“Toward a Theory of Visual Argument,” by David S. Birdsell and Leo Groarke

Birdsell, David S. and Groarke, Leo. “Toward a Theory of Visual Argument”
Visual Rhetoric in a Visual World: A Critical Sourcebook.
Ed. Carolyn Handa. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2004. (    309-320)

This article, originally published in 1996, validates the rhetorically argumentative value of the image in its attempt to develop a theory of visual argument. The authors argue that the notion of visual images as  “vague and ambiguous” can be refuted when one considers that “words and sentence” are also often vague and ambiguous as well. Using examples from public service announcements (a fish smoking a cigarette at the end of a hook with the copy “Don’t get hooked”) and political cartoons to illustrate the meaningful argumentative value of image with and without copy.   They write, “The meaning of a visual claim or argument obviously depends on a complex set of relationships between a particular image/text and a given set of interpreters” (313). In developing their theory of visual argument, they state that “three kinds of context are important in the evaluation of visual arguments: immediate visual context, immediate verbal contexts, and visual culture” (315).  By applying specific cultural contexts and meanings to visual arguments, “we effectively extend (my emphasis) the traditional verbal enthymeme” (315).
Interestingly, Birdsell and Groarke draw parallels between the “jumpy, quick edits typified by music videos in the 1990s” and cubism’s effort to “present multiple perspectives on a subject over the time and/or space, on a single two-dimensional frame” (316). Ultimately, our use and adaptation of the visual argument evolves and changes as does our culture and civilization. The issues of resemblance and representation also come into play when analyzing a visual argument.

To sum up Birdsell and Groarke’s theory of visual argument, “we must accept the possibility of visual meaning, we must make more of an effort to consider images in context, and we must recognize the argumentative aspects of representation and resemblance” (318). By applying these concepts to the rhetorical analysis of visual arguments we “can better understand the complexities of both visual images and ordinary argument as they are so often intertwined in our increasingly visual media” (319). This essay is useful when considering how to teach the rhetoric of the image and also in examining the visual arguments presented by students.