Visual Rhetoric

Most of us have heard the phrase, “Action speaks louder than words.” People are more influenced by what they see you do rather than what they hear you say. We respond to appearance—or image. In light of the ensuing discussion, I would adapt the cliché to read, “Pictures speak louder than words.”

Think about terrible news headers such as “Typhoon Haiyan: at least 10,000 reported dead in Philippine province.” Just reading the words in a short headline is shocking, but the reality and emotional impact of the statement doesn’t really sink in until we discover photos of the destruction:

 

Many groups, such as HLN, use image to spread awareness about the tragedy and rhetorically prompt people to donate to relief teams that will be sent to the affected areas.

 Visit the original webpage where the above picture is located and notice the design. The story is divided into three evenly-sized sections, and the picture occupies the space of the middle section. As readers, our eyes are immediately drawn to the distraught woman carrying her child. Because we’ve all witnessed someone grieving or have had to deal with grief ourselves, we immediately relate to the picture and feel more compassion toward the Pilipino people. Therefore, when the story below the picture calls for help or monetary donations, we are all the more willing (and likely) to act and do something in response. According to Paul Messaris, visual images can “elicit emotions by stimulating the appearance of a real person or object; they can serve as photographic proof that something really did happen” (vii).

When we hear or read about breaking news such as the Typhoon Haiyan killing thousands of people, we have difficulty comprehending the information. 25,000 American soldiers died in the Revolutionary War (Statistic Brain). 10,000 people, the original estimate of the deaths resulting from Typhoon Haiyan, is a little less than half the American casualties in the Revolutionary War. This comparison may not seem significant until one realizes that the American casualties accumulated over eight years; the Philipino deaths accumulated over a few days. And yet, we still can’t grasp the import of those numbers, not until we see a graph like this:

 

In his TED talk, “The beauty of data visualization,” David McCandless stated, “We’re all visualizers now. We’re all demanding a visual aspect to our information.” Perhaps the reason why people prefer visual information now is because we more easily process pictures rather than text. McCandless later said, “Visualization literally pours in [to our senses]…The bulk of your vision is pouring in and is unconscious.” His assertion echoes what Scott McCloud claimed: “Pictures are received information. We need no formal education to ‘get the message.’ The message is instantaneous. Writing is perceived information. It takes time and specialized knowledge to decode the abstract symbols of language” (49).

The “easy interpretation” of pictures is just one advantage that visual rhetoric has over textual rhetoric. Pictures can also imply—and persuade people of—something that typically isn’t rhetorically effective to state in words (Messaris xix). Messaris wrote that by eliciting certain emotions in people, pictures “can establish an implicit link between the thing that is being sold and some other image” (vii). For example, take a look at the images below:

 

 

 

These ads appeared in different Sports Illustrated swimsuit editions. In all three images, Miss Green is “undressed” in a sexually suggestive way; in short, the advertisers are attempting to establish a link between sex and Miss Green in order to sell their M&M candy.

One potential disadvantage of visual rhetoric is ambiguity. People can interpret a picture in so many ways that the original creator of the image could lose all control over his intended message. Another disadvantage is that “visual communication does not have an explicit syntax for expressing analogies, contrasts, causal claims, and other kinds of propositions” (Messaris xi). I think the McDonald’s ad below is one such example of failed visual rhetoric:

 

Anthony Adragna, who posted the image, summarized it all:

What do you see in this udderly (sorry) confusing ad for McDonalds in Finland? In an effort to promote their new double flavor milkshakes, the fast food giant hired a company to produce this ad. It appears to feature a cow looking through its legs at the brilliant pastures of Finland. Do you see the peace sign? The number two? Human fingers? Teats?
It seems open to interpretation. What do you think of this ad?
                                                                  (Creepy and Confusing New McDonalds Ad)