Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Visual Images
Charles Hill’s article on visuals made me think about advertisements and commercials. In both, visuals are used to evoke a certain response in the target audience. In some cases the written words or what is being said by actors in commercials isn’t even important. The audience is supposed to focus more on what the visuals are associated with and what they represent. The problem with expecting the target audience to take what it sees and associate it with something else is that everyone interprets things differently. Two people may look at a picture used in an advertisement and associate it with entirely opposite things. I think Hill explains this when he says persuasive images are used to prompt viewers to develop new associations rather than support the argument with logic and evidence. And also when he says that some persuasive images can be analyzed using the same conceptual tools that have been used to analyze verbal arguments, but there is, as of yet, not an established and widely publicized pedagogy for discussing persuasive images with students in class. Sure it would probably be easier for someone to tell you what you are supposed to get out of an advertisement or commercial (or any other visual image), rather than trying to understand it yourself but that doesn’t happen in real life. I feel that visual imagery is a part of our everyday lives and I think that students should be taught to analyze these images and associate them with certain meanings. How do you think students could be taught to analyze and interpret visual images in class?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
I completely agree that in many cases what is being narrated during commercials isn't the primary focus at all. Rather, the visual is the primary focus. Think about when you see an advertisment to send money/adopt a poor child from a foreign country. You do not remember what was said but I bet you can picture the little kid's face.
However, when Hill says "persuasive images are used to prompt viewers to develop new associations rather than support the argument with logic and evidence" I think he is meaning those images are associated with emotions not logic. I don't think he means different people will view things differently but more that when people view it they will have a reaction stronger then just an evidence fact related reaction.
I think the best way for students to learn to analyze such visual images is to give them practice. Expose them to the idea that visual images have a strong role and that there is a reason that every image is picked for advertisment then give them examples. Once students realize it happens, they will probably start to analyze it in everyday situations.
I dont really know if students can "be taught" on how to interpret different visual images because everyone interprets things different. To one person the image could mean something happy and to another the image could mean something offensive.
I dont think we shouldnt take visual images seriously because I do think it is important but I dont know if I think it is something that can be taught like interpreting writing. When something is written it is usually more clearly interepreted then when something is visual. You cant really know what the artist is really wanting you to get out of the image without them telling you or writing what they feel, it leaves everything up in the air and for everyone to have a different opinion.
The two articles about visual rhetoric have been my favorite thus far. Charles Hill's article, "Reading the Visual in College Writing Classes" was of special interest to me. I could not agree more with what he has to say about the importance of students learning the skills necessary to analyzing persuasive images in our daily lives as consumers, political agents and social beings. The lack of education in this area is upsetting. College professors should be spending more time introducing their students to the world of visual rhetoric and providing us with the tools needed in understanding such images that exist all around us.
Hill mentions in the article that people could agrue that the visual form of rhetorical expressipn has not become predominant until just recently. I circled this idea in my notes and wrote "absolutely not" in my margins. I do not believe this to be the case at all
This quarter I am enrolled in my tier 3 course which just so happens to be a course in The Study of Midieval Manscript Iconography ( who knew OU offered such a course). In the past four weeks I have spent hours studying images from some of the oldest books from history. These images were not what Hill might describe as a "pure image", but rather they describe ideas that the text only refers to.
Students in this course have to LEARN this method of expressing ideas into images and interpreting what hidden agenda they may hold. It is not a new skill that comes easily, for most of us have never had teachers that encouraged this type of learning in modern classrooms. I hope this is a trend in teaching that grows because I think we could all become more literate in society with some training..
It is hard to teach students how to analyze and interpret visual images in a specific way because people develop different interpretations of what they see. You can assign students to write about an advertisement in a magazine or a commercial they saw on TV. Not everyone will see the same thing which makes it interesting. I have had assignments like this before and I like discussing what everyone sees because someone usually points out something that I didn’t even think about. It must be really hard for advertising or marketing firms to express and persuade their messages. Visual imagery can be interpreted in many ways due to our vast imaginations.
As the saying goes-a picture is worth a thousand words, yet educators tend to favor words over images. Can you ever see there being a class called “Image Studies,” as Roy Fox proposes? I find it hard to believe that we will ever see a class like this but it makes me wonder if we should focus and develop the way we analyze images. Words and images do have a lot in common. They are both ways of expression that help us create and communicate our ideas.
I felt like Hill was talking common sense when he discussed how different cultures view images differently than others. Obviously, I am going to interpret a picture differently than a Chinese girl. Although, I understand that his point is that we need to look at images from other cultures’ perspectives before we examine them from our own in order to develop broader understanding of these images.
I liked this article because it took a seemingly informal approach but kept it academic. It made a lot of good points too about the importance of reading visual images. Students can, should, and sometimes do get taught about visual images as visual text. I think the article definately proved that it's necessary for it to be taught because of how prevealent images are in our society. I say that I think this is being taught because their are classes on film. Film, involves many other forms of artwork, but the visuals effect of a film can often stand alone. We should talk about film/watch on (a sweet one) in class. People seem to be that different people have different perspectives, so they interpret differently. I totally agree, but students wouldn't be learning to interpret a certain way, they would just be given a complete set of tools, empowering them to make their own interpretations.
I agree that different people see things differently...that's a problem for those who design images...but you can't deny that advertisers pay a bunch of people to sit around and carefully think about the images they use and how they are LIKELY to persuade their target audience...Being able to view/read rhetorically means critically thinking about what we see and considering what a designer intended us to feel as a result of their choice of text and image...that's important...otherwise we're just sheep
I don't think people can be taught per say, how to interpret images because people do see things differently. However, I think classes should focus a little more attention on visual images then they currently do. Teachers should pick images with obvious underlying messages and point them out to their classes in order to give their students an idea of the hidden meanings that are often related to visual images and advertisements.
I feel like it's really important to critically analyze the images that are presented to us, so that we are able to make informed decisions and not be fooled by clever advertising.
I'm not saying people should be taught how to interpret images...that we should teach them what an image should mean to them...what they should believe, but that they should be taught how to interpret how and image is supposed to affect them (or some other audience) by the designer....For example, I don't think it is our job to teach you that the bald eagle is a symbol of our nation and therefore SHOULD provoke patriotism in you regardless of how it is used...only that if a Jeep Cherokee commercial focuses on a bald eagle in a commericial that you understand they are making an association between what that image is supposed to stand for and their product....do you see what I mean? What you believe is your business...but being able to understand how others attempt to influence you (and how you might attempt to influence others) is our business...I only clear this up because I am afraid if you just say "everyone interprets everything differently" you reach an end...there is no place to go...it ignores that face that there are images that certain audiences do, often, view in similar ways...for example, there are a particular group of Southerners who view the confederate flag as a symbol of historical identity and pride...there are another group who view it as an offensive association with an immoral past, others as a personal attack against their identity...If we don't consider who produces such images for particular audiences with particular purposes in mind, we lose agency, in my opinion, to think critically about the matter.
I think that images are a huge act to get someone to think something while possibly demonstrating another. When Hill made the statement about how images are used to prompt viewers to develop associations rather than support it with logic, I was interested. That's completely true. In class when we were shown the bald eagle, or the picture of George W, that demonstrated that pictures could be taken many different ways. I'm sure that when some people view a Nike Swoosh they become elated becasue they associate happy feelings with that wether it reminds them of a sport or whatever else they think. Then on the other hand, it could remind another person of something negative. But the point is that we remember what that symbol means, and can attach our own connotations to it. And that can go along with pictures that are weaved in text, on commercials, in advertisements or whatever. They are there to establish meaning to establish a feeling with the given text.
I believe, weather we like it or not, we are taught from brith to associate images with a specific feeling. A lot are associated with commercial products. Anyone who has taken a marketing class has probably heard enough about image association. However, it doesnt only apply in the capitalist relm. Things as easy as shapes and colors have stong meanings as well. For instance, everyone knows what a bumper sticker of a rainbow means, and that red is an agressive color. Its all classical conditioning. If your exposed to something enough, you will learn to associate.
I agree that we are taught to percieve colors and symbols a certain way from birth, but I also think humans are naturally critical of their environment. Sure, there are some who never stop and think about why fast food chains have red in their logo, or why yellow is the "caution" color. But for the most part, when you open someone's eyes when they are younger that everything has a different meaning than just what is presented on the surface, they start to become critical of their surroundings.
Meanwhile, there are some people who choose not to see things for what they really are. I think we should have more visual learning classes in school. I know personally, I tend to attach my own connotations to images, and I think that more images should be used in the classroom. I mean, we were all taught the basics such as addition and the alphabet with picturebooks, and EVERYONE remembers that stuff. Why does the teaching method change as we get older??
The teaching method changes as we get older because of just that....we are getting older. When we are young we don't realize that that an image can have different connotations. We learn the alphabet because we are forced to by our teachers, and we don't ask questions because we are too young to realize that there are questions to be asked. As we get older and more wise we realize that whoever is behind using a specific image at a specific time is most likely trying to persuade our minds to lean in a specific direction. Commercials do it all the time. When I was little and I saw a commercial about a toy I didn't ask questions, all I knew is that I wanted that toy. Today, I see a commercial for a cool new phone, and I still want that phone, but I realize that advertisers are probably making that phone out to be way cooler than it really is.
Ultimately, I don't really know what I am getting at with all this stuff, but I do agree with people who say we should have more visual learning classes. I especially think that we need to be learning about images and their many possible connotations when we are young.
The world of visual representation of information has grown out of an increase in speed in daily life combined with an over abundance of messages that are not very effective. Consumers are glancing instead of studying now more than ever and companies have found a way to cater to this style. Rather than write a paragraph they show an image.
Our society has not yet conceded that we are weak to the influence of visuals and they affect our thoughts and opinions dramatically. We need to lose the arrogance and accept that being influenced by images does not mean we are condescending to absorbing something that is “dumbing down” our culture, rather we are becoming enlightened enough know who we are and what influences us.
Visual representations of information are subtle enough to fly under the conscious radar and go undetected if a certain emotion is supposed to be evoked for a product or an idea. So this is basically brilliant advertising. We are not offended by the blatant BUY ME billboard and since it is not blatant, we find it much harder to resist.
I don’t think it would be difficult to incorporate this into the curriculum of a writing course. The idea of images associated with emotions and then associated with a product is one that is not difficult to swallow. All we need to do is bring it into consciousness and we will then filter visual information ourselves – just as we filter all other received messages.
I definitely agree with Charles Hill's main point of this article. I found it interesting because I was reading this article while sitting in an my art class, and my teacher was mentioning some of the same points. She claimed that our generation is surrounded by images more than any other generation in the past and it is our responsibility to be able to be critical of all the images in front of us every day.
I see images all around me, but never put too much thought into them. I found it interesting when Hill talks about the insurance company's advertisement because I would have never thought too much into the picture before he mentioned all the little things incorporated into it.
At our age we will be surrounded by images more and more as we grow older. I think that we need to be taught how to view images in an educated and critical way because it seems that visual images effect our lives every day.
I just think of the Rock'em Sock'em Robots commercial, for some kind of truck (dodge?). Is it bad that I don't know what kind of truck? Or is it just sweet that they used the visual representation that the blue robot could beat the hell out of the red guy, but not the red truck. I agree that visual representation of the product or just the overall visual aspect of the commercial are more important than the writing. Products are sold because of how easily they grab your attention, and how is that gonna happen if you're just reading.. that's boring, so If I was in advertisement, It seems that it would be a good idea to really put all of my effort into the visual aspect of any advertisement. I also agree that he thinks the logic is gone.. People just like to see pretty colors and funny pictures, well I know I do.
I agree with what myitat4 said. In commercials nowadays the advertiser just tries to make a funny or interesting commercial. They use a variety of visual images that have nothing to do with the product that is being advertised. But that is the main goal of the company. They want you to relate their product with something else. Like he said with the dodge commercial with the rock 'em sock 'em robots. The fact that they were in that commmercial didn't really have to do anything with their truck, but now everytime I think of rock 'em sock 'em robots I think of that commercial. I'm not saying that I am gonna go buy their truck. but they did get into my head and create an abnormal relationship between their product and something from my childhood. This is a really clever tactic that advertisers use and it is obviously working.
Post a Comment