Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 12

Untitled http://spot.colorado.edu/~moriarts/vctheorysurvey.

html

Visual Communication Conference 9, Flagstaff AZ, 1995

VISUAL COMMUNICATION THEORY:

A SEARCH FOR ROOTS

The study of visual communication theory is a multi-disciplinary, multi-dimensional effort. People who write
on this topic come from mass communication, film and cinema studies, education, art, anthropology,
psychology, architecture, philosophy, linguistics, and semiotics, among other fields.

Although this brings a rich melange of viewpoints, which is an asset because of the insights that come from
cross-fertilization, it causes some problems academically for those who teach visual communication because
of the lack of any sense of common theory. This is not to suggest that there is or should be a central or core
theory that organizes the field, however, it would be easier to order a curriculum, as well as a graduate
program of study, if there were some notion of at least the important theories from the various disciplines that
need to be covered.

This paper reviews work accomplished as part of a project to identify the roots of visual communication
theory. It begins with a review of the literature from various disciplines and then reports the responses to an
open-ended survey that asked visual communication educators to comment on their views of the theories that
had been most useful to them in their intellectual development. The objective of the survey was to determine
first if there is any sense of fundamental theories and then identify the most important contributing
disciplines.

In addition, the study investigates two points of possible confusion in the theoretical development of the
field--1.) language as a metaphor for visual communication, and 2.) the meaning of the phrase "visual
aesthetics." The language metaphor is frequently used to help explain how visual communication operates,
however some scholars question whether language is an adequate model. This question simply sought to
determine some since of the usefulness of the language metaphor. The visual aesthetics question sought to
determine whether that term generally refers to an aesthetic or functional viewpoint.

Review

As an introduction to the complexities of visual communication theory, let's begin with a review of some of
the major pieces of work, the scholars working in this area, and the disciplines they represent.

But first, what are the sources? Important conferences includes the annual Visual Communication
Conference, a summer conference that focuses on visual communication but is unaffiliated with any
membership organization, the annual International Visual Literacy Association (IVLA) conference in the fall,
and the Visual Communication Division sessions at the Association for Education in Journalism and
Communication (AEJMC) conference in August. IVLA publishes its conference proceedings. The Speech
Communication Association (SCA) also has a visual communication division. Two recent international
conferences have been particularly stimulating including the IVLA international conference in Delphi Greece
in 1993 and the Nordic Visual Communication Conference in Oslo in 1994.

Articles are found in IVLA's Journal of Visual Literacy (previous name is Journal of Visual-Verbal
Languaging) and Visual Literacy Review newsletter, AEJMC's Journalism Quarterly and the Visual
Communication Division sponsored Visual Communication Quarterly which runs as an insert in the News
Photographer magazine. Two other publications include Visual Sociology and Visual Anthropology. Another
important publication which is now defunct was Studies in Visual Communication, which also included a

1 of 12 10/29/2010 2:25 PM
Untitled http://spot.colorado.edu/~moriarts/vctheorysurvey.html

strong focus on anthropology and cultural studies. Other publications that occasionally contain articles on
visual communication include Design Issues, Visible Language, J ournal of Consumer Research, Social
Research, Journal of Creative Behavior, Communication, and Communication Theory . Another interesting
development is that Kevin Barnhurst is trying to get a Visual Communication journal started either with the
support of Syracuse University and various publishers or as a merged publication (the viscomm sponsor would
be the Vis Com group of ICA--International Communication Association) with Visual Sociology (parent is
IVSA--International Visual Sociology Association).

Probably the most important book specifically focused on visual communication theory is Sol Worth's series
of essays which appeared in his landmark book, Studying Visual Communication. Another important work is
a book of readings called Visual Literacy edited by Moore and Dwyer, which comes from the educational
media discipline but includes a number of essays that relate to basic visual communication theory, as well.

Rune Pettersson's Visual Information is a useful textbook that focuses more on information theory. Paul
Lester's textbook on visual communication is another important general introduction to the topic. The Morgan
and Welton book, See What I Mean? approaches visual communication from a communication theory
perspective. Arthur Asa Berger's Seeing is Believing is an introduction to visual communication from a more
semiotic perspective. John Berger's book, Ways of Seeing, is a series of essays based on a BBC television
series by the same name. Artist Deborah Curtiss has written a book, Introduction to Visual Literacy, which
explains how we learn to appreciate and use various aesthetic elements. Communication scholar Donis
Dondis also analyzed the basic elements of images and composition in terms of syntax and visual literacy in
her book, A Primer of Visual Literacy. Most recently Paul Messaris's book also titled Visual Literacy, takes
on the conventional view of visual literacy as a learned process similar to language and instead proposes that
visual literacy is largely a natural process.

Other important conceptual investigations includes a work by Braden and Baca, "Toward a Conceptual Map
for Visual Literacy Constructs" that attempts to map the field of visual literacy in terms of basic concepts, as
this report hopes to do for the broader area of visual communication.

Jeffrey Johns has also attempted to develop a model of visual communication from the mass communication
viewpoint, an effort that has been unsuccessful in finding a publication outlet, and illustrates the problems
that visual communication has establishing itself as a recognized discipline.

Visual Literacy Let's begin with the area of visual literacy, since so much of the theoretical work has been
produced by scholars working from an education, learning or thinking viewpoint. An important theoretical
analysis of the instructional/educational technology viewpoint was developed by John Hortin in his review,
"The Theoretical Foundations of Visual Learning" in Moore and Dwyer's book of readings. The visual literacy
approach outlined by Hortin begins with verbal language as a fundamental model and focuses on the
transactional processes by which we receive and transmit visual meaning. This approach reflects the work of
many IVLA scholars.

Hortin's piece highlights the important work of John Debes as a pioneer in this area, as well as scholars like
Ruesch and Kees who developed a model of three kinds of nonverbal languages (pictorial, action, object) in
their book on nonverbal communication. Francis Dwyer's Strategies for Improving Visual Learning is
another important early contribution in this area.

Also in the Moore and Dwyer book is a review of visual literacy, thinking, learning, and communication by
Barbara Seels. Nikos Metallinos has also reviewed visual literacy theory relative to television processing in
"Visual Literacy: Suggested Theories for the Study of Television Picture Perception."

Some scholars have tried to identify the interrelationships between visual and verbal information such as
Roberts Braden who has developed a theory of visual/verbal symbiosis. Ralph Wileman has created a

2 of 12 10/29/2010 2:25 PM
Untitled http://spot.colorado.edu/~moriarts/vctheorysurvey.html

typology of verbal and visual image relationships.

From an entirely different discipline, philosopher Nelson Goodman in his analysis of art, The Language of
Art, also concludes that pictures represent reality in the same way that language does. In other words,
meaning is determined by convention and thus learned. The Morgan and Welton book, See What I Mean?
also presumes that visual appreciation is learned.

In contrast to the viewpoint of Nelson and most of the IVLA scholars, communication scholar Paul Messaris's
argues in his book Visual Literacy that people become visually literate through a process that is basically
perceptual and innate rather than learned as is language. His premise, that visual literacy is a normal human
condition, is also argued by Cassidy and Knowlton.

Development Children's developmental processes are also important areas of study that crosses over between
education , psychology, and communication. Piaget and Dewey are important scholars whose work includes
notions of visual development and their work has been joined more recently by Flavell and Gross who focus
on the cognitive dimensions.

Much of the recent work on development in visual communication focuses on how children learn to perceive
television images including Robert Abelman's "You Can't Get There from Here: Children's Understanding of
Time-Leaps on Television," Sandra Calvert's "Television Production Feature Effects on Children's
Comprehension of Time," Gardner and Jaglom's "Cracking the Codes of Television: The Child as
Anthropologist," and Smith, Anderson and Fischer's "Young Children's Comprehension of Montage." Other
work includes Hochberg and Brooks' "Pictorial Recognition as an Unlearned Ability: A Study of One Child's
Performance," and the numerous studies by Georgette Comuntzis-Page.

Visual vs Verbal Other scholars such as Howard Gardner argue that visual communication processes are
entirely different than language-based processes and that visual thinking and learning should be kept separate
from language-based models. Gavriel Salomon questions whether literacy can be transferred from medium to
another arguing that different media create different ways of knowing.

Allan Paivio's work is particularly useful for his analysis of the independent but interrelated system of dual
coding of verbal and visual information. (Add Broadbent?.....he is also later.) Moriarty argues for the primacy
of visual communication in a forthcoming article.

Psychology of Perception and Physiology The perceptual approach with its roots in psychology and
physiology is also where photojournalist Paul Lester begins his textbook. Murch's work provides a good
overview of visual and auditory perceptual processing. A chapter by Nikos Metallinos reviewing the
physiological dimensions of perception is included in the Moore and Dwyer book.

Some of the most important works on the optics, physiology, and neural dimensions of visual perception
include books and articles by Richard Gregory (Eye and Brain, The Intelligent Eye), David Hubel (Eye,
Brain, and Vision), Ulric Neisser ("The Processes of Vision"), and M.D. Vernon (A Further Study of Visual
Perception). James J. Gibson's book, The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, and his other writings,
are classics in this area.

Cognition and Information Processing For an understanding of the area of visual thinking the work of
Jerome Bruner, who proposed that knowledge is categorized as enactive, iconic, and symbolic, is a good
starting point. C.S. Peirce's, who is more commence known as the father of American semiotics, also has
developed models of knowledge based on his tripartite schema of iconic, symbolic and indexical information.

Other important figures include Rudolf Arnheim (Visual Thinking, Art and Visual Perception), a scholar in
the psychology of art, who approaches visual thinking from a perceptual approach and other thinkers such as

3 of 12 10/29/2010 2:25 PM
Untitled http://spot.colorado.edu/~moriarts/vctheorysurvey.html

E. H. Gombrich (The Image and the Eye), Robert McKim (Experiences in Visual Thinking), and C. W
Bloomer (Principles of Visual Perception).

Other important works on the way information is coded for storage and how it is contained in pictures include
James Gibson's "The Information Available in Pictures," John Kennedy's "How Minds Use Pictures," and
Kosslyn's "Information Representation in Visual Images."

The psychological approach to visual communication theory also looks to cognitive processing theories.
Foundation work comes from Broadbent, Neisser, and Posner. Work that is more clearly focused on the
visual aspects of cognition include the series of essays in Randhawa and Coffman's book, Visual Learning,
Thinking, and Communication, David Marr's book titled Vision: A computational Investigation into the
Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information, and the work of Norwegian scholar Torben
Grodal.

A review of this area is undertaken in a chapter titled, "Images and Imagery Theory" in the Moore and Dwyer
book by Miller and Burton. Julian Hochberg is another important figure in this area with his book,
Perception, and many other writings on perception. Doris Graber discusses schema theory in her analysis of
political coverage and much of her analysis focuses on news visuals.

Howard Gardner's book, Art, Mind, and Brain: A Cognitive Approach to Creativity, is a cross-over approach
where cognitive psychology is used to analyze art and artistic production. Similarly Ann Marie Barry's
chapter, "Perceptual Aesthetics and Visual Language," looks at visual aesthetics from the standpoint of
perceptual psychology, particularly the gestalt school.

Art and Aesthetics Art has also been a source for theory development in the visual communication field such
as Susanne Langer's Feeling and Form: A Theory of Art, the essays in the book of readings by Bryson et.al.,
Visual Theory: Painting and Interpretation, and many others. Hungarian designer Gyorgy Kepes, who was
affiliated with the Bauhaus School of design, wrote and edited several important books including The
Language of Vision and Sign Image Symbol. A basic review of design elements and design principles is
available in Thompson's chapter, "Design Considerations of Visuals," in the Moore and Dwyer book.

But even in works focused on art there is often cross-over with other disciplines. The Curtiss book, mentioned
earlier, is on visual literacy, but it focuses how we learn to appreciate and use various aesthetic elements.
Likewise the Dondis book analyzed the basic elements of images and composition in terms of syntax and
visual literacy.

Ideation Creative thinking is another field similar to visual communication in that it is not anchored in any
one discipline. There are theoretical works in that area, however, that are useful in understanding visual
communication. For example, consider Finke's book on creativity imagery, as well as the Sheikh's book on
imagery in education, the MacInnis and Price article on imagery in information processing, Kennedy's piece
on how minds use pictures, Wim Koole's article, "Imagination Depends on Images," and the chapter by
Couch, Caropreso and Miller on creative thinking and visual information in Moore and Dwyer.

This is by no means an exhaustive survey of the literature; its purpose is to review the major streams of
research and identify points where there are intersections between disciplines. In addition, it identifies certain
areas--visual literacy, visual thinking, visual perception--that are evolving or have evolved with their own
literature base, theoretical issues, and well-known scholars.

Symbols and Signs Several communication scholars have looked at the symbolic nature of communication
and the symbolic interpretation of visuals such as Larry Gross ("Life vs. Art"), Sol Worth ("Pictures Can't Say
Ain't"), and Christian Metz. ("The Perceived and the Named"). Other work includes a review of visual
symbols by Edward Sewell.

4 of 12 10/29/2010 2:25 PM
Untitled http://spot.colorado.edu/~moriarts/vctheorysurvey.html

Visual metaphors have been discussed in a number of papers and in books by Evelyn Hatcher, Colin
Turbayne, and Trevor Whittock and in articles and papers by Stuart Kaplan and Paul Messaris.

Semiotics and semiology have been a source of theoretical writing on visual communication. Arthur Asa
Berger's little book, Signs in Contemporary Culture, provides an introduction to this area. For other basic
writings in this area, see the work of Peirce, Eco, and Sebeok, among others. The work of Roland Barthes
often focuses on visual images, particularly Image Music Text, as does Berger.

Moriarty proposed last year at this visual Communication Conference that semiotics ought to be given a more
central role in the theory of visual communication in her paper, "Visemics: A Proposal for a Marriage
Between Semiotics and Visual Communication" and continued that discussion in a forthcoming article on
Peirce's abductive thinking and its relationship to visual thinking. She has also used semiotics to analyze
advertising, as has Mick and Verba.

Also working from a semiotic perspective Fernande Saint-Martin proposed a theory of syntactical analysis of
the topography of visuals in her book, Semiotics of Visual Language.

Communication and Mass Communication Areas Communication theorists have also made contributions
to visual communication theory. Wendt in "The Language of Pictures," interpreted visual communication in
terms of basic communication theory and is responsible for the highly quoted notion that the meanings of
pictures are not in the pictures, but rather in what we bring to them.

Film and cinema studies, along with broadcasting and video studies, is another rich source for theoretical
discussions including work by Christian Metz (Film Language, The Imaginary Signifier). Other works
include James Monaco's, How to Read a Film, as well as many other books and articles with theoretical
discussions on film theory. Herb Zettl's Sight, Sound, Motion makes an important contribution to the
discussion of video theory, as well as film. A number of works approach film images in terms of a code.

Rhetoric and persuasion in communication studies are other sources of visual communication studies. Paul
Messaris has written an article "Visual 'Manipulation': Visual Means of Affecting Responses to Images" that
investigates these topics and is working on a book in the same area. Other work includes Lester Olson's
"Portraits in Praise of a People: A Rhetorical Analysis of Norman Rockwell's Icons in Franklin D. Roosevelt's
'Four Freedoms' Campaign," Linda Scott's paper on visual rhetoric, and Jack Lule's analysis of a Gulf War
Newsweek cover.

In the mass communication arena, photojournalism is also a source of theory discussions which appear in
many works. The realistic approach to visuals is often represented in the work of people concerned with
photography such as Berger and his book Ways of Seeing.

In the area of graphic design, Kevin Barnhurst has dissected how layout works in newspapers in his book,
Seeing the Newspaper, and other writings. Edward Tufte has developed a number of insights into the
graphical presentation of information in his two books, Envisioning Information and The Visual Display of
Quantitative Information. Other investigations of design elements include work by Self and Groover, and
Robert Craig, among others. A special 3-part series of Visible Language has recently been published on
critical histories of graphic design.

Studies which investigate theoretical questions from a journalistic perspective include John Morello's work on
the visual structuring of the presidential debates, the analysis of the Carter-Reagan Debate by Tiemens et.al,
the visual information in TV news by Slattery, the analysis of sports photographs by Hagaman, and the
Moriarty and Popovich analysis of campaign visuals, among others. Of course, the work mentioned earlier by
Graber also makes important contributions to the understanding of how visuals contribute to the
understanding of news looked at from the perspective of schema theory.

5 of 12 10/29/2010 2:25 PM
Untitled http://spot.colorado.edu/~moriarts/vctheorysurvey.html

The persuasion industries of advertising and public relations are other mass communication areas that serve as
a point of investigation and theory development for visual communication scholars. Sidney Hecker and David
W. Stewart's book, Nonverbal Communication in Advertising. is a book of readings that considers a variety
of nonverbal communication systems, including visuals, and their effects. Other works include Robert Craig's
"Advertising as Visual Communication," David Mick's work on advertising semiotics, and other work by Liu,
Belk, Pollay and Moriarty.

Social Sciences The cultural, anthropological and social dimensions of visual information provide another
area of theory development. Anthropology has made a number of contributions in the area of visuals where
photography is used as a social documentation tool. This body of work was often found in the now defunct
publication, Studies in Visual Communication and more recently in the journal Visual Anthropology. There is
also a journal titled Visual Sociology and a group called the International Visual Sociology Association.

Some of these works include, John Fischer's "Art Styles as Cultural Cognitive Maps," Piette's review of the
theory of anthropological photography, Harper's review of the field of visual anthropology, and Rollwagen's
analysis of theory in ethnographic filmmaking, among others.

Critical Studies The role of imagery in cultural is investigated from a number of perspectives. One of the
classics articles is Benjamin's piece, "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction." Yeaman
provides a postmodern analysis of visuals including the implications of work by Derrida and other cultural
criticism scholars in his chapter in the Moore and Dwyer book. Moriarty and Rohe have developed a
culturally sensitive approach to graphic design in an article on "cultural palettes. "Moriarty and Sayre also
analyzed responses to imagery in a television commercial from a postmodern viewpoint, and Linda Scott has
analyzed the postmodern dimensions of advertising.

Feminist scholars also look at imagery and gender studies. Some important work in that area includes Laura
Mulvey's classic work on "visual pleasure;" McNally and Wolfe's work on the role Images in the social
production of meaning," among others. Goffman's work looks at mass communication images in terms of
stereotyping.

Mass communication scholars are particularly interested in social responsibility theories and these are
discussed in Paul Lester's book of readings, Images That Injure. his chapter on that topic in his textbook,
Rosskill and Carrier's book on truth in visual images, and a growing body of literature in journalism on digital
manipulation and privacy.

Social responsibility issues also emerge in the educational side of the field centering on questions of ideology
and post structuralism interpretations as reviewed in Muffoletto's chapter in the Moore and Dwyer book.

Ideology is also an important issue in works in the film arena such as Nichols' "Ideology and the Image" and
Keith Kenney has also identified the ideological qualities of visual features.

The Survey

The next step in this project was to develop a short survey inviting open ended responses by visual
communication scholars to three questions relating to visual communication theory. The objective was to
determine how broad the theoretical foundation might be and where the points of emphasis should be in the
continuing evolution of visual communication theory.

The surveys were mailed to attendees of the 1994 Visual Communication conference, members of the
International Visual Literacy Association (IVLA), and members of the graphics division of the Association for
Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC). A total of 350 surveys were mailed and 37

6 of 12 10/29/2010 2:25 PM
Untitled http://spot.colorado.edu/~moriarts/vctheorysurvey.html

usable responses were received--15 were returned as undeliverable and 10 people responded that they were
not "theoretical" and didn't know how to answer the questions.

From a survey methodology perspective, this admittedly is a low response but there are a number of reasons
for that response. For one thing, there was some duplication in the membership lists. Furthermore many
people on the mailing lists--particularly the AEJMC VisComm division list, are on there to keep up with the
division activities even though they may not be practicing visual communication scholars.

The most important factor in analyzing the response rate, however, comes from those few people who either
called or sent the survey back with a note that they were unable to respond because they didn't teach theory.
In fact, that may be true for a large number of the people on both the AEJMC and IVLA lists. In other words,
I suspect many people tossed the survey rather than acknowledging their disinterest in theory. In truth, it may
be an accomplishment that 37 people cared enough about the topic of visual communication theory to
develop little essays in response to these rather challenging questions.

Findings

The survey included three open-ended questions plus a 3-part background question that asked about their
professional education and experience, their department, and the courses they taught. The questions were:

1. What are the key theories or theoretical foundations that structure your work in visual communication?
In other words, what are the roots of the field of visual communication as you teach, analyze, and practice
it?

2. Is the verbal language model an adequate or useful metaphor for describing how visual communication
works?

3. What does the phrase "visual aesthetics" (or film aesthetics, media aesthetics, etc.) mean to you?

Respondents' Orientation

First let's look at the people who responded in terms of their orientation--i.e. their background and what they
teach. This is an attempt to identify the various disciplines contributing scholars to the field of visual
communication.

Table 1 summarizes the background of the respondents in terms of their disciplines. The most commonly
reported identification was with mass communication (15), graphic design (10), photography (7), education
(5) visual communication (5), and film (4). Other categories with three mentions included instructional
technology, advertising, TV/broadcasting, and fine arts. Areas with two mentions included communication,
aesthetics, psychology, philosophy, literature; those areas with one mention were visual literacy, speech, PR,
art education, political science, anthropology, and feminism

*Please note in coding this information that people were allowed to self identify themselves so the
terminology used in this report reflects their own identification and the discriminations they drew.

Only seven of the 37 identified themselves as being single focused--three identified their focus as mass
communication, two as educational technology, and one each mentioned a concentration on film studies,
television, and visual communication.

Another ten identified themselves as double focused. Those respondents with two areas of focus mentioned
mass communication/graphic design twice and another two said photography/graphics. Other combinations

7 of 12 10/29/2010 2:25 PM
Untitled http://spot.colorado.edu/~moriarts/vctheorysurvey.html

mentioned once include:

mass comm/literature

education technology/visual literacy

graphic design/mass communication

mass communication/television

advertising/mass communication

communication theory/speech.

The interesting finding is that the other 20 respondents identified themselves with three or more disciplines.
Of the 20, one person mentioned six areas and three listed five. While most were working in related areas,
there were some interesting eclectic mixtures:

journalism/education/PR

film/vis com/anthro/philosophy

mass comm/advertising/film/psych/literature/educ

fine arts/psych/business/advertising/educ

journalism/photo/graphic design/pol sci

This review confirms the notion that people teaching in the area of visual communication come from a variety
of disciplines and teach a variety of topics.

Key Theories

The first content question, and the heart of the survey, asked respondents to identify the key theories or
theoretical foundations that structure their work. In the analysis, their responses were listed and then grouped
to determine some indication of relative emphasis based on frequency of mention. A total of 16 theoretical
areas were mentioned as providing grounding for visual communication study. Table 2 summarizes the
responses.

When the categories are collapsed, the largest number of mentions were found in the psychology category
(49). This breaks down into gestalt approaches (9), cognitive/info processing (22), and perceptual psychology
(15). A general area summarized here as meaning theories (semiotics/semiology, symbolism, semantics) was
second with 15 mentions.

Contrary to the views of some respondents, visual communication emerged in this study as an area with a
body of theory of its own and was third in emphasis with 14 mentions. It should be noted that what is being
designated here as the set of visual communication theories may also be related to other areas such as
education for visual literacy and psychology for visual perception.

Aesthetics, mass communication, and cultural/critical theories were noted eight times. Cinema/film studies
were noted seven times. Communication theory and literary studies including postmodern theories followed
with six mentions. Education related theories such as learning and development were next with four mentions.
At the end of the list are those theoretical areas mentioned once or twice: historical, linguistics, philosophy,
ideation, ethnography, sociology, behavioral sciences, and chaos/complex systems.

8 of 12 10/29/2010 2:25 PM
Untitled http://spot.colorado.edu/~moriarts/vctheorysurvey.html

Another way to analyze these theories is in terms of the scholars producing the work. The theory question did
not ask for specific references to leading theorists, however, a number of respondents did note the people
whose work they use. This list was compiled by looking for names in the answers to all three questions. Table
3 summarizes those mentions.

The interesting finding is that 56 names were mentioned but few were mentioned more than once. Herb Zettl
and Christian Metz were mentioned three times. Another six--Rudolph Arnheim, Sergei Eisenstein, J.J.
Gibson, David Marr, Paul Messaris, and Sol Worth--were mentioned twice.

Language Metaphor

The second question investigated the support for analyzing visual communication using verbal language as a
model. On this question there was more unanimity with 17 people saying no and four saying either "no but
useful." On the positive side, one person said yes, another three said "yes but.." In the middle were four
people who said yes and no. One didn't understand the question, and another six didn't provide any answer.
The comments were interesting because the respondents who were critical of the verbal metaphor were also
quite verbal in making their points:

No, because it's preposterous (literally) to use non-visual material (language) as the model for visual
material

The verbal language model is grossly inadequate for describing how visual communication works because
the sequential process of the left brain limits simultaneous visual comprehension. Visual communication
utilizes mainly the right brain to process visual mosaic landscapes

The verbal realm is linear, logical; the visual is more holistically oriented, more intuitive.

... more harmful than helpful. The analogy can never be fully demonstrated

Language seems to work best in a linear fashion. Visuals encompass so many dimensions simultaneously
that I believe we need to use concepts directly related to the visual.

Visual communication is DIFFERENT from verbal communication. We need to recognize that from the
outset and develop different models.

Concepts like "grammar" and "syntax" are perhaps helpful in initial categorization but not in explaining
how anything works...Ultimately, I don't think a verbal language model works because it is a symbolic
system that grew out of high order abstraction. Its codes and conventions must be learned. I think visual
communication is more fundamental than that.

People process visualizations differently than they process verbal data, in part because the perceptive
pathways to acknowledging visual information are different--"peripherally" rather than "centrally" is how
the ELM model might express it.

Verbal language is the worst model of all for visual communication. Good film, video, and even
photography work at the level of music, emotion, and sensuality which are non-verbal and non-cognitive.

If you mean "grammar," "syntax," "vocabulary," the verbal model is NOT useful. If you mean redundancy,
then yes.

The need for work in this area came through in several comments. One person said, "We desperately need to
develop a visual information processing model." Another noted that obviously verbal language is inadequate
but we use it because of the lack of another model. And another respondent concluded by saying, "I would be

9 of 12 10/29/2010 2:25 PM
Untitled http://spot.colorado.edu/~moriarts/vctheorysurvey.html

very interested to know if others also find this metaphor awkward."

Visual Aesthetics

The point of this question was to determine if there is any general sense of definition for this term. The reason
for possible confusion is that the word aesthetics usually implies some notion of beauty or pleasingness, the
artistic dimension. However, in the work of Zettl and other writers on visual production, it takes on a
functional quality and is used to describe how the visual codes and conventions work. The word "effective"
sometimes is used in these discussions of "media aesthetics" or "film aesthetics." Ann Marie Barry's work on
"perceptual aesthetics" is an attempt to bring these two concepts together, although her work is more focused
on the functional side of cognitive processing. Since there are such radically different streams of meaning
embedded in the phrase "visual aesthetics," this survey sought to determine if the respondents are using this
term with any consistency.

The largest number of responses (14) were focused on the artistic dimension rather than the functional
dimension (5). Another six explained the concept by trying to marry the two. Four responses were impossible
to analyze in terms of these distinctions and another eight didn't answer. Once again, the comments are
interesting as they illustrate how the respondents grappled with this question. First from the artistic viewpoint:

Aesthetics may be broadly defined as an appreciation of the beautiful, and more narrowly defined as a
philosophy of art...

...a means for codifying those qualities which a particular culture agrees to be beautiful

...means to be able to see and appreciate the beauty or qualities inherent in either natural phenomena or
man created or designed production in art, graphics, photography, illustration, film, and architecture.

Then consider the comments explaining the functional approach to visual aesthetics.

The practice of visual aesthetics promotes a generalized heightening of attention

...the aesthetic guidelines would be based more on the effectiveness of the visual communication of the
message than in fine arts

Some respondents explained that they use the term "visual aesthetics" to mean the artistic dimension and then
went on to disclaim its application on the functional side:

"Aesthetics" to me, refers to the level of pleasure, rather than to effectiveness

For me the word "aesthetics" has to do primarily with art or with visual pleasure, not with visual meaning in
a more general sense

Finally, some comments indicated the respondents were aware of both aspects of the term's use and they were
able to marry these themes.

It means either 1.) beauty or 2.) theories of visual organization

The term pertains to the artistic elements which direct the production of visual messages...Zettl has
developed basic principles of television aesthetics from his knowledge of art...We need to know the ways
that visuals are effective to the perceiver.

Aesthetics gives us a unified approach to art which reveals a cross-pollination of perceptual and aesthetic
insights in the form and content of creative works....In other words, an understanding of how and why we

10 of 12 10/29/2010 2:25 PM
Untitled http://spot.colorado.edu/~moriarts/vctheorysurvey.html

see is also a means for creating and appreciating art as well...

I LIKE visual images that look good (are aesthetically pleasing), but I regret THE TERM visual aesthetics.
In my opinion the term encourages the artistic at the expense of the communicative. Which isn't what Zettl
had in mind at all.

...forging a connection between the philosophy, intention and expression of art and the practice of
communication

These comments demonstrate the confusion that the term carries and the need for some attention to more
careful analysis of such basic theories as aesthetics relative to the more functional qualities of effectiveness.

Conclusion

The objective of this project was to determine the breadth of the theoretical foundation of visual
communication and where the points of emphasis should be in the continuing evolution of visual
communication theory.

People who teach visual communication are housed in different homes and that makes it difficult to bring
together scholars and researchers who are working on similar questions. It's probably wishful thinking for
most of us who are affiliated with entrenched academic disciplines, but an enlightened approach to this area
would be through a cross-discipline program that brings all these viewpoints together. Envision a department
or college of visual communication.

In spite of the views of one of the respondents who said, "There are no key theories in visual
communication," it seems clear from both the review of the literature and the responses to the first question,
that there is an evolving body of visual communication theory and literature that crosses a variety disciplines.

Such work clusters in the areas of visual literacy, visual thinking, visual perception, and signs and symbols.
Different disciplines approach these topics from different backgrounds, but there is a central core of work
that could provide a foundation for a more generally recognized discipline of visual communication. With
more attention to this developing body of literature, visual communication would have more visibility and
recognition as an academic field worthy of scholarly respect.

Regarding the two theoretical issues: it seems clear that most scholars responding to these surveys were
frustrated by the verbal language metaphor which drives much of the work in visual communication. While a
central theory may be too much to hope for, there is still a need for the development of a more widely
accepted model that better addresses the unique characteristics of visual communication.

An apparent anomaly in these responses comes from the high ratings for the various theories derived from the
psychology area when compared with the academic background of the respondents. Psychology was the
highest rated theoretical area, and yet only two of the respondents acknowledged formal academic study in
that area. Granted education graduate students study educational psychology and communication students
may get an introduction to information processing in their courses, but this study was not significant enough
for them to acknowledge it in this survey as part of their orientation.

The question about visual aesthetics illustrates the nature of the mixed metaphors that drive this field. On one
hand, it refers to an aesthetic philosophy, which most of the respondents felt needed to be emphasized, but on
the other hand it acknowledges the functional side of codes and conventions that either "work" effectively or
"don't work." In fact, the tension between theory and practice is one of the assets of the area (discipline?) of
visual communication, one that also crosses over all the borders and divisions of our various disciplines. The
only consensus here is that there is confusion, not only about what the phrase means, but what it represents to
us as a field.

11 of 12 10/29/2010 2:25 PM
Untitled http://spot.colorado.edu/~moriarts/vctheorysurvey.html

In closing, let me refer to an insight from one respondent who is also struggling to identify the theoretical
roots, as well as the importance, of this field of study:

From personal experience I can only conclude that visual thinking and visual statement making entail an
extraordinarily high form of mentation not fully grasped or appreciated, alas....

clickhere to return to Professor Moriarty's home page

click here to return to the visual communication research page

12 of 12 10/29/2010 2:25 PM