English 3135 with Dr. Holmes taught me to never be afraid to research. In this article, we looked at an article by Foss who speaks on the entity of visual rhetoric. Even as an established theorist, he uses research to support his argument on “centrality”. Using outside sources only helps his argument to grow and advance beyond it’s original meaning. This provides the ability for other audiences to apply to their own research and expand perspectives. This article reflects on Foss’ arguments on centrality, our ability to use rhetoric as a channel for communication and extend our research to create new ideas.
Foss’ Theories on Visual Rhetoric
Foss describes visual rhetoric as “the study of visual imagery within the discipline of rhetoric” (Page 141). Images can be perceived in multiple ways. Throughout Foss’s Theory of Visual Rhetoric, Foss determines the value of images in literary documents. By examining this value, theorists can decide whether or not to use images in rhetorical situations. By suggesting different perceptions of images, theorists tend to digress from the use of images as evidence.
In “Theory of Visual Rhetoric”, Foss includes a theorist by the name of John H Patton’s response to how we should study visual symbols. Patton suggested “a redefinition to rhetoric to include nonlinguistic symbols represented a kind of rhetorical dislocation and a break from clear connections with a central theoretical core”(Page 142). In definition, Patton states we should clearly distinguish language between literary symbols (manuscripts, written documents) and nonlinguistic symbols (paintings, sculptures) to establish an accurate theory for each. In manuscripts, the words are represented by their denotative meanings in a central view. There is an agreed consensus on the main idea of the writing. In nonlinguistic symbols, there is a sense of free expression. There is not a central theory to base the concepts of the image on. Multiple theorists can create their own definition of what a visual piece means to them.
I agree with Patton’s idea of representing objects with their ow perceptions. These perceptions are in the lens of the viewer of the artifact. However, visual images continue to flourish as evidence in literary documents. Foss claims one the main factors of the success of images are the “pervasiveness ness of the visual image and its impact on contemporary culture”(Page 142). Pervasiveness is describes as the quality of spreading widely or being present throughout an area. As time progresses, media continues to expand. The access to internet has allowed billions of people to access visual evidence among numerous platforms. This availability makes a greater consensus among people because this is the image that is available to associate with a certain idea in time.
Images are often known to have multiple perspectives. As generations pass and ideas evolve, the meaning of terms tends to adapt to their environmental influences. Foss states, “The content that emerges from the application of the perspective is virtually limitless, bound only by the perspective’s focus on how visual artifacts function communicatively” (Page 145). Language changes every day across cultures. Cultural influences impact personal views on different artifacts. The possibilities are endless concerning perceptions on visual pieces, outside of historical context. Many pieces such as “The Mona Lisa” have common stories known about by a majority of people. These perspectives have been established over time from a gained sense of knowledge of those around us.
By redefining the boundaries of visual rhetoric, Foss gives way to understanding visual pieces in multiple days. Having a central theoretical idea helps to form agreements and spread preconceived knowledge about an artifact in our history. Without this central idea, theorists have free expression towards artifacts. The idea of forming your own complete thought about an artistic work leads to generations of newfound knowledge on a specific culture. Once you change the concept of a piece, you ultimately change its history, making the traces and background of the image completely different. Having our own perspective also helps us derive our own solutions to ideals that may have been on opposing sides when the piece was created. Depending on the piece and the group of viewers, a piece’s perception can be concluded in a million ways. The knowledge gained from a piece can be solely based on the person, or the back story to the artifact itself. It is essential to artwork that we develop our own opinions. As time evolves, our minds and ideas alike change to adapt to our surrounding elements. In doing so, o the way we see the world continuously changes.