Advertisement

Argumentation

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 197–215 | Cite as

The Rhetoric of Thick Representation: How Pictures Render the Importance and Strength of an Argument Salient

  • Jens E. Kjeldsen
Article

Abstract

Some forms of argumentation are best performed through words. However, there are also some forms of argumentation that may be best presented visually. Thus, this paper examines the virtues of visual argumentation. What makes visual argumentation distinct from verbal argumentation? What aspects of visual argumentation may be considered especially beneficial?

Keywords

Picture Presence Rhetoric Semiotic Thick representation Visual argumentation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

My warm thanks to Tony Blair, Georges Roque and the anonymous reviewer for proposals and comments that have helped me improve this paper.

References

  1. Barthes, R. 1977. Image, music, text. London: Fontana Press.Google Scholar
  2. Birdsell, D., and L. Groarke. 1996. Towards a theory of visual argument. Argumentation and Advocacy 33: 1–10.Google Scholar
  3. Birdsell, D., and L. Groarke. 2007. Outlines of a theory of visual argument. Argumentation and Advocacy 43: 103–113.Google Scholar
  4. Blair, J.A. 1996. The possibility and actuality of visual argument. Argumentation and Advocacy 33: 1–10.Google Scholar
  5. Blair, J.A. 2004. The rhetoric of visual arguments. In Defining visual rhetorics, ed. C.A. Hill, and M. Helmers, 137–151. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  6. Blair, JA. 2012. Groundwork in the theory of argumentation. Amsterdam: Argumentation Library 21.Google Scholar
  7. Chandler, D. 2006. Semiotics: The basics. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Damasio, A.R. 1994. Descartes’ error : Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York: Putnam.Google Scholar
  9. Domke, D., D. Perlmutter, and M. Spratt. 2002. The primes of our times? An examination of the ‘power’ of visual images. Journalism 3(2): 131–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eco, U. 1972. Introduction to a semiotics of iconic signs. In VS 2: 1–14.Google Scholar
  11. Eco, U. 1979. A theory of semiotics. Indiana: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Eco, U. 1984. Semiotics and the philosophy of language. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Eco, U. 2000. Kant and the platypus. New York: Harcourt Brance and Co.Google Scholar
  14. Eemeren, F.H., R. van Grootendorst, F.S. Henkemans, J.A. Blair, R.H. Johnson, E.C.W. Krabbe, C. Plantin, D.N. Walton, C.A. Willard, J. Woods, and D. Zarefsky. 2009. Fundamentals of argumentation theory. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Geertz, C. 1973. Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays, 3–30. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  16. Gombrich, E.H. 1982. The image and the eye: Further studies in the psychology of pictorial representation. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Groarke, L. 1996. Logic, art and argument. Informal logic 18: 105–129.Google Scholar
  18. Groarke, L. 2009. Five theses on toulmin and visual argument. In Pondering on problems of argumentation: Twenty essays on theoretical issues, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, and B. Garssen, 229–239. Amsterdam: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hariman, R., and J. Lucaites. 2007. No caption needed: Iconic photographs, public culture and liberal democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  20. Kjeldsen, JE. 2002 Visuel retorik [Visual Rhetoric]. Dr. art avhandling. IMV-utgivelse nr. 50. Bergen: Institutt for medievitenskap, UiB.Google Scholar
  21. Kjeldsen, J.E. 2007. Visual argumentation in Scandinavian political advertising: A cognitive, contextual, and reception-oriented approach. Argumentation and Advocacy 43: 124–132.Google Scholar
  22. Kjeldsen, J.E. 2012a. Pictorial argumentation in advertising: Visual tropes and figures as a way of creating visual argumentation. In Topical themes in argumentation theory: Twenty exploratory studies, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, and B. Garssen, 239–255. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kjeldsen, JE. 2012b. Four rhetorical qualities of pictures. Paper presented at the th Biennial RSA Conference. May 25–28, 2012. The Loews Philadelphia Hotel, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  24. Kjeldsen, J.E. 2012c. At argumentere med billeder [Making arguments with pictures]. Rhetorica Scandinavica 60: 27–49.Google Scholar
  25. Kock, C. 2013. Defining rhetorical argumentation. Philosophy and Rhetoric 46(4): 437–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kock, C. 2003. Multidimensionality and non-deductiveness in deliberative argumentation. In anyone who has a view: Theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation, eds. Frans H. Van van Eemeren, F.H., Blair, JA, Willard, CA, Henkemans, AFS, 157–171. Argumentation Library Volume 8. Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  27. Kock, C. 2007a. Is practical reasoning presumptive? Informal Logic 27(1): 91–108.Google Scholar
  28. Kock, C. 2007b. Norms of legitimate dissensus. Informal Logic 27(2): 179–196.Google Scholar
  29. Kock, C. 2009. Choice is not true or false: The domain of rhetorical argumentation. Argumentation 23: 61–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kress, G., and T. van Leeuwen. 1996. Reading images. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Lake, R.A., and B.A. Pickering. 1998. Argumentation, the visual, and the possibility of refutation: An exploration. Argumentation 12: 79–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Langer, SK 1980 [1942]. Philosophy in a new key: A study in the symbolism of reason, rite and art. 3rd edition. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Macano, F., and D. Walton. 2014. Emotive language in argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Messaris, P. 1997. Visual persuasion: The role of images in advertising. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  35. Messaris, P. 1994. Visual «literacy»: Image, mind, and reality. Boulder Co: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  36. Murphy, J.M. 1994. Presence, analogy, and Earth in the balance. Argumentation and Advocacy 31: 1–16.Google Scholar
  37. Perelman, C, Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. 1971 [1969]. The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  38. Perlmutter, D. 1998. Photojournalism and foreign policy. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  39. Sonesson, G. 2010a. Pictorial semiotics. In Encyclopedic dictionary of semiotics, eds. Sebeok, T., Danesi, M. 3. rev. and updated ed. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
  40. Sonesson, G. 2010b. Iconicity strikes back: the third generation—Or why Eco still is wrong. In La sémiotique visuelle: nouveaux paradigmes Bilbliotèque VISIO 1, ed. Costantini, M. 247–270. L’Harmattan: Paris.Google Scholar
  41. Tindale, C.W. 2004. Rhetorical argumentation. Principles of theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.Google Scholar
  42. Toulmin, S. 1958. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Zarefsky, D. 2014. Rhetorical perspectives on argumentation: Selected essays by David Zarefsky. Heidelberg/NewYork/Drodrecht/London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information Science and Media StudiesUniversity of BergenBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations