Visual Rhetoric

Running head: VISUAL RHETORIC

A Visual Rhetoric Study Liliana Pettenkofer The George Washington University

Visual Rhetoric Abstract

Visual rhetoric explores how visual images communicate with their audience. This topic is studied under the field of rhetoric and visual communication, but the term is used in multiple disciplines and given varied definitions and terminologyeach built differently to fit specific purposes. There are few studies in the literature that explain the term appropriately. The purpose of this study is to enrich the understanding of the term visual rhetoric, and to propose a collective approach to the use of it. This paper explores the vast literature found about visual rhetoric to identify common themes across disciplines, theoretical gaps, and the divergence of knowledge between areas of study. It concludes providing the findings of a study where human subjects were exposed to a film with no words or dialogue, and asked several questions regarding their understanding of the images. The subjects answers were compared to the common themes found throughout the literature in order provide a better understanding of the creation of meaning through images and the relation to visual rhetoric.

Visual Rhetoric Introduction

Images are present everywhere. Text, architecture, paintings, photographs, film, television, and advertisements are a few examples that surround society. And, as technology advances, these images are becoming more powerful forms of expression and persuasion. A way to study these images is through visual rhetoric, which is defined by Sonja K. Foss (2005) as the term used to describe the study of visual imagery within the discipline of rhetoric (p. 141). However, this definition is not widely accepted within the field. The research pool regarding visual rhetoric indicates controversy, inconsistency, and overall disagreement about its definition, and its fundamental components. To better understand the term, and to prove its significance within the discipline of rhetoric, a visual means of communication will be analyzed. This study examines the literature that exists concerning visual rhetoric, and employs it to study the approach in which human subjects construct and give meaning to images of the movie Baraka, a film without words and consisting only of images, as a way to expand and better understand the term visual rhetoric. Literature Review When we see images we try to understand and make sense of them. According to Schriato and Webb (2004) human beings have always looked at and seen the world around them, and made sense of themselves and others through their understanding of what they see (Schirato & Webb, 2004, p. 1). As technology continues to proliferate, we experience the world through the images presented to us as daily aliments. Unfortunately, images have been mostly studied under art disciplines where images are deconstructed to be given meaning. In the fine arts, this can be a technique to appreciate and see all the components of a work of art, but do we

Visual Rhetoric

see images this way in our day-to day life? No. The semiotic used in our daily life is popular and does not need specialized vocabularies and art theories to be understood. Visual rhetoric is the tool to understand how these images communicate. Visual rhetoric is vastly used in many fields such as art, visual culture, and communication. The studies centered around the term examine films, posters, advertisements, websites, photographs, monuments, community projects, journal covers, and political cartoons, just to name a few. The problem is that while used in many areas of expertise, there is no agreement about a generally used definition of the term. Many of the studies on visual rhetoric have been analyzed differently by using diverse methodologies and providing a range of different terminology. Borrowman (2005) says, with the definition of visual rhetoric this broad, the term is effectively without meaning (p. 122). Something similar is expressed by Peterson (2001) who asserts, the proliferation of visual stimuli in communication environments calls for theories and critical work that demonstrate and explain how visuals persuade (p. 20). Visual rhetoric needs a well-established definition. It is necessary to analyze the vast literature available to discover the common elements and gaps within the term. Next I will introduce the principles and history of visual rhetoric. Visual Rhetoric Images are present in our everyday lives, and with the continuing technological advances images are becoming more important for communication and for understanding the world. Because of this, the analysis of visual rhetoric is increasingly changing and becoming a vital area in the study of communication and rhetoric. Nowadays, people walk with a camera in their cell phone while navigating the net to post pictures on Facebook. Images are everywhere, from your

Visual Rhetoric

tube of toothpastes logo in the morning to your television show before bedtime. But, is visual rhetoric completely new? Thinking about the roots of visual rhetoric, I remembered the first time I saw cave paintings. I was nine-years-old in a place called Toro Toro in Bolivia. I was impressed by the drawings, as I used to call them. Though there were not many, and they were also fading, I understood most of them. For example, I was able to gather meaning from pictures of cattle and people. The idea of visual rhetoric, though it has been recently studied in the twentieth century, has been present since ancient times. Many researchers date the term by going back to the origins of rhetoric itself. Rhetoric is dated back to classical Greece (Foss, 2005, p. 141). But, even though this is the originally acclaimed date for the emergence of rhetoric, Michael V. Fox (1983) suggests that in ancient Egypt, rhetoric was not studied as a theory but it was technically present in communication (p. 9). Hill and Helmers (2004) similarly suggest this idea by explaining that in Egypt, hieroglyphics already contained and recorded meaning (p. 1). The use of images has been always present in societies. Humans usually start communicating with sounds and images. Children imitate things they see and hear, and early on, they are taught language by making connections between images and sound. I remember learning the alphabet this way. The teacher would make the class repeat the sound of the letter a while showing a picture of the letter next to an object that started with an a: A for Apple. If visual images are so important for societies and developing communication skills, why have so many people never heard of visual rhetoric? Debating the importance of visual rhetoric in the area of rhetoric Apart from being a recently studied term, there has been an extensive debate over visual

Visual Rhetoric

rhetoric being an extension of rhetoric. Some authors, such as Braden (1970), have shown certain fear about expanding rhetoric to visuals. His concern over this issue was that if rhetors include visual images the cogency with which we as a field make theoretical distinctions will be severely opened to question (p. 71). It appears there has been a misunderstanding in whether visual images should be studied in the field of visual studies or in the field of rhetoric and visual communication. This idea is articulated by Peterson (2001): Visual elements of rhetoric beyond the body have been left, for the most part, to theorists and critics of art, film, and television who have developed sophisticated vocabularies of description and aesthetics as a way to account for their effects (p. 19). Not including visuals in rhetoric, would deliver the message that humans have never used images for the means of communication. At the same time, Rice (2004) also suggests that to not understand the importance of visual rhetoric, rhetors are neglecting change and evolution. She explains that it is safe to say our culture has for centuries prized the word more than the image...the lack of understanding seems most important at present as we have seen steady but unfulfilled growth in our knowledge about visual texts (p. 63). Foss (2005) responded very strongly on this debate implying that scholars may feel nostalgia for a culture in which public speeches were the symbols that had primary impact, that culture is gone (p. 142). She clarifies her position by demonstrating that the study of visual imagery from a rhetorical perspective also has grown with the emerging recognition that visual images provide access to a range of human experience not always available through the study of discourse (p. 143). This shows that the study of discourse does not allow a complete rhetorical analysis of images, and that there is a need for a different and evolved type of thinking.

Visual Rhetoric

Studying Visual Rhetoric Even though the debate over visual rhetoric continues, as well as the definition of it, many have written very important pieces about the subject. To explain visual rhetoric, I chose a few authors that made an impression on my research. Though most of them differ in terminology, and sometimes even interexchange areas of study, I will show the different approaches towards the term and a few key elements that describe it. About Rhetoric Visual rhetoric has two parts: The visuals, and the rhetoric behind them. To understand visual rhetoric then, it is necessary to explain what is rhetoric. Rhetoric is the way in which humans may influence each others thinking and behavior through the strategic use of symbols (Ehninger, 1972, p. 3). At the same time, rhetoric can be explained as the social function that influences and manages meanings (Brummett, 1991, p. xiv). These two definitions show the importance of symbols in influencing others behaviors. But, there is one specific word missing: persuasion. Olson, Finnegan, and Hope (2008) defined rhetoric as a practice and theory [that] concerns persuasive symbolic actions primarily (p. 3). These three definitions bring the elements I think are necessary to explain rhetoric as a social function that manages meaning and influences behavior through persuasive symbolic actions. Indisputably, after analyzing the components of rhetoric, it is apparent that rhetoric can be applied to visuals the same way it is applied to text. About Visual Rhetoric Within the different approaches of visual rhetoric, I found Sonja K. Foss (2005) as a base author. Her analysis of the subject is very thorough, with only a few things missing. In her

Visual Rhetoric

Theory of Visual Rhetoric (2005) and in her Rhetorical Schema for the Evaluation of Visual Imagery (1994), Foss (2005) explains visual rhetoric as a communicative artifact that includes human intervention to create a symbolic action directed to an audience. Not every visual object is visual rhetoric. What turns a visual object into a communicative artifact is the presence of three characteristicsthe image must be symbolic, involve human intervention, and be presented to an audience for the purpose of communicating with that audience (p. 144). Foss based her analysis of visual rhetoric on two premises: Visual rhetoric as a communicative artifact, and visual rhetoric as a perspective. At the same time, she focused her essay on two approaches: The inductive method and the deductive method. The deductive method refers to scholars that start from a communication theory and apply this theory to analyze the elements of the visual image. The inductive method is the opposite of the deductive one. It starts with the visual image elements to generate a broader analysis or theory. With Foss as a base, there are a few studies that caught my attention and filled in the gaps I found in her study. Some of those gaps include the use of culture, context, and emotions to create meaning. Next, since the terms used to describe and analyze visual rhetoric vary greatly among disciplines, I will present the common themes that came across in my study. The complexity of Symbols Rhetoric, as defined above, bases itself in the meaning of symbols. Symbols resist individualistic representation because they are over-determined by customary usage, embedded so frequently in conventional discourse that they rarely take on a reflective, individual meaning (Hill & Helmers, 2004, p. 4). What Hill and Helmers are saying is that images are abstract symbols because the audience is the one that gives the meaning. This idea is reinforced by Fry and Fry (1983), who explain that "texts are made meaningful through a process of audience

Visual Rhetoric

significationthe interpretant resides in the mind of the person [and] it is not embedded in the sign itself." (p. 448). Pierce defines a sign as "something that stands to somebody for something in some respect or capacity" (1955, p. 99). Without an audience, a sign has no meaning. Many authors presented a problem with defining the word symbol, and decided to divide the term. Hill and Helmers (2004) created three terms: icon, index, and symbols as the different ways an image can be analyzed. Icon, as an image, can be abstract or representational; the index is the memory we have of past encounters with a similar image; and symbols are the abstract representations inside the mind. These three ideas are also presented by Foss (1994): icon is used in terms of the artifact, a symbol reflects the symbolic action, and the index is mentioned as the function. Like these two examples, the concept of symbol varies. With this fluctuating meaning of the word symbol, it is very hard to apply it to an actual example. I believe this is another gap that has not been studied sufficiently in the present body of research. Having a concise idea of semiotics and visual symbols would help experts agree on terminologies that fit visual rhetoric. Though this idea of symbol is not completely clear yet for visual rhetoric, Hill and Helmers index as memory can be easily linked to culture, context, and the creation of meaning in societies. For example, DeRosia (2008) and Scott (1994) link these two terms by articulating that the meaning of a symbolic sign can evolve and come to be commonly understood in a culture at a particular time (p. 300), and that pictures are not merely analogues to visual perception but symbolic artifacts constructed from the conventions of a particular culture (p. 252), consecutively. Visual Culture, a key term in this study Culture is always present in societies. What we see is in fact what we make or are made to see: We see through the frameworks and filters produced by our culture and by our personal

Visual Rhetoric

10

histories (Schirato & Webb, 2004, p. 1). As emphasized here, we experience life through different lenses created by our culture. There are many experts that present the idea of culture in visual rhetoric. For example, cultural studies of visual rhetoric constitute one type of attempt to understand how visual appeals operate (Hill, 2004, p. 26). This relationship is better understood in visual culture, which is a term inextricably linked to visual rhetoric. To explain this term, I must begin with one of the authors who made a difference in my study. Mirzoeff, (1998) in his book Visual Culture Reader, presents his and other authors pieces in an attempt to explain visual culture. For him, one thing we have to consider is that, as well as visual rhetoric, visual culture is not just a part of your everyday life, it is your life (p. 3). To be able to understand visual rhetoric, not only analyze it, it is necessary to understand what visuals mean to us. The disjunctured and fragmented culture that we call postmodernism is best imagined and understood visually, just as the nineteenth century was classically represented in the newspaper and the novel (Mirzoeff, 1998, p. 5). We are experiencing life through technology and not directly. As in visual rhetoric, I argue that we are experiencing life through visuals. Going beyond the idea of technology and the postmodern era, visual culture, specifically, illustrates how people define their identities; it is transcultural (Rice, 2004, p. 71). Culture is acquired by social learning, and the way we see things is affected by what we know and what we believe (Berger, 1977, p. 8). This idea is reinforced by Olson et al. (2008) who stated that we experience pictures conditioned by the ways they were taught to be seen (p. 9). It is very important to see that besides what is taught to us, we experience life in a personal fashion

Visual Rhetoric

11

that would differ with a general understanding of any image. The reason political cartoons are often interpreted in widely divergent manners is because different readers are reasoning with different layers of the culturally induced message (Medhurst & DeSousa, 1981, p. 220). Accordingly, culture is a necessarily historical subject, based in the recognition that the visual image is not stable but changes its relationship to exterior reality at particular moments of modernity (Mizroeff, 1998, p. 7). This idea is linked to context. The need of context? Olson (2008) writes: To study visual rhetoric, then, means not to study images or artifacts in isolation from larger textual or performative contexts in which an audience might encounter them, but rather in precise relation to those contexts that give them shape and meaning (p. 2). Context, as well as culture, is involved in creating meaning. For example, if analyzing paintings, we have to be conscious of the context of the artist to be able to appreciate the meanings inside the paintings. If we do not consider the time the painting was made and if possible, the biography of the artist, the meaning of the painting will vary. As Schirato and Webb (2004) articulate, we treat visual culture and the process of seeing as social practices that take place in particular contexts, which themselves have historical and cultural settings (p. 6). But, even though some say that the sociocultural-historical context is what gives an image value (Rice, 2004, p. 71), there is some debate whether context is really needed to get a point across. This debate is made by Durrer (2008), who explains that as much as context provides us with a way of looking, it also limits our ways of seeing, and thus helps to cement our socially and culturally conditioned views (p. 6). Context could not be needed to create meaning, but it is always present, whether we like it or not. Contexts are extraordinarily dynamic and

Visual Rhetoric

12

variable because they incorporate everything involved in that environment: The people, their history, current events, similar texts with which they are comparing this one, and so on (Schirato and Webb, 2004, p. 9). Separating the context would be like isolating everything from reality. Audience A key element of visual rhetoric is the role of the audience. Viewers and spectators are hardly passive; rather, they co-create meaning (Olson et al., 2008, p. 3). The audience, in the case of visuals, has great power over meaning. Usually, the creators of visuals are not present to explain their meanings. Foss (1994) writes: The evaluation of imagery from a rhetorical perspective, is not, then, the function its creator intended but rather the action the image communicates, as named by the critic (p. 216). Valerie Smith (2007) gives a great example of audience by basing her analysis on Aristotles classical enthymeme. In her study she analyzes visual rhetoric with logos, ethos, and pathos, creating a great balance between theory and emotion. She calls pathos into question and involves an audience by stating that: To be persuasive, enthymemes must identify with the common opinions of their intended audiences (p. 120). Enthymeme is explained better by Finnegan (2007), who explains that the enthymeme leaves space for the audience to insert its own knowledge and experience; it assumes an audience of judges is capable to filling in the blanks of an argument (p. 143). Smith (2007) implies that this notion of filling in the blanks is more suitable since images are more ambiguous. The viewer is the one who will determine meaning and the rhetorical value of the visual image. This

Visual Rhetoric

13

is exemplified by Rice (2004) in her statement that: Audiences are not necessarily told how to think, but are goaded into becoming part of the exhibit and interacting with the viewed (p. 70). The fear for Pathos Aristotles classical enthymeme already introduces the idea of pathos. Then, why do emotions seem to be left out? Though some researchers think elements such as context and emotions distract the way we look at images, it is necessary to understand them and include them. When we see an image, we do not disconnect ourselves from the world that surrounds us, nor do we turn off our emotions. The simple description of the power of rhetorical images as emotional has contributed directly to the relative neglect of such images by the field of rhetoric and argumentation, a neglect that has only recently begun to be corrected (Hill, 2004, p. 26). Hill supports his idea by showing that in experiments, pictures have been demonstrated to be more persuasive than text and personal case stories built on personal narrative to be more persuasive than abstract impersonal information (Hill, 2004, p. 31). In another study, Hawhee and Messaris (2009) introduced the idea of mirroring as essential. They explain how in many disciplines, specifically in advertising, the idea of mirroring is used strategically to invoke emotion. In adapting this aspect of emotional response for pictorial purposes, the creators of images are using a rhetorical strategy whose efficacy is, in a sense, guaranteed, and eliciting emotion in a way that words cannot possibly replicate (p. 217). These examples prove that emotions are part of human beings. We respond to life events emotionally. Whether or not we are in charge of our emotions does not change the fact that we give meaning in this way. Another debate found is over emotions being only attached to images, giving images a less important rhetorical value. But if we analyze it, emotions are also attached to text. Even if

Visual Rhetoric

14

its true that, in practice, our culture associates images with emotions, is there any reason to think that one mode is more emotional than the other in principle? Doesnt it depend on how pictures or words are actually used? Isnt the history of verbal oratory full of utterances that are as soulstirring as any visual display? [For example] I have a dream (Hawhee & Messaris, 2009, p. 216). Emotions are interlinked with culture, context, and the message itself. Some images are emotional to some in some cultures, under certain circumstances. All of these elements give us the tools to create meaning. Without them, we would deny our nature and also deny that we are influenced by outside factors while creating meaning. In conclusion, visual rhetoric is an intellectual movement both broad and deep in that it spans multiple disciplines and engages the most influential communication technologies (Olson et al., 2008, p. 11). It is in its nature to interexchange terms within many disciplines. Many of the experts cited in this paper created specific approaches to guide people in the task of analyzing images. In my findings, I discovered that to have a better analysis of images, I would like to combine the rhetorical approaches of Foss and Aristotles Enthymeme, with the idea of visual culture and context. At the same time, I must add that after reviewing some of the literature on the subject, most of the studies are analyzed theoretically and analytically, but none has centered the study on a qualitative, ethnographic work. This type of research would help apply the theories to actual societies. This would bring results based on peoples experiences towards giving meaning to visuals to expand the results found with content analysis and rhetorical criticism.

Visual Rhetoric Statement of Research Questions

15

The main focus of this research is to apply the literature to a public's responses to the images in the film "Baraka" to demonstrate the aspects that define the term visual rhetoric. The main question guiding the analysis is: What elements of visual rhetoric come across as necessary to construct meaning in the movie Baraka? Methodology This research focuses on peoples responses to the motion picture Baraka, and the elements they used to give the artifact value and meaning. Some of the elements that are studied here are: the roles of culture, context, audience, and emotions. Baraka is a non-dialogue film released in 1992, directed by Ron Fricke. The picture was shot in seventy-millimeter film format, which provides a very high-resolution image. Shot in six continents, Baraka shows images of real life from more than one hundred locations. With no actors or plot, the movie uses time-lapses to show daily events in a different way. A soundtrack composed by Michael Stearns complements the films rhythm, and creates a more dynamic and emotional experience. The ninety-six minute movie begins slowly with nature images and builds up the intensity with time-lapses and the juxtaposition of images to not only create themes, but to correlate images in such a way that we are pushed to make connections. Some of the images seen in the film portray religion, nature, city life, poverty, and culture, among many others. Examples of these images are: the Iguau Cataracts, Buddhist monks, Orthodox Jews, different tribe rituals and dances, a solar eclipse, volcanoes, Egyptian pyramids, the Grand Canyon, mass production, and rainforests.

Visual Rhetoric

16

This film was chosen for several reasons. First, this movie does not present dialogue, which would distract the attention of the viewer from the main subject: the images. Secondly, the images are more resembled to moving photographs, juxtaposed to one another, giving them some abstraction instead of a specific message or action. Third, there is no real plot, just images brought together to present an idea. The vagueness of the message helped to study how people create and give meaning to this movie, make sense of the images, and fill in the blanks presented by images. At the same time, the film offers loads of imagery that provide abundant information. This aspect tested if people extract one message from the film, or if the possibility of having different meanings and messages exists. The only distraction of the study is the soundtrack, since it co-creates the meaning with the image. This element was carefully analyzed during the study. Sampling Technique A total of nine participants were recruited within the Washington, DC and Northern Virginia areas to contribute in this study. The criteria specified volunteers eighteen years of age or older. Purposefully, I required volunteers to specify if they had a background in art or not. This was necessary to understand the element of context in visual rhetoric. The difference between individuals with and without art backgrounds tests if context makes a difference in the creation of meaning. Participants were recruited with the snowball method, which consists in peoples referrals through word-of-mouth, and through mass emails. Since the snowball method could not assure participants with an art background, a mass email was strategically sent to a list of artists. The volunteers varied in sex, religion, age, and area of expertise, which helped better understand the elements of visual culture. If someone with

Visual Rhetoric

17

a different religion or nationality creates a different message based on cultural values, then the element of culture is proven to be basic for the formation of meaning. Among the nine recruits, five were assigned to participate in one focus group, and four were selected for in-depth interviews. The subjects designated to the focus group were selected by their experience in art, as well as their availability. Two were Muslims with no experience in art, one was Latin with some experience in art, another was African with no experience in art, and one was American with significant experience in art. The subjects designated to the interviews were selected for their background in art. Among the four volunteers, two were professors, one was a very experienced student majoring in fine arts, and the last one was a student majoring in history of art. The reason volunteers were designated to interviews instead of focus groups was due to their availability and because they formed a strategic part of the research sample. Qualitative Methods The data collection was based on qualitative approaches. One focus group and four indepth interviews were conducted to observe and analyze the different elements of the study. All subjects were informed about the research and given consent forms before participating. Due to a limited amount of time, a focus group was made to gather enough information in one session. The group was limited to five people to create an intimate dialogue and to test the importance of context. According to Shedlin and Shulman (2004), focus groups are used to explore issues, describe context and findings, and discover new ideas, issues, concerns and connections (p. 436). Participants met in a cozy environment, and were given food and drinks to establish a trusting atmosphere. The group was then shown the ninety-six-minute movie.

Visual Rhetoric

18

Subsequently, they were asked open-ended questions from a semi-structured questionnaire to establish conversation. The discussion lasted 45 minutes, where participants spoke freely with some guidance from the researcher. Similarly, four in-depth interviews were conducted. This method was chosen due to the difference in schedules among participants, and to have a comparison between the contexts provided during the focus group and the interviews. Interviewees chose the location for their interviews as a way to provide a comfortable and known atmosphere. All participants were given the movie one to four days before the interview. All were asked to not speak with others about it and to not research any aspects of the film until after the interview. Subjects were chosen only for their background in art; but they were also asked their age, birthplace, and religion, among other basic questions. The questionnaire used for the interviews was the same as the one used for the focus group. Interviews lasted from forty-five to sixty minutes. During each meeting, discussions were tape-recorded. Field notes were taken during and after discussions to record information that would not be available on the tapes. Data Analysis The data collected was transcribed and then coded through Glasser and Strausss (1967) grounded theory, and Lincoln and Gubas (1985) comparative method. The analysis began with open, line-by-line coding. Then, using the comparative method, concepts were grouped and selected into categories. To cut bias, a person with no knowledge about the study was asked to help during categorization. Next, those categories were analyzed and reduced until there was no more space for classification. Constant comparison method is used to compare data with data, concepts with concepts and categories with categories, until saturation is reached (p. 2258).

Visual Rhetoric After saturation was reached, the themes -- message, meaning, culture, and context -- were

19

selected. Each theme was then analyzed in ways to find patterns and connections among the data. Field notes provided information about the context. Subjects in the focus group seemed more relaxed and open to conversation. Feedback played a big role during the discussion, showing that one persons opinion feeds into the others. Of the four interviews, two were conducted in a comfortable atmosphere, helping the interview become a conversation. These subjects were more likely to disclose more personal information than the other two. Results Message All participants agreed upon the overall message of the movie, which was that the film talked about life, human life, earth, and the similarities found among the rituals and cultural practices of different people. All of the participants agreed that the movies message was life in general, but only participants with existing art backgrounds thought the movies message was also about similarities in life. Later I will show how this can be linked to the element of context. It is necessary to state that all subjects gave more than one answer, from which at least one was agreed upon by all volunteers. The role of information was added to this category to test if people feel the need of feedback after watching the film. All participants demonstrated certain interest in having more information, but all implied that they were not desperate to get that information. This shows that the audience does not demand feedback. One factor that needs to be highlighted is the accessibility to information. All participants did not seem concerned about information because all had easy access to online databases. Two of the four interviewees, even when asked not to go

Visual Rhetoric online after watching the film, came back saying they just googled it to learn more about the artist.

20

Participants were uninterested in knowing more about the movies message. Instead, they were interested in learning about the techniques the director used, the places where some shots were taken, and specific questions such as why when chicks are processed, do their beaks get burnt? Overall, when people were given extra information about the film, they all seemed to stick to their belief in the main message, but the information given to them always changed some impression, expectation, or interpretation. The results of this category have shown that participants obtained a common message from the movie due to a popular understanding of the overall imagery presented in the film. Consequently, they constructed sub-messages created specifically through other elements such as culture and context. Feedback was shown to be irrelevant to some extent and that its importance is reduced due to easy access to information through advanced technologies, such as smartphones. In addition, the information acquired or given to them influenced and usually changed their perspective. Therefore, the role of technology cannot be disregarded since it provides information in a timely and easy manner. People are becoming so comfortable with the availability of information that technology now offers that there is no urgency or deep concern to acquiring feedback right away. Meaning Participants seemed to create meaning utilizing different elements that work together to form a whole. First, participants seemed to be driven by the emotional values some images presented. These images were the ones that persuaded them to think and to create meaning. For

Visual Rhetoric example, the notion of looking at something they were not normally exposed to forced them to

21

pay attention and to be interested while surprised. Three main scenes were distinguished among participants. One of the scenes was of chicks being processed in a factory. The images were shown sped up or in slow motion, presenting chicks getting crammed into a machine and having their beaks burned while tossed around like inanimate objects. All participants commented about these images. One person said, something so fundamental to life in our culture, like the chicken is such a common product, to see it mechanized like that, to see those little defenseless chicks being treated like theyre not living, definitely is upsetting and I guess I was drawn to those kinds of images the most. The second scene was of a snow-monkey in a hot spring, falling asleep. Again, many referred to this image giving similar commentaries such as, just to see the monkey chilling in the hot spring kind of falling asleep is really interesting, the human expression that he had, they look exactly luck us. The third scene showed dead bodies being burned in India. Most of the men in the study presented interest in this scene. One person said, humans dont like to admit death, and to watch another human burn is so hard to do. Overall, these images impacted people the most, captivating their attention by surprising them with images that are not commonly shown to the masses. There were also images that meant something to a particular person, causing that emotion to prevail. These images will be discussed under the element of culture, since they are related to personal stories. Another tool that was shown important for the creation of meaning was the techniques used by the director. First, images from day-to-day life were shown differently by using time-

Visual Rhetoric lapses. Secondly, images were juxtaposed in ways to help you associate them. One participant

22

commented about the juxtaposition of images between people in Japan entering the subway, with the chicks being processed. All images are shown very fast, and by association, one can deduct that the director was comparing humans to processed chicks. There was one part that really struck me, the part where, in the factory, he was feeding little chicks into the machines, and it was also comparing it to the subway systems in Japan. This really struck me because, one: I really love chickens and theyre animals, theyre live beings and they cant be treated that way. Two: I know Japan very well. That comparison its very striking. Presenting images of something as usual as people entering the subway, shown with time-lapse, made the audience pay more attention and become aware of something that its invisible by its commonness. The meaning of something embedded so deeply in one culture can easily be changed by the way that image is presented. Two very important elements for the study were also revealed: the use or non-use of text, and the use of sound. One of the participants made an interesting contribution to the study by mentioning that the only word used in the movie is the title, Baraka. As part of the research, some information about the movie was given to the participants in ways to test how feedback can change the meaning and composition of a message. This particular volunteer mentioned, the title is important, especially for a film with no words. Its just one word to help you handle it. Youre suddenly looking at it through a specific lens and in this case its a religious overtone. Its in reference to a prayer... is like having a painting, titled and untitled, both are different experiences. It shifts the meaning. Text, since it can be very specific, can cut the meaning of an image, and lead the audience to a different message. There is a big difference between watching

Visual Rhetoric images with text, than images without it. Inserting text in this study would be too ambitious, since it is an entire subject on its own.

23

At the same time, some people thought the music played a main role in the movie, while others did not. One participant said, the music helped out what you are watching, it enhanced it. Another showed concern by saying that the images would have some emotion, but not nearly the same without the music. I must agree that the soundtrack added power to the images, and helped the film have a rhythm, which ultimately made it easier to watch. Overall, after participants were bombarded with thousands of images throughout the movie, they showed a particular interest to the ones that provoked emotion within them. Emotions were formed through the strategic position and time-lapses of images, through personal associations, and through the compilation of all elements conveyed at once. A volunteers commentary proposed an interesting clause by explaining that depending on how his day went, and how he feels, he could have different outcomes of emotion. Emotions are a big part of how we create meaning, since they guide our brain to make connections. On the other hand, text brought a complete new subject to be studied. Adding one word can provide such a concise definition that would restrain the meaning of an image. Music was shown to enhance emotions and consequently make some images more persuasive. Music, though not as important as text, showed to influence how participants picked and gave meaning to images. Context Context became evident in the interviews since all participants mentioned that they all saw the movie knowing they were watching it for a study. Maybe this was because of the situation in which I was watching it, to study, I was acutely aware of the content I was watching.

Visual Rhetoric

24

I was finding meaning, but moreover watching it became like a meditation, where I was trying to find a structured meaning, some sort of relationship. As exemplified here, all four interviewees discussed at some point that just knowing this was a study made them try harder, and possibly, give more meaning to images, and create a more elaborate message. In terms of meaning, context was several times revealed while explaining a particular images persuasive meaning. For example, one of the volunteers had children. Being in that context made him look at the images of poor children begging on the streets with more emotion. He connected personally with these images because he imagined his child being in that situation. On the same level, one of the women volunteers also commented on these images, people are desensitized and it becomes less real. With the homeless children and the villagers, Ive been bombarded with that so much I dont even know how that affects me anymore. What this person was referring to is that in her context she has been exposed to these images so much that they no longer have the same connotation. Context also made a difference in the amount of information that was obtained during the study. Participants in the focus group disclosed more information because their context was more open to dialogue, and everyone seemed to get along. Referring to the focus group conversation, one person said, conversation makes a difference, brings up things I never thought about before. Focus groups resemble the process of feedback. As shown in the category of Message, extra information given to subjects makes them think differently and can guide them to different conclusions. Previously, it was mentioned that only participants with a background in art created the message of similarities in life. This showed how in the context of art, technical variations are

Visual Rhetoric noticed more and are reflected in the message. All individuals with a background in art noticed

25

and made remarks to the use of the juxtaposition of images. I think the juxtaposition of images of cultures and religions were very persuasive. This specific example makes the comparison that juxtaposing images of different religions made all religions seem similar, and that is expressed in the message about the similarities in life. Context has tested to be an important influence in the creation of meaning. It is an element that was evident by the different contexts in which participants were and are exposed to. For example, their area of expertise such as art, their personal contexts such as being a parent, their common contexts such as North America, and their situational contexts such as being in a study. The elements that surround an audience while creating meaning will manage the way they interpret images, and most likely, change the message. Culture Culture is linked, mostly, to emotions. In this study, there was one specific message that came across about the movie among all participants. The understanding of this message is explained by the popular culture to which all participants belong. Popular culture is generally known by the common understanding of semiotics. Participants recognized how an Orthodox Jew looks, what he is doing, and why. By understanding the same images the same way, the volunteers created a general message that was commonly shared. On the other had, the meanings given to the message varied greatly. First, the only meanings that had similarities among participants were the main three images talked about in the section of Meaning. These images presented new ideas to the participants, creating interest. But at the same time, there are several images that were given more personal meanings by associating them to personal stories.

Visual Rhetoric

26

In one instance, one of the participants said, the images of the prostitutes had a strong impact on me because of the experiences Ive had. This participant disclosed that she was a stripper and because of that, seeing those images brought some type of nostalgia that had stuck with her. For the student that lived in Japan, seeing the images of Japanese streets and subway stations sped up connected emotionally with her. She knew the place where the image was shot, but never thought about it in the way it was portrayed that intrigued her, and led her to reevaluate the meaning of that image. Another participant mentioned, I think someone who is growing up around livestock might have different reactions to the images of the people in Japan. This example can be linked to the image of the burning people in India. Not all people will feel the way the participants felt about this tradition. I can only suggest that Indians would experience these images with a different emotion than people not exposed to this custom. Overall, volunteers were aware that many of the images connected with them in a more personal level, giving them the capability to form their own messages. I agree with him about the burning people, but I think different aspects of the movie reflected different upon me. Understanding that the film had many messages due to the different interpretations people have about the images in the film, participants seemed happier with their own answers and perceptions. Culture has been shown to be an essential element while giving meaning to images because it is the lens with which these images are viewed. It is understood that we possess a popular culture that helps us understand the world around us. Simultaneously, that understanding is changed by our personal stories, beliefs, and experiences. Participants made emotional associations based on their personal culture. Those images that were associated through emotional connections were the ones shown as most persuasive.

Visual Rhetoric Limitations

27

There were some limitations presented in the study. The biggest challenge was scheduling the focus groups since at least five people had to agree to a time and place. Several times focus groups were postponed due to last minute cancellations. Since volunteers were not given any monetary incentive, they did not have any benefit to commit to a predetermined time. This caused volunteers to not be as responsible when scheduling the meetings. The time given to gather data was very limited and combined with scheduling conflicts, the research was severely delayed resulting in less data collected. Interviewees were picked mostly for their existing or non-existing background in art, but also because they had the availability to watch the movie, and schedule a meeting. Some prospects were not considered if they had a busy schedule. In addition, there was no control over interviewees going online and getting more information prior to the interview since they were given the movie to watch on their own personal time. This also gave them time to think about what they saw in the movie, and to go back and create a more structured message. It is also necessary to imply that since individuals are asked to take part in a study, they might try to answer the questions in a scholarly way instead of showing the true self. This issue was minimized during the meetings by creating comfortable atmospheres and by establishing trust from the beginning. Conclusions The goal of the study was to see which elements came across during the process of interpretation while watching the film "Baraka" and to explain why these elements are necessary to study visual rhetoric. Visual rhetoric, as Sonja K. Foss (2005) suggested, needs to include human intervention, have symbolic action, and to be directed to an audience for the means of communication. This study has proven that there are more elements necessary to explain visual

Visual Rhetoric

28

rhetoric. As humans, we do not create meaning solely with the use of symbols. People share a common culture, which is used to understand the main ideas images possess. On the other hand, the meaning extracted from an image can vary due to personal cultural and contextual factors. Culture, in particular, is linked to emotions. We create connections when emotionally stimulated by images imbedded in our personal culture. Context is used as an outside layer that influences the cognitive ability while creating associations and decoding the information ingrained in an image. Overall, the elements of context, culture, and emotions have to be taken in consideration while studying visuals. To disregard these elements would be to neglect our human nature.

Visual Rhetoric

29

References Barthes, R. (1998). Rhetoric of the image. In Mirzoeff, N. (Ed.), Visual culture reader. (pp. 7073). New York: Routledge. Berger, J. (1977). Ways of seeing. Retreived from http://www.scribd.com/doc/243296/Ways-ofSeeing-John-Berger Borrowman, S. (2005). Defining visual rhetorics. Composition Studies, 33(2), 121-125. Braden, W. W. (1970). Rhetorical criticism: Prognoses for the SeventiesA symposium: A prognosis by Waldo W. Braden. Southern Speech Journal, 36, 104-107. Brummett, B. (1991). Rhetorical dimensions of popular culture. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. DeRosia, E. (2008). The effectiveness of nonverbal symbolic signs and metaphors in advertisements: An experimental inquiry. Psychology & Marketing, 25(3), 298-316. Chen, H., & Boore, J. (2009). Using a synthesised technique for grounded theory in nursing research. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 18(16), 2251-2260. doi:10.1111/j.13652702.2008.02684.x. Durrer, H. (2008). No context needed. Afterimage, 36(3), 5-7. Ehninger, D. (1972). Contemporary rhetoric: A readers coursebook. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Visual Rhetoric Finnegan, C. A. (2001). The naturalistic enthymeme and vicontroversy. Argumentation and Advocacy, 37, 133-149. Fisher, J., & Mullen, L. (2004). A visual analysis of prescription drug advertising imagery: Elaborating Fosss rhetorical techniques. Communication Studies, 55(1), 185-196. Foss, S. K. (1994). A rhetorical schema for the evaluation of visual imagery. Communication Studies, 45, 213-224. Foss, S. K. (2005). Theory of visual rhetoric. In Smith, K., Moriarty, S, Barbatsis, G., Kenney, K. (Eds.), Handbook of visual communication: Theory, methods, and media (pp.141152). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Fox, M. V. (1983). Ancient Egyptian rhetoric. Rhetorica, 1, 9-22. Fry, D. L. & Fry, V. H. (1983). A semiotic model for the study of mass communication. In M.

30

McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication yearbook 9 (pp. 443-462). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine. Hawhee, D., & Messaris, P. (2009). Review Essay: What's visual about visual rhetoric?. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 95(2), 210-223. Helmers, M., & Hill, A. C. (2004). Introduction. In Hill C.A., & Helmers, M. (Eds.), Defining visual rhetorics (pp. 1-23). Mahwah, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum. Hill, C. A. (2004). The psychology of rhetorical images. In Hill, C.A., Helmers, M. (Eds.), Defining visual rhetorics (pp 25-40). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Visual Rhetoric Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. London: Sage Publications.

31

Medhurst, M. J., & DeSousa, M. A. (1981). Political cartoons as rhetorical form: A taxonomy of graphic discourse. Communication Monographs, 48, 197-236. Mirzoeff, N. (1998). What is visual culture?. In Mirzoeff, N. (Ed.), Visual culture reader (pp. 313). New York: Routledge. Mitchell, W. J. T. (1995). Interdisciplinarity and visual culture. Art Bulletin, 25(4), 540-544. Moriarty, S. (1995). Visual semiotics and the production of meaning in advertising. Visual Communication Division of AEJMC. Retrieved Feb 21, 2009, from http://spot.colorado.edu/~moriarts/vissemiotics.html Olson, L., Finnegan, C., & Hope, D. (2008). Visual rhetorical studies: Traces through time and space. In Olson, L., Finnegan, C., & Hope, D. (Eds.), Visual rhetoric (pp. xxi-xxv). London: Sage Publications Ltd. Peterson, V. (2001). The rhetorical criticism of visual elements: An alternative to Fosss schema. Southern Communication Journal, 67(1), 19-32. Peirce, C. S. (1955). Philosophical writings of Peirce (J. Buchler, Ed.). New York: Dover Publications. Rampley, M. (2005). Visual culture and the meanings of culture. In Rampley, M. (Ed.), Exploring visual culture (pp. 5-17). Edinburg: Edinburg University Press. Rice, J. (2004). A critical review of visual rhetoric in a postmodern age: Complementing, extending, and presenting new ideas. Review of Communication, 4(1), 63-74.

Visual Rhetoric Schirato, T., & Webb, J. (2004). Understanding the visual. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

32

Scott, L. (1994). Images in advertising: The need for a theory of visual rhetoric. The Journal of Consumer Research, (21)2, 252-273. Shedlin, M. G., & Shulman, L. (2004). Qualitative needs assessment of HIV services among Dominican, Mexican and Central American immigrant populations living in the New York City area. AIDS Care, 16, 434-445. Smith, V. (2007). Aristotles classical enthymeme and the visual argumentation of the twentyfirst century. Argumentation & Advocacy, 43(3/4), 114-123.