CHAPTER FOURTEEN

Framing the Study of Visual Rhetoric:

As the chapters in Defining Vistlal Rhetorics suggest, recent workin rhetoric has
taken a pictorial turn. Three exigencies are prompting this move from exdu-
sive attention to discourse to the study of visual images and material objects as
rhetoric. One is the pervasiveness of the visual symbol and its impact on con-
temporary culture. Visual artifacts constitute a major part of the rhetorical en-
vironment, and to ignore them to focus only on verbal discourse means we
understand only a miniscule portion of the symbols that affect us daily.
The study of visual symbols from a rhetorical perspective also has grown
with the emerging recognition that such symbols provide access to a range of
human experience not always available through the study of discourse. As Jean
Y Audigier explains, human experiences that are spatially oriented, non-linear,
multidimensional, and dynamic often can be communicated only through vi-
sual imagery or other nondiscursive symbols. To understand and articulate such
experiences requires attention to these kinds of symbols, as Marguerite
Helrners and Charles Hill eloquently suggest in their analysis of the Thomas
Franklin photograph that has come to be known as Ground Zero Spirit.
For me, the most important reason for smdyingvisualrhetoric is to develop
rhetorical theory that is more comprehensiveand inclusive.Throughout rhet-
oric's long tradition, discursive constructs and theories have enjoyed ideologi-
cal hegemony, delimiting the territory of study to linguistic artifacts,
suggesting that visual symbols are insignificant or inferior, and largely ignor-
ing the impacts of the visual in our world. Because rhetorical theory has been
created almost exclusively from the study of discourse, rhetoricians largely
lack sophisticated understanding of the conventions through which meaning
is created in visual artifacts and the processes by which they influence viewers.
304 FOSS 14. FRAMING THESTUDY 305

AS studies of visual rhetoric generate rhetorical theory, then, they challenge presented to an audience for the purpose of communicating.Visual rhetoricis
and question the linguistic boundaries of our rhetorical theories and provide a symbolic action in that the relationship it designates between image and refer-
more holistic picture of symbol use. ent is arbitrary, in contrast to a sign, where a natural relationship exists be-
In response to the pervasiveness of visual rhetoric, access to multidimen- tween the sign and the object to which it is connected. Visual rhetoric also
sional human experiences, and a desire for comprehensiveness in rhetorical involves human action of some kind in that the creation of an image involves
theory, rhetorical scholars are analyzing photographs, drawings, paintings, the conscious decision to communicate as well as conscious choices about the
graphs and tables, interior design and architecture, sculpture, Internet images, strategies to employ in areas such as color, form, medium, and size. In its ad-
and film. The diversity that characterizes these efforts is exciting and energiz- dress to an audience, visual rhetoric is also communicative. Visual elements
ing, but it also can be bewildering, as Helrners and Hdl note in the beginning are arranged and modified by a rhetor not simply for the purpose of emo-
of their chapter, for those seeking to understand the role of visual elements in tional discharge but for communication with an audience, even if the creator
rhetorical theory. The studies in this book provide an opportunity to propose a is the sole audience for the image or object.
frame that might order (but not unnecessarily confme) the study of visual The chapters in this book represent the breadth of visual objects that now
rhetoric. They suggest that three major pillars create the frame within which are conceptualized as visual artlfacts appropriate for study as visual rhetoric.
the study of visual rhetoric currently is configured: (1) Definitions of visual Two-dimensionalimages are the subjects of the chapters by Helmers and Hill,
rhetoric; (2) Areas of focus in the study of visual rhetoric; and (3) Approaches to Finnegan, Helmers, andJanis L. Edwards, who study photographs, paintings,
the rhetorical study of visual artifacts.This is a frame, I will argue, that has the and cartoons. Three-dimensionalartifactsare analyzed in Greg Dickinson and
potential to transform rhetorical theory in sifl~cant ways. Casey Malone Maugh's chapter on the emboded space of a grocery store,
while moving images receive attention by J. Anthony Blair in his analysis of
DEFINITIONS television commercials and by David Blakesley in his study of film. That arti-
facts included under the rubric of visual rhetoric are equally broad in terms of
Bedderment concerningthe rhetorical study'of visual symbols can begin at
their functions also is highlighted in these chapters. Both aesthetic and utilitar-
the d e f ~ t i o n alevel,
l so that is perhaps a good place to start in my proposal of
ian @ages constitute visual rhetoric, with the utilitarian a more dominant em-
a frame that loosely organizes the indiscipline of visual rhetoric. The chapters
phasis; the aesthetic images studied by Helrners, in contrast to the explicitly
in this booksuggest that the term, visual rhetoric, has two meaningsin the dsci-
persuasive and utilitarian biographical candidate films analyzed by J. Cherie
pline of rhetoric. It is used to mean both a visual object or artifact and a per-
Strachan and Kathleen E. Kendall, the advertisingimages studied by Diane S.
spective on the study of visual data. In the first sense, visual rhetoric is a
Hope, the atlases explored by Charles Kostelnick, and the decorative home-
product individuals create as they use visual symbols for the purpose of com-
making texts examined by Andrea Kasten Tange exempw such work
municating. In the second,it is a perspective scholars apply that focuses on the Maureen Daly Goggin's chapter on needleworkas a semioticpractice com-
symbolic processes by which visual artifacts perform communication.
plicates and most thoroughly explores the definition of visual rhetoric as arti-
Visual Rhetoric as a Communicative Artifact fact. She notes that a focus on the materiality of semiotic practice challenges a
clear division of rhetoric into the image and the word because when images
Conceptualized as a communicativeartifact, visual rhetoric is the actual image and words appear together, written verbal rhetoric is visual rhetoric. She uses
or object rhetors generate when they use visual symbols for the purpose of the history of sampler making to demonstrate the ways in which the relation-
communicating. It is the tansble evidence or product of the creative act, such ship betyeen rhetoric of the word and rhetoric of the image is more fluid than
as a painting, an advertisement, a photograph, or a building and constitutes is typically theorized. She suggests that rhetoric of the visual might be a better
the data of study for rhetorical scholars interested in visual symbols. Viwl term to use thanvisualrhetoric to label meaning-making material practices and
rhetoric as artifact, then, is the purposive production or arrangement of colors, artifacts that engage in graphic representation.
forms, and other elements to communicate with an audience. As Cara A.
Finnegan suggests,it is aproduct that names a category of rhetorical discourse Visual Rhetoric as a Perspective
that relies on something other than words or text for the construction of its
meaning. Visual rhetoric refers not only to the visual object as a communicative artifact
Three characteristicsappear to define artifacts or products conceptualized but also to a perspective scholars take on visual imagery or visual data. In this
as visual rhetoric: They must be symbolic, involve human intervention,and be meaning of the term, visual rhetoric constitutes a theoretical perspective that
 14. FRAMING THE STUDY 3 07

involves the analysis of the symbolic or communicativeaspects of visual arti- analyses of visual data and the nature of the perspective they take on those
facts. It is a critical-analytical tool or a way of approaching and analyzing vi- data are developed as they focus on particular aspects of visual artifacts-areas
sual data that highlights the communicativedimensions of images or objects. of focus that then function to transform rhetorical theory.
Finnegan provides an excellent definition of this sense of the term when she
suggests that visual rhetoric is "a mode of inquiry, defined as a critical and theo- AREAS OF FOCUS
retical orientation that makes issues of yistlality relevant to rhetorical theory" (197).
A rhetoricalperspectiveon visual artifacts constitutes a particular way of viewing im- The chapters in this book suggest that rhetorical scholars tend to study visual
ages-a set of conceptual lenses through which visual symbols become knowable as objects with a focus on one of three areas-nature, function, or evaluation. In
communicative or rhetorical phenomena. this pillar of the framework for studies of visual rhetoric, nature deals with the
Key to a rhetorical perspective on visual artdacts is its focus on a rhetorical components, qualities, and characteristics of visual artifacts;ficnctionconcerns
response to an artifact rather than an aesthetic one. An aesthetic response con- the communicative effects of visual rhetoric on audiences; and evaluation is
sists of a viewer's direct perceptual encounter with the sensory aspects of the the process of assessing visual artifacts.
artifact. Experience of a work at an aesthetic level might mean enjoying its
color, sensing its form, or valuing its texture. There is no purpose governing Nature of the Artifact
the experience other than simply having the experience. In a rhetorical response,
in contrast, meaning is attributed to the artifact. Colors, lines, textures, and Essential to any study of visual rhetoricis explication of the distinguishingfea-
rhythms in an artifact provide a basis for the viewer to infer the existence of tures of the visual artifact itself. This area of focus is primary and is part of all
images, emotions, and ideas. Understanding these rhetorical responses to vi- studies of visual rhetoric because to explicate the function of or to evaluate
sual artifacts is the purpose of visual rhetoric as a perspective, exemplified in images or objects requires an understandingof the substantive and stylistic na-
Helmers's chapter on the fme arts. Her purpose is not to develop insights into ture of the artifacts being explored. Description of the nature of the visual
the aesthetic effects of paintings but to discover how they function rhetori- rhetoric involves attention to two primary components-presented elements
chy. A rhetorical response, she suggests, is a process of accrual in which past and suggested elements. Iden&cation of the presented elements of an arti-
experiences merge with the evidence of the canvas to construct a meaning. fact involves naming its major physical features, such as space, medium, and
Another major feature of the rhetorical perspective on visual symbols is a color. Identification of the suggested elements is a process of discovering the
particular conception of the audience for the artifacts studied. Visual rhetori- concepts, ideas, themes, and allusions that a viewer is likely to infer from the
cians are interested in the impact of visual symbols on lay viewers-viewers presented elements; for example, the ornate gold leafig found on Baroque
who do not have technical knowledge in areas such as design, art history, aes- buildings might suggest wealth, privilege, and power (Kanengieter 12-13).
thetics, or art education. Lay viewers' responses to visual artifactsare assumed Analysis of the presented and suggested elements engenders an understand-
to be constructedon the basis of viewers' own experiences and knowledge,de- ing of the primary communicative elements of an image and, consequently,
veloped from living and looking in the world. Hill's chapter illustrates such a of the meanings an image is likely to have for audiences.
focus on the ways in which visual symbols communicate to lay audiences.He An analysis focused onnature of the artifact is exemplifiedinthe chapter by
begins with the question of how images persuade and describes the psycho- Hope on gendered environments in advertising. She suggests that the creation
logical processes involved in viewing, including aspects such as visual percep- of gendered environments is a dominant strategy of image-based advertising.
tion and the effects of images on emotional reactions and analytical thought. She identifies the componentsof this rhetoric to suggest how advertisingover-
The processes he describes are not dependent on viewers' possession of art comes the resistance of environmentallyaware audiences to advertisingby ap-
protocols that privilege the art expert's knowledge of art conventions for at- propriating images of nature. Because of the presented elements of these ads
tributing meaning to images but are processes that are universal for all view- and their suggested links to femininity and masculinity, she concludes, they
ers. His chapter illustrates how visual rhetoric functions as a perspective to are able to construct a denial of connection between consumption and envi-
discover the nature of rhetorical responses to images by lay audiences. ronment.
As the authors of the chapters in this volume do, most scholars of visual Studies of yisual rhetoric with a focus on the nature of the visual symbol play
rhetoricemploy the term visual rhetoric in both senses in their studies. They an- a critical role in the expansion or transformation of discourse-based rhetorical
alyze visual data of some kind-visual artifacts, objects, or images-and theory by reconceptualizing the basic elements of rhetoric. Such studies en-
also use visual rhetoric as a perspective on their data. What they do in their courage rhetorical scholars to explore how traditional rhetorical elements can
 14. FRAMING THE STUDY 309

be translated into forms that apply to visual rhetoric-elements such as meta- window treatments, and diagrams of how to set a table, for example, not only
phor, argument, enthyrneme,ethos, evidence, narrative, and stasis.At the same gave directions on how to achieve the home the readers desired but also
time, these studies push rhetorical theory to deal with an entirely new set of vi- helped create the desire for a home and, consequently, a middle class.
sual constructs, such as color,space,texture, andvectoriality Arhetorical theory Studies such as these that have function as their focus have the capacity to
once restricted to linear linguistic symbols thus explodes into one characterized transform rhetorical theory in that they encourage a conceptualization of a
by multidimensionality, dynamism, and complexity as visual units of meaning broader array of functions for symbols.Although discursive rhetoric can serve
are taken into account in rhetorical theory an infmite number of functions, the functions explored in rhetorical theory
tend to be persuasive functions, with symbols designed to change audience
Function of the Artifact members in particular ways. Such a singular functionis much more difficult to
attribute to many visual symbols given their greater ambiguity over verbal dis-
A second focus for scholars who adopt a rhetorical perspective on visual sym- course. Exactly what the message is of an artifact is often open to myriad inter-
bols is the function or functions the visual rhetoric serves for an audience. The pretations, limiting its persuasive potential but expanding its potential to
function of a visual artifact is the action it communicates (Foss). Functions of communicate functions that may be less dominating and more invitational
visual artifacts, for example, might range from memorializing individuals to (Foss and Griffin), more eclectic, and more fragmented. Study of the visual,
creating feelings of warmth and coziness to encouraging viewers to explore then, may help move rhetorical theory away from a focus on changing others
self-imposedlunitations.Functionisnot synonymouswith purpose, whichin- to attention to a much broader array of functions for symbols and thus to a
volves an effect that is intended or desired by the creator of the image or ob- greater understandingof the infmitely varied actions that symbols can and do
ject. Scholarswho adopt a rhetorical perspective on visual artifacts do not see perform for audiences.
the creator's intentions as determining the correct interpretation of a work.
Not only may the scholar not have access to evidence about the intentions of Evaluation of the Artifact
the creators of artifacts,but a privileging of creators' interpretations over the
interpretationsof viewers closes off possibilities for new ways of experiencing A third area in which scholars focus as they analyze visual rhetoric is evalua-
the artifact. Once an artifact is created, these scholars believe, it stands inde- tion or assessment. Some scholars choose to evaluate an arufact using the cri-
pendent of its creator's intention. terion of whether it accomplishes its apparent function. If an artifact
Edwards's chapter on the construction of cultural memory through im- functionsto memorialize someone,for example, such an evaluationwouldin-
ages illustrates a focus on function in the study of visual rhetoric. She notes volve discovery of whether its media, colors, forms, and content actually ac-
that one use of iconic images is their appropriation to new contexts, where complish that function. Other scholars choose to evaluate visual symbols by
they function to create analogies that recall past moments and suggest future scrutinizing the functions themselves that are performed by the symbols, re-
possibilities. Focusing her analysis on the photograph of John E Kennedy,Jr. flecting on their legitimacy or soundness determined largely by the implica-
saluting his father's funeral cortege, Edwards explores how it was used at the tions and consequences of those functions-perhaps, for example, whether
time of the deaths of Jackie Kennedy and the son, John Kennedy. She con- an artifact is congruent with a particular ethical system or whether it offers
cludes that the photograph connected the past and the present through its emancipatory potential.
symbolic twin expressions of outrage and regret. Strachan and Kendall's analysis of political candidates' convention films is
Two chapters analyze visual rhetoric for ideological functions that con- an example of a focus on evaluation in rhetorical studies of visual artifacts.
struct viewers' identities in particular ways. In Dickinson and Malone They are interested in understanding the nature of the biographical candidate
Maugh's analysis of the Wild Oats Marketplace, they seek to discover how films aired at political parties' conventions and analyze and evaluate the films
Wild Oats responds to the abstractions and discomforts of globalized of George W Bush and A1 Gore in the 1998presidential campaign for this pur-
postmodern consumer culture. They suggest that the store repackages the pose. The Gore film, they assert, failed to live up to the f d potential of its
possibilities of globalizationto convert individualswho normally would be re- genre because it did not address the audience's patriotic values and thus did
sistant to such culture into consumers comfortable with the wide range of not evoke strQng emotional reactions to the candidate. They evaluate the
goods available to them as a result of it. The analysis by Kaston Tange of the Bush film more positively as an artifact of the genre of the conventionfilm be-
images in Kctoxian books devoted to teaching home arts highlights a similar cause it celebrated values through emotional appeals and presented Bush as a
function. Books that contained floor plans, pictures of furniture, drawings of rugged individualist standing for America. Like other scholars who focus on
 14. FRAMING THESTUDY 311

function, Strachan and Kendall are interested in understandinghow the qual- rhetorical theory. Some scholars deductively apply rhetorical theories and
ity of the rhetorical environment is affected by various kinds of images and constructs to visual symbols to investigate questions about rhetoric and to
other visual artifacts. contribute to existing rhetorical theories generated from the study of dis-
A focus on evaluation, like those on nature and function, also has the poten. course. A second approach involves an inductive investigation of visual arti-
tial to transform rhetorical theory. In particular, such a focus encourages a facts designed to highlight features of the artifacts themselves as a means to
questioning of the traditional notion of effectiveness. Discourse at the inter- generate rhetorical theory that is expanded to include the visual.
personal or small-grouplevel typically is evaluated on the basis of whether an
audience has changed in the direction desired by the rhetor after exposure to Deductive Application of the Rhetorical to the Visual
the rhetorJsmessage. How such a criterion would be applied to visual rhetoric
that is non-representationaland perhaps ballling for audience members is un- Scholars who apply a rhetorical perspective to visual symbols deductively use
dear. certainly, standard rhetorical criteria for assessing the potential of mes- visual artifacts to illustrate, explain, or investigate rhetorical constructs and
sages to create change such as clarity of thesis, relevance of supporting theories formulated from the study of discourse. They begin with rhetorical
materials, vividness of metaphors, appropriatenessof organizationalpattern, constructs and theories and use them to guide them through the visual arti-
dynamism of style, and credibility of the rhetor are largely irrelevant. fact. Underlying this approach is the assumption that visual symbols possess
In the context of public discourse, an additional criterion for effectiveness largely the same characteristicsthat discursive symbols do. These studies pro-
often is added to the criterion of audience change-contribution to rational- duce a contributionto a rhetorical theory focused on verbal discourse and thus
ity From this perspective, rhetoric is supposed to contribute to rational debate one that tends to be unidirectional. The theory affects the understanding of
about issues in the public sphere, and visual rhetoric often isjudged to be lack- the artifact,but what is discovered in the artifact has less effect on the nature of
h g according to this criterion. Neil Postman, for example, argues that the vi- the theory in that analysis of the visual largely affirms the discursive features
sual epistemology of television "pollutes public communication" (28) and of the theory. Affirmation is not insipficant, however, because it suggests
contributes to a decline in "the seriousness, clarity and, above all, value of pub- which aspects of rhetorical theory apply to both the visual and the verbal, thus
lic discourse" (29). Similarly, David Zarefsky suggests that rhetorical forms marking areas of study where attention to the visual is likely to be less produc-
such as visual images "stand in for a more complex reality" (412), contributing tive because, in those areas, verbal and visual rhetoric are functioning simi-
to the deteriorationof "a rich and vibrant concept of argument, of public delib- larly.
eration" (414). Finnegan's chapter on photographs exemplifies the approach in which a
Visual rhetoric may not be used to persuade audiences in drections in- rhetorical theory or constnict generated from discourse is applied to visual
tended by a rhetor and may not be contributing to standard definitions of ra- data to generate insights into that rhetorical theory. She explores the place of
tional public communication, but its effectsare si@cant and certainly not rhetorical history in visual rhetoric and demonstrates how the rhetorical his-
alwaysnegative. The world produced by visual rhetoric is not always-or even torian might engage visual images. Her chapter models a rhetorical history of
often--dear, well organized, or rational, but is, instead, a world made up of the visualbased on her analysis of Farm Security Administration photography
human experiences that are messy, emotional, fragmented, silly, serious, and of sharecropperspublished in LoOKmagazine. As Finnegan's chapter demon-
disorganized. Such experiences are not often captured in rhetorical theory strates,the deductive, rhetoric-basedapproach offers ease of connection to ex-
that posits criteria for assessment that require that visual rhetoric be judged isting rhetorical theory. Because it begins with rhetorical theory and applies
negatively or ignored entirely Studies of visual rhetoric that focus on evalua- existing theory to visual data, theoretical connections are easily made be-
tion, then, expand rhetorical theory to include broader criteria for the evalua- tween the visual and the verbal in the development and elaborationof rhetori-
tion of rhetoric that more accurately capture and acknowledge the role of the cal theory
visual in our world.
Inductive Exploration of the Visual to Generate the Rhetorical
APPROACHES
A second approach to the study of visual rhetoric is the investigation of the
The chapters in this volume add a third pdlar of the heame of the current study features of visual images to generate rhetorical theory that takes into account
of visual rhetoric to definition and areas of focus in that they suggest how the distinct characteristics of the visual symbol. Scholars who pursue this
studies of visual images and objects approach their areas of focus to transform route begin with an exploration of visual artifacts and operate inductively,
 313
14. FRAMING THESTUDY

generating rhetorical theories that are articulate about visual symbols. An as- ment between visual artifact and theory. This framework is not simply a
sumption of scholars who proceed inductively from visual objects is that these framework for an understanding of visual rhetoric, however, but also for
visual objects are different in simcant ways from discursive symbols. 'They transforming discourse-basedrhetorical theory. As rhetorical theory opens up
focus on the particular qualities of visual rhetoric to develop explanations of to visual rhetoric, it opens up to possibilities for more relevant, inclusive, and
how visual symbols operate in an effort to develop rhetorical theory from vi- holistic views of contemporary symbol use.
sual symbols to insure that it takes into account the dimensions of visual
forms of rhetoric. WORKS CITED
Two chapters exempw the inductive approach to the study of visual rhet-
oric. Blair asks whether there can be visual argumentswhen arguments as we Audigier,Jean. Y. Connections. New York: Lanham, 1991.
usually know them are verbal. He articulates the two primary reasons offered Foss, Sonja K. 'kRhetorical Schema for the Evaluation of Visual Imagery." Communication
against the possibility of arguments as visual-that the visual is inescapably Studies 45 (1994): 213-224.
ambiguous and that arguments must have propositional content-and an- Foss, Sonja K-,and Cindy L. Griffm. "Beyond Persuasion: A Proposal for an Invitational
swers both objections. He concludes by offering a definition of visual argu- Rhetoric." Communication Monographs 62 (1995): 2-18.
Kanengieter, Marla R. "Message Fonnationfiom Architecture: A Rhetorical Analysis." Diss. U
ments that expands traditional definitions of argument and goes on to assert
of Oregon, 1990.
that the particular qualities of the visual image make visual arguments differ- Postman, Neil. Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. New
ent from verbal ones in that the visual has an immediacy, a verisimilitude, and York:iking penguin, 1985.
a concreteness that help influence acceptance in ways not available to the ver- Zarefsky, David. "Spectator Politics and the Revival of Public Argument." Communication
bal. He thus expands anunderstanding of argumentation rootedin the partic- Monographs 52 (1992): 411-414.
ularities of the visual.
David Blakesley's analysis of Hitchcock's film, Vertigo, is another example
of an approach that begins with a focus on characteristics of the visual. He
proposes four approachesto fdm rhetoric derived from the characteristics of
films-language, ideology, interpretation, and identification. Film identifi-
cation is the focus in his analysis, and he suggests that Hitchcock employs a
variety of visual techmques to focus attention on the psychological conse-
quences of the desire for identificationor identity. Because of its visual quali-
ties, he notes, film makes identification even more inviting than it might be
in a verbal text.
The inductive, artifact-based approach exemplified by Blair and Blakesley,
because it begins with the characteristics of artifacts and builds rhetorical the-
ory on the basis of those characteristics, offers the most opportunities for rhe-
torical expansion. It has the greatest potential to expand rhetorical theory
beyond the boundaries of discourse as it offers rhetorical qualities, character-
istics, and components for whlch current rhetorical theory cannot account.

CONCLUSION

The chapters in this volume represent the variety that exists in the analysis of
visual rhetoric and provide models for the study of the rhetorical workmgs of
visual artifacts. More important, however, these chapters lay out the primary
components of the current framework for such study--definition of visual
rhetoric as artifact or perspective; areas of focus as nature, function, or evalua-
tion; and methodological approaches as deductive or inductive in their move-