Sample U is broken up into two parts. Though I agree with the first part that predictable images are helpful in leading the audience to understand an argument quicker, I disagree with the second part. I recognize that the order of how images in a visual presentation are presented is important, but I do not agree that their order is more important than that of a textual argument. Taking the example images in the writer of this sample's first part ("wedding picture, the soldier kneeling and shooting, the video of [the] little girl saluting at the funeral procession..."); these images all make the same argument and without order they still make sense and support the central claim. However, with textual arguments, by changing the order of sentences, and especially by rearranging words within in a sentence, the reader has a good chance completely befuddling the reader.
Maybe it’s just my preference for film narrative, but I believe that visual arguments need careful ordering for them to make sense. Aside from evoking some sort of chaos, random images merely confuse viewers. The visual argument is definitely understated in terms of effectiveness—but I think the reasoning has to do with the fact that “visual arguments” aren’t structured rigidly enough.
ReplyDelete