I think in this recent reading, the idea that caught me the most was the idea of visual culture. I have done some studies in both the visual arts and visual advertisements, and am certainly not unfamiliar with analyzing them and placing into a cultural or historical context. But the phrase visual culture gives a new meaning to it, even while studying the varied art movements, it never really occurred to me that art is an evolving, changing thing that is affected by various influences. I guess I just thought of art history as unique movements, rather than an interconnected flow.
Visual pieces as well as literature have a certain power to convey powerful messages about society without being blatant yet it still resonates with the viewer. It's what led the Spaniards to burn the Incas' quipus when they realized that they couldn't understand or control them or the information they conveyed, it was too dangerous to leave alone. This was hardly a lone incident, it reminds me about how in most dictatorships I've heard of, the artists and poets face as much danger of persecution as the politicians and intellectuals.
What helps create this power is, as the text borrows from Iris Rogoff, "visual images enable us with a new way of writing in which our objectivity (our knowledge of the world that is exterior to us) and subjectivity (our unconsciousness) intersect" (45-6). What makes visual images different than writing for one thing is how they are read, obviously we don't read an image like we read a book. In a way, visuals connect us, since there are likely some symbols that would be read in similar ways cross-culturally. They also breed potential connections, as the Incas and the Spaniards were able to connect and exchange culture a bit through their visual communications, whether it be letters or image.
However, the language of visual images is hardly universal. What also makes it tricky is that the same symbol can be interpreted differently by members of different cultures. Even colors can be seen differently between cultures. For example, take the symbolic meaning of colors in flags. Let's look at the color red: In the U.S. flag, red represents hardiness and valor. In the Chinese flag, the color red is seen as symbolic of the communist revolution. The red in the Canadian flag is seen as symbolic of sacrifices made during the World Wars. The red and white pattern of the Austrian flag is symbolic of a specific legend of Duke Leopold V. who was covered in blood after battle except for a stripe of white skin under his belt. So if these countries were to try to symbolize the colors of other countries flags in similar ways that the color is used in their own flags, there would be some confusion.
What is nice about visual culture is that they both provide a safe ground for a society to stay in, but are also flexible and changing enough to let other cultures affect it without diminishing it. It also provides a beginning to an "in" for studying a culture, a good introduction while you might still be learning the language and the specific quirks of that society. In any case, visual images, whether it be advertising, serve a specific historical purpose like the quipus, or even are just there to be art, preform vital roles in societies and shouldn't be ignored in rhetorical studies.
Questions:
1. What other forms of art/literature could you see as potentially rhetorical or culturally significant?
2. In terms of art and literature, besides advertising, what do you think has the most potential for rhetorical purposes?
No comments:
Post a Comment