Sunday, March 20, 2011
Response to Sample R
I strongly disagree with Sample R's response. In this response the writer states that images do not need to occur subsequently, but writing does. I feel as though both modes of communication must be specifically sequenced. Images cannot be randomly placed in any order simply because then they will not successfully argue their point. In fact, one must place images in a specific order or they will never prove their point. Sample R states that "One doesn't have to look at image A to understand image B and so on and so forth." I feel that this is not true and realistic. Images must be placed in a specific order to made them understandable. In many of the visual arguments shown in class, one picture was the "turning point" of the visual production. This one image swayed the audience to believe and accept the creator's argument. If that one image was placed randomly in the montage the argument would have not made sense. Both visual arguments and written arguments need flawless organization to prove their point correctly. The "big picture" or "big idea" of an argument is not nearly as strong as the specific yes or no argument.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I do agree with your theory that order is important in visual arguments, but I do not think it is always as necessary as you are claiming. With complex arguments that have turning points and take the viewer on a more complicated ride through their thought process, the images must be in a certain order. However, for a simple argument I see it as possible to make the argument despite the order of the images. For example, in my visual presentation on "rain" order was important of proving my argument of rain as a positive and negative force but even after destruction rain give way to hope, as well as my point on rain as another cyclic part of nature (by starting and ending with hopeful positives). But, if I cut out a few of the images and scrambled them (and maybe even put them to a helpful soundtrack), what would you get out of it? Not the same more complicate argument as before, but I believe the viewer would still be able to figure out simply the point that rain is both good and bad.
ReplyDelete