Blog 7 - The Visual Form of Argument

How is visual argument different from verbal argument?

How do we incorporate visual argument into the argumentation theory?

How do we fully comprehend a visual argument?

*********

The authors suggest the claim — ­visual components cannot be a valid form of arguments because the visual is radically indeterminate, and therefore, cannot sustain an argument — is fundamentally fallacious. They cited numerous examples of visual arguments that were neither ambiguous nor arbitrary to lead credence to their argument.

The authors’ assertion is rather valid since one can easily find a large volume of examples to show that the visual can imply messages that are both direct and unambiguous, and they are as much an effective form of argument as writings. While it is true that many visual forms, such as paintings and photographs, can be interpreted in radically different ways by the audience based on his or her past experiences and personal beliefs, visual forms that are purposefully designed to convey a message can be very straightforward and lead to the same obvious conclusions. Such examples include advertisement posters, satirical comics, and documentaries. Therefore, it would be unjustified to reject the visual entirely as a valid form of argument based on such flawed premise.

Wong Kin