Share This Article:

The Pedagogy of Visual Discourse: An Analytical Approach to Teaching and Evaluating the Rhetorical Image

Abstract Full-Text HTML Download Download as PDF (Size:276KB) PP. 11-20
DOI: 10.4236/adr.2014.22003    3,394 Downloads   5,197 Views  

ABSTRACT

As the area of visual rhetoric develops and evolves, the approaches that critics take in evaluating images must be scrutinized for the overall exploration of the discipline. Incorporating areas of analytical criticism from rhetoric to aesthetics to design should be combined to create the best possible way of evaluating imagery. By expanding on the traditional analytical approach to rhetorical criticism, this paper explores how the additional understanding of aesthetic and design theory will help the critic to reach a fuller understanding of the image. The twelve major principles of design being line, shape and form, space, texture, value, color, repetition, variety, rhythm, balance, emphasis, and economy are combined to create the strategy of the visual aesthetic that works to compliment the existing rhetorical strategies. The more complete understanding of how visuals are created and how people interpret them will allow for a more complete development of the visual rhetorical approach to communication.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Cite this paper

Irwin, J. (2014) The Pedagogy of Visual Discourse: An Analytical Approach to Teaching and Evaluating the Rhetorical Image. Art and Design Review, 2, 11-20. doi: 10.4236/adr.2014.22003.

References

[1] Bernhardt, S. A. (1996). Visual Rhetoric. In T. Enos (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Rhetoric and Composition: Communication from Ancient Times to the Information Age (pp. 746-748). New York: Garland.
[2] Brown, J. C. (1983). Excellence and the Problem of Visual Literacy. Design for Art in Education, 85, 11-13.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07320973.1983.9937342
[3] Brummett, B. (1991). Rhetorical Dimensions of Popular Culture. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
[4] Fenner, D. E. W. (2003). Aesthetic Experience and Aesthetic Analysis. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 37, 40-53.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3527420
[5] Finnegan, C. A. (2003). Picturing Poverty: Print Culture and FSA Photographs. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.
[6] Foss, S. R. (1986). Ambiguity as Persuasion: The Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Communication Quarterly, 34, 326-340.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01463378609369643
[7] Foss, S. R. (1994). A Rhetorical Schema for the Evaluation of Visual Imagery. Communication Studies, 45, 213-224.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10510979409368425
[8] Foss, S. K., & Gill, A. (1987). Michel Foucault’s Theory of Rhetoric as Epistemic. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 51, 384-401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10570318709374280
[9] Fuller, P. (1984). Taste—You Can’t Opt out. Design, 423, 38-43.
[10] Haines, H. W. (1986). “What Kind of War?”: An Analysis of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 3, 1-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15295038609366626
[11] Jamison, K. H. (1992). Dirty Politics: Deception, Distraction, and Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
[12] Kanengieter, M. R. (1991). Message Formation from Architecture: A Rhetorical Analysis. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Oregon, 1990). Dissertation Abstracts International, 51, 3561A.
[13] Kostelnick, C. (2004). Melting-Pot Ideology, Modernist Aesthetics, and the Emergence of Graphical Conventions: The Statistical Atlases of the United States, 1874-1925. In C. A. Hill, & M. Helmers (Eds.), Defining Visual Rhetorics (pp. 215- 242). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[14] Kostelnick, C., & Hassett, M. (2003). Shaping Information: The Rhetoric of Visual Conventions. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois UP.
[15] Kress, G, & Van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. New York: Routledge.
[16] Langer, S. (1988). Mind: An Essay in Human Feeling (Abridged by G. Van Den Heuvel). London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
[17] Lauer, D. A., & Pentak, S. (2000). Design Basics (5th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace & Company.
[18] Lawson, B. (1980). How Designers Think. Westfield, NJ: Eastview Editions, Inc.
[19] Lucaiates, J. L., & Hariman, R. (2001). Visual Rhetoric, Photojournalism, and Democratic Public Culture. Rhetoric Review, 20, 37-42.
[20] Margolin, V. (Ed.) (1989). Design Discourse. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
[21] Moore, P., & Fitz, C. (1993). Using Gestalt Theory to Teach Document Design and Graphics. Technical Communication Qu- arterly, 2, 389-410. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10572259309364549
[22] Postman, N. (1985). Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. New York: Sifton/Pen- guin.
[23] Rosenfield, L. W. (1989). Central Park and the Celebration of Civic Virtue. In T. W. Benson (Ed.), American Rhetoric: Context and Criticism (pp. 221-266). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
[24] Twigg, R. (1992). Aestheticizing the Home: Textual Strategies of Taste, Self-Identity, and Bourgeois Hegemony in America’s “Gilded Age”. Text and Performance Quarterly, 12, 1-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10462939209359630
[25] Zarefsky, D. (1992). Spectator Politics and the Reversal of Public Argument. Communication Monographs, 59, 411-414.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637759209376283
[26] Zelanski, P., & Fisher, M. P. (1987). Shaping Space. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
[27] Zelanski, P., & Fisher, M. P. (1990). Color. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
[28] Zelanski, P., & Fisher, M. P. (1996). Design Principles and Problems. New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2018 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.