meaning.  Rather, Mitchell's essay illustrates the multi-modalities rhetoricians have at their disposal.   Similarly, scholars of visual rhetoric--and even the community at large--should be concerned with this intricate relationship between images and texts because of the privileges afforded each.  Specifically, as rhetoricians, I am often concerned with what is written, how a text is written, and to whom this text is written.   (I'm going to finish this paragraph later... Yes, there's something to be said for building endurance.  I'm really starting to see that now.)

posted by: rgregory at 15:57 | link | comments |

Template by motime.com  |  header image credit: Markus Gann © www.begann.de