In Birdsell and Groarke’s “Toward a Theory of Visual Argument”, the authors argue that argumentation theorist do not credit the visual element of argument and persuasion. They claim that a better knowledge of these elements is key if students and scholars of argumentation want to fully comprehend the role of all types of media in our everyday lives.
The authors’ first claim is that while some may say that visual images are ambiguous or not a good argument, they can in fact be very effective. In an example of an anti-smoking add, the poster reads, “Don’t you get hooked.” The words alone could cause some ambiguity, but the picture of a fish hooked on a cigarette as an aid clarifies the meaning.
The second claim made stresses the magnitude of the context in the argument. There are three different types of important context mentioned: “immediate visual context, immediate verbal context, and visual culture.”
The idea that argumentation is essential when identifying resemblance and representation is the third claim made. An example of how the two are different can be seen when looking at a portrait of someone that may resemble them and look like them, while it does not truly represent them.
There are three requirements when visualizing a visual argument. One must accept the of likelihood of visual argument; strive to take into account the context of the argument; and recognize the differences between representation and resemblance.
This cartoon by Jim Borgman was published in 2003 and depicts a short conversation between a soldier and a graduate student and ultimately agrees with the essay ‘Toward a Theory of Visual Argument’.
The design is relatively simple, only depicting two characters with representative cloths but nothing else. Because they are drawn so simply the audience immediately connects the two characters because despite their wildly different cloths, they are still very similar. The effect of this is to make sure the audience understands that the only true difference between these two is their career paths.
The audience intended for this cartoon is young adults who face the new job market and also new soldiers, but moreover also their parents. The basic argument put forth to them is that with the increasing number of troops required in Iraq and the poor economic situation we find ourselves in, means that it is now easier to make a living as a soldier than at a regular civilian job, and that education is not valued as much anymore.
The appeal to logic (logos) is mainly done with what the audience will undoubtedly know ahead of seeing this cartoon. That more troops are being sent to Iraq to fight, that the USA has its largest deficit ever and that the economy is dwindling. This cartoon is a ‘therefore’ following those assumptions.
The appeal to emotion (Pathos) is mainly found in the word choice of the small snippet of the conversation. The character says ‘easier to find war’ not easier to be a soldier. The negative connotations of war are evoked. Not only that, but most people would value their diploma greatly and here it is depicted as an ordinary looking, rolled up piece of paper that looks exactly like what the soldier is holding, which possibly is his assignment in Iraq.
This careful relationship between the image and the words brings forward the message like neither the words, nor the image could do alone. This agrees completely with what Birdsell and Groarke were arguing in their essay ‘Toward a Theory of Visual Argument’.
