Blog #3 -- Blair's Argument

Blair's main point would be if visual argument is considerably and possibly to exist or present, and if so, it means that it can be an argument and not distinct from the ones created through verbal forms, but how?. He believes that it is true to regard a single image as a possibly powerful and influential tool to convey a message or strong point, in which the image itself can induce an argument to argue about. But is it always stronger than the verbal cues or description using words? Blair explains the possibility for visual argument to present in the various kinds of visual forms that are commonly known and understood by society. They are: Dramatic Painting & Sculpture, Magazine & other Static Visual Ads, Television Commercials, Political Cartoons, Non Propositional Argument, etc. (VR 349, 352, 356-357) Another point that he attempts to point out is, a visual can be in fact, a really strong, controversial issue or argument, yet it is still possible that is would be very weak and won't be considered as argument as it lacks features of images or verbal forms such as little descriptions; same thing applies to verbal (sometimes just using words, it is real hard for us to draw a point of view or understanding, in which it would be better if a nice, related picture is provided)
I absolutely agree with his perspective on this issue 'Whether or not Visual Arguments can exist?' However, in my own points of view and understanding, the best form to provide an argument is a nice combination of visual and verbal contents. For example: A person is smoking happily but right underneath the person, there is a picture of his lungs that have black gas with a skull and cross-bones image in it (It's poisonous); plus there's a short, little line at the very bottom of the image saying, 'Still wanna smoke more?'. It is apparent that there have been quite a number of visual forms (already mentioned above) that create an argument for most people, and the argument is simple and understood one-way for the most part.
But for the most part, I disagree with his opinion that there are a lot of controversial or argumentative visual forms. I am quite sure that a regular person who never tries to delve into the world of argumentative images, would not be able to accumulate and create a collection of controversial or argumentative visual forms. Yes he can but it won't be many. I think verbal forms have more potential to be argumentative than visual since verbal is incredibly huge, I mean it is a wide range of understanding which can be entirely covered with words.
Most of the time, just with words, readers would get the point of the issue or solution, and they would be the same inclusively. However, just through an image, people will have big chances to interpret it differently since image provided itself can make people appeal to different thoughts which differ based on their routes of thinking, their experience, etc. So, most likely the visual forms can misguide, therefore sometimes people don't really get the point, then they don't think that visual form is containing argument, even others might think so.


Blair, Anthony J. "The Possibility and Actuality of Visual Arguments." Visual Rhetoric in a Digital World: pg. 344-362