Abstract
Our aim is to point out some differences between verbal and visual arguments, promoting the rhetorical perspective of argumentation beyond the relevance of logic and pragmatics. In our view, if it is to be rational and successful, film as (visual) argumentation must be addressed to spectators who hold informed beliefs about the theme watched on the screen and the medium’s constraints and conventions. In our reflections to follow, we apply rhetorical analysis to film as a symbolic, human, and communicative act that may sometimes be understood as a visually laid out argument. As a mixture of visual, auditory, and verbal stimuli, film demands active and complex interpretation and (re)construction. Our suggestion is to focus on five different but interrelated elements. The reconstruction and evaluation of the visual argument will be based on those elements, and the whole process will be one of visual argumentation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Compare it with the following declaration by the filmmaker S. M. Eisenstein: ‘A work of art, understood dynamically, is just this process of arranging the images in the feelings and mind of the spectator’ (1947, p. 17).
Elaborating on Willard’s idea, Tindale (1999, p. 84) says that the extension of “argumentative text” may include ‘films, newsreels, humorous anecdotes, fables, and other narratives, even the juxtaposition of headlines with photographs on a newspaper’s front page, may promote a point of view for which an audience’s adherence is sought, or may be used in that promotion.’ Besides, starting from the assumption that rhetoric, as the study of effective techniques of persuasion, operates within a dialectical framework, because it ‘is not per se incompatible with the critical ideal of reasonableness’, van Eemeren and Houtlosser (2000) writes: ‘It is to be investigated which rhetorical strategies are used in the discourse in order to achieve the result aimed for by the speaker or writer. Rhetorical strategies may manifest themselves at three levels: in the selection of material, its adaptation to the audience, and its presentation. In order to achieve the optimal rhetorical result, the selected moves must be an effective choice from the available potential, the moves must be in such a way adapted to the audience that they comply with auditorial demands, and the presentation of the moves must be discursively and stylistically appropriate. At each of these three levels, the speaker or writer has a chance to influence the outcome of the discussion, and the influences may occur simultaneously. A rhetorical strategy is, in fact, optimally successful if the rhetorical efforts at the three levels converge, so that a fusion of persuasive influences is generated.’
For the usefulness of Sperber and Wilson’s relevance theory in explaining the techniques of “unreliable” filmic narration, see Buckland 1995. Notice, however, that the context of an utterance is ‘the set of premises used in interpreting [it]’. As such, is a psychological concept: ‘A context is a psychological construct, a subset of the hearer’s assumptions about the world’ (Sperber and Wilson 1986, p. 15). Hence in relevance theory context does not refer to some part of the external environment of the communication partners, be it the text preceding or following an utterance, situational circumstances, cultural factors, and so forth. Context rather refers to part of their “assumptions about the world” or “cognitive environment”, as it is called. The notion of “cognitive environment” takes into account the various external factors but places the emphasis on the information they provide and its mental availability for the interpretation process.
Groarke’s (1996) reconstruction and evaluation of The Death of Marat by J.-L. David comes to mind as an example. After providing background knowledge and aesthetic commentaries, Groarke reconstructs an argument and claims that his interpretation ‘well captures the essence of the piece, which is a call to emulate Marat built upon an argument from analogy which compares Marat to Christ’ (p. 120). Although we are probably far from having David’s intentions properly reflected in that interpretation, Groarke has provided us with an argument and so The Death of Marat qualified as a visual argument (cf. Johnson 2003).
As is historically well known, for those who have emphasized the dialectical and pragmatic properties of argumentation, norms of logic are essential components to the extent that the practice is rational in some sense, and norms of rhetoric are followed to the extent that the practice involves successful communication.
In fact, in accordance with Gombrich’s (1998) reflections on painting, the viewer needs some knowledge of the medium’s constraints and conventions, a sense of the purpose, the ability to filling what is missing, and a proclivity to compare the painting with pertinent experiences of the world.
We have found inspiration in Tindale’s (2004) idea of rhetorical argumentation.
This is quite in line with Popper’s philosophical ideas, as previously noted.
This inference has contextual effect. On account of this, (1) it allows the conclusion to be derived, (2) it provides evidence to strengthen the assumption that Ransom is the man who will bring progress to Shinbone, and (3) it contradicts the prevailing assumption that Ransom is the man who shot Liberty Valance. It is obvious that watching the film is the best way to appreciate how this new information is introduced into the cognitive environment, and how it causes adherence to the thesis.
The author is grateful to the Spanish Ministry of Science and Education, and to the Generalitat Valenciana for supporting this work (Projects HUM2005-00365/FISO, and GV06/022). He is also grateful to I. and V. Alcolea, M.C. Fuster, V. Iranzo, J.M. Lorente, A. Lindsay, X. Sierra, J.P. Úbeda and three anonymous referees for their thoughtful comments and suggestions on the earlier drafts.
References
Aristotle. 1991. Poetics. In The complete works of Aristotle, ed. J. Barnes, 2316–2340. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Austin, J.L. 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Birdsell, D.S., and L. Groarke. 1996. Towards a theory of visual argument. Argument and Advocacy 33: 1–10.
Black, M. 1972. How do pictures represent? In Art, perception, and reality, ed. M. Mandelbaum, 95–130. London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Blair, J.A. 1996. The possibility and actuality of visual arguments. Argumentation and Advocacy 33: 23–29.
Bordwell, D., and K. Thompson. 2004. Film art: An introduction, 7th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Buckland, W. 1995. Relevance and cognition: Towards a pragmatics of unreliable filmic narration. In Towards a pragmatics of the audiovisual, vol. 2, ed. J.E. Müller, 55–66. Münster: Nodus Publikationen.
Burke, K. 1969. A rhetoric of motives. Berkeley, CA: University California Press.
Dreyer, C.T. 1991. A little on film style. In Dreyer in double reflection, ed. D. Skoller, 122–142. New York: Da Capo Press.
Eisenstein, S.M. 1947. The film sense. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
Eisenstein, S.M. 1992. A dialectic approach to film form. In Film theory and criticism, ed. G. Mast, M. Cohen, and L. Braudy, 138–154. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gombrich, E.H. 1998. Arte e ilusión [Art and illusion]. Madrid: Debate.
Gorgias of Leontini. 2003. The encomium of helen. In The Greek sophists, ed. J. Dillion and T. Gergel, 76–84. London: Penguin.
Gregory, R.L. 1998. Eye and brain. The psychology of seeing, 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Groarke, L. 1996. Logic, art and argument. Informal Logic 18: 105–129.
Groarke, L. 2002. Towards a pragma-dialectics of visual argument. In Advances in pragma-dialectics, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, 137–151. Amsterdam: International Centre for the Study of Argumentation.
Groarke, L. 2007. Four theses on Toulmin and visual argument. In Proceedings of the Sixth Conference ISSA, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard, and B. Garssen, 535–540. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Johnson, R.H. 2003. Why “visual arguments” aren’t arguments. In: IL@25. A Conference Celebrating the Twenty-Fifth Anniversary of the First International Symposium on Informal Logic. http://web2.uwindsor.ca/faculty/arts/philosophy/ILat25/edited_johnson.doc.
Kracauer, S. 1997. Theory of film. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
McBride, J. 2004. Tras la pista de John Ford [Searching for John Ford: A Life]. Madrid: T & B Editores.
O’Keefe, D.J. 1982. The concepts of argument and arguing. In Advances in argumentation theory and research, ed. J.R. Cox, and C.A. Willard, 3–23. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Perelman, Ch. and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1969. The new rhetoric. A Treatise on Argumentation. (trans: Wilkinson, J. and P. Weaver). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Popper, K.R. 1972. Objective knowledge. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Slade, C. 2003. Seeing reasons: Visual argumentation in advertisements. Argumentation 17: 145–160.
Sperber, D., and D. Wilson. 1986. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Tarnay, L. 2003. The conceptual basis of visual argumentation. In Proceedings of the Fifth Conference ISSA, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard, and A.F. Snoeck Henkemans, 1001–1005. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Tindale, C.W. 1999. Acts of arguing: A rhetorical model of argument. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Tindale, C.W. 2004. Rhetorical argumentation: Principles of theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
van Eemeren, F.H. and P. Houtlosser. 2000. Rhetoric in Pragma-Dialectics. Argumentation, Interpretation, Rhetoric, 1. www.argumentation.spb.ru/2000_1/index.htm.
van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Alcolea-Banegas, J. Visual Arguments in Film. Argumentation 23, 259–275 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-008-9124-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-008-9124-9