Read J. Anthony Blair on the question of whether visual arguments are possible. On your blog, write for twelve minutes (time yourself!): Can images do what words do? Why or why not?
Images are perfectly capable of doing what words do. One image could enforce the same point as a twenty page thesis, and have the same impact, if not a better one. The phrase "a picture is worth a thousand words" is heard commonly, and that is because, as said before, a single picture could prove the same point as a lecture or published paper. Blair argues that images are not as significant because they can be interpreted in multiple different ways. He says that a visual argument has to be clear and understandable. Does that mean that all images used in arguments are difficult to understand? A prime example would be during World War II, with the image of Rosie the Riveter. Women were needed in the factories while the men were at war, and the image of Rosie gave strength and self confidence to many women that thought they weren't able to contribute to the war. It may be true that a Picasso painting may not be used for a social argument, but there are images that are perfectly capable of delivering the right message to its viewers.
No comments:
Post a Comment