Channels, Fall 2016

Page 60 Kenniv • Visual Rhetoric: A Case for Visual Literacy in the Classroom by an understanding of audience, purpose, and arrangement. Propen (2007) further sup- ports this claim by defining visual communication as any visual artifact that embodies the communicative principles specific to the genre, given the limitations and conventions in that specific genre’s purpose, audience, and context. With a unique reference to film, Ponnivalavan (2015) defines rhetoric as a method of per- suasion and identification that results in social change. Others support this function of vis- ual rhetoric as social change, such as Barton and Barton (2004), Brasseur (2005), and Kim- ball (2006). We will study this idea in detail a little further on in this paper. Images Compared to Text A constant discussion rages over how visuals communicate versus how text communicates. Most often, we are guilty of treating images as something beneath or subordinate to text (Salinas 2002; Rosner 2001). Texts constructed by pictures are just as important and con- vey just as much meaning as texts constructed by words (Rosner 2001; Portewig 2004). Like persuasive text, there are purposeful, strategic decisions behind every image, and we do ourselves a disfavor by ignoring this fact or leaving it for the graphic designers alone to decipher (Salinas 2002). Furthermore, we cannot assume that the meaning of a text is self- evident while that of a visual is not (Willerton 2005). While most of the conversation centers on bringing the visual up to the same level as the textual, Brasseur (2005) observes how Florence Nightingale used the powers of text and visual congruously to communicate with her audience and effectively bring about social change amongst general hospital practices. This example from Brasseur further illustrates the point Salinas (2002) makes by pointing out that images have a cultural significance we must decipher. It even goes so far as to say that images are aspects of communication we must learn to write. By making these points, Salinas and Brasseur bring the visual and the textual to the same level, even implying that they are more powerful working together than apart. Visuals, Purpose, and Meaning The visual communicates in a number of ways. Rather than being stoic, neutral, or subordi- nate to text (Salinas 2002; Rosner 2001), visuals often further an argument and convince viewers to move from passivity into action (Brasseur 2005). A very clear visual that creates meaning, though sometimes implicit, is the map (Brasseur 2005; Propen 2007; Kimball 2006). The selective process the author undergoes in deciding what to display and what to leave out on each map is heavily guided by the ultimate purpose of the document. In the end, the purpose helps dictate some of the meaning (Willerton 2005; Propen 2007). Propen (2007) carries out the considerations on maps to its fullest extent. She observes that maps reflect reality, but they also create it. However, Kimball (2006) counters that the visual can at times be deceptive since they offer a more transparent view of reality rather than a complex view. This idea stems from Kimball’s personal study of human response to