Berger

Ashton Brasher

Reading Response: Berger

                When reading through John Berger’s writing, I was struck with a realization that each author in discussion of visual rhetoric tends to define images in very explicit, precise ways. Berger describes them as “a sigh which has been recreated or reproduced. It is an appearance, or a set of appearances, which has been detached from the place and time in which it first made its appearance and preserved—for a few moments or for a few centuries.” This raises a significant fact about images and their enduring strength. In terms of modern technology, this made me think of the difference between a Snapchat and a Facebook profile picture. A Snapchat is a briefly held photograph, meant to demonstrate for others a concise visual explanation of our activities or whereabouts. A Facebook profile picture, however, is the face that many in the year 2014 associate with us as people. Images, though from similar categories, can serve entirely different purposes and I think Berger’s definition illuminates that important fact.

 

                I was also particularly struck by Berger’s words on the different ways we interpret meaning within a visual piece. I took an Art History class during my sophomore year and remember marveling at the sheer confidence in every person who volunteered an analysis of the presented piece of art. Many of the paintings and sculptures we viewed were created by artists, with whom historians have little familiarity, many centuries ago. Yet, a group of college students in an introductory class felt confident defining both the meaning and the intentions behind the piece of art. I began to realize over the course of the semester that the differences in interpretations among the students was not so much based on any historical, artistic, or methodological analysis but instead on their individual experiences. While one female might view a painting of a woman with her baby as positive, another might catch a glint of somberness in the subject’s face. It would seem those sorts of views are much more heavily based on personal circumstances than a true understanding of the subject. But then again, what’s the difference?

 

                It is also interesting to note how the reception of images into pop culture can fully modify or even erase their original meaning, as displayed through Berger’s use of the Mona Lisa on the white t-shirt. This also brings him to a discussion of how replication can modify meaning. So much as even cropping an image can entirely alter our perception—a significant fact to note that will likely carry much weight as we continue in our discussion of visual rhetoric.

Reading Response 1/21/14

Ashton Brasher

Reading Response: Hill

            In his chapter, “The Psychology of Rhetorical Images”, Charles Hill opens with some specific guiding concepts and questions. He first, in so many words, asks the reader to consider the definition of visual rhetoric, even throwing out some likely unconsidered examples such as landscapes and memorials. Next, he guides the conversation into a more psychological standpoint, asking “How do images persuade?” (26). Asking this question leads to a deeper analysis of how images work and how the human psyche responds to them, and what bearing an emotional response possesses over our attitudes, beliefs, and most importantly, actions. Hill asserts that the belief that images serve only or primarily to evoke an emotional response has left them widely neglected in the field of rhetoric, as rhetorical studies often dictate avoiding the emotional in favor of the logical for the sake of rhetorical purity.

Hill challenges this notion by explaining why images are so crucial to the understanding of persuasion. He states, “…now that simple binary distinctions such as ‘emotional vs. rational’ have been problematized in the theoretical literature and demonstrated as invalid by much of the empirical research into cognitive and neurological processes has it become acceptable to treat rhetorical images as objects worth of serious study without feeling the need to deny their largely emotional nature” (27). However, with this in mind, Hill presents some challenges to visual persuasion and the difficulty of reaching individuals on an emotional level. Some of the barriers he presents include outside influences, prior-held beliefs, undeveloped analytical skills, etc.

Hill then discusses rhetorical presence in terms of visuals. When explaining the concept of presence in verbal rhetoric, he sates “the phenomenon of presence is often linked with visual perception” (Hill 29). This implies that visuals, whether physically present or mentally manifested, are crucial to the art of persuasion. He further indicates that visuals, especially photographs and videotape, are epistemologically the epitome of factual evidence, as they demonstrate that a condition is or was true at an exact point in time.

Hill then seeks to undermine the preconceived notions held about images vs. text, helping to blur the lines between what is often viewed as a stark binary. He cites psychological research proving that text and images can, interchangeably, elicit similar rational and emotional responses depending on their nature (for example, a bar graph vs. a descriptive poem). This knowledge allows for a discussion of vivid language and images and the persuasiveness achieved. Studies show that people are more likely to demonstrate an emotional response the more vivid or evocative the appeal. Finally, Hill delves into the true nature of advertising and visual persuasion with these key concepts in mind, discussing the idea that visual persuasion works best when it simply compels the viewer to carry out an action without really considering the motives. Hill describes images as “ubiquitous, powerful, and important” for this very reason as they have the power to compel viewers to action oftentimes with no real logical basis. This knowledge makes the study of visual rhetoric key so as to promote the responsible use of its power.