Thursday, March 24, 2011
Sample Q
In sample Q the author makes the statement that an image can be just as effective in creating an argument as writing can, just in different ways. Going on to say that images "have more room for interpretation" and "allows the mind to create its own meaning." But how can an image demonstrate the author's or artists's argument if it is left up to interpretation? If this is the case, how can the author or artist be certain that what the audience is interpreting is their argument? People may depict and relate the image to their own experiences and own opinions that can change what they think is the intended claim. In the Fire montage their was a picture of someone smoking a cigarette. One person, who might smoke, may look at this image and think of relief, and a break because that is what they feel every time they go outside and smoke. Another person may look at this image may feel disgust and think that smoking is an awful habit. But throughout this no one knows what the author or artist was contemplating while presenting this picture. An image can make an argument, the image like writing has to be clear and precise to know what you are arguing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree that individual images on their own can be hard to interpret in a predicable manner, but I believe the point of the visual arguments we've been making is using a combination of images. It is like textual arguments need support and reason to make claims into legitimate arguments; Visual arguments need other images to make them legitimate understandable arguments. Visual arguments, compared to textual arguments also tend to make more of an impression and are better at manipulating emotions. They can also instill more of an impact at once by bombarding the viewer with often simultaneous thoughts. Even if there is some lack of clarity within a visual argument, it is made up for by the usually stronger and more informative strength of the message.
ReplyDelete