• List 3 connections between Kress and Van Leeuwen and 2-3 other readings we’ve covered. (Not every article you choose needs to have a connection to every other article. Look for common threads.)
• List 3 thought provoking or provocative ideas. What makes them so?
• List 3 questions you jotted down for yourself while reading. What sparked them for you and why?
• Respond to 3 separate questions from your peer’s blogs by the following Tues. March 24. Don’t answer all 3 questions from 1 blog, spread the love.

Connecting with Readings
In their discussion of representation and interaction in visuals, G. Kress and T. van Leeuwen (2006) points out relations between involvement and the horizontal angle and power and the vertical angle (133-143). However, they seem to subscribe to the belief that visuals, like charts, diagrams, and maps, can be objective (143). This connects to R. Barthes’ (1977) concept of the denoted image. However, Barthes’ concept ultimately ends up being a social construct:

[T]he absence of code disintellectualizes the message because it seems to found in nature the signs of culture. This is without doubt an important historical paradox: the more technology develops the diffusion of information (and notably of images), the more it provides the means of masking the constructed meaning under the appearance of the given meaning. (159-160)

Kress and van Leeuwen also suggest that “directly frontal or perpendicular top-down angle” visuals are “objective” in presentation (143-144). However, they earlier point out that “[w]hen represented participants look at the viewer, vectors […] connect the participants with the viewer” and establish contact (117). This gaze sees the image acknowledging those who view it and constitutes an image act, which calls the viewer to some kind of action (117-118). This reminds me of b. hooks‘ (1995) discussion of the oppositional gaze. According to this work, staring carries power; “[e]ven in the worse [sic] circumstances of domination, the ability to manipulate one’s gaze in the face of structures of domination that would contain it, opens up the possibility of agency” (116).
Edit (Mar. 26, 2015): I just realized this was a reading from hooks not assigned for this course. I do address B.H. Welling in the questions, for what it’s worth

Thought-Provoking Ideas

• When discussing the semiotic landscape, Kress and van Leeuwen ask if “the move from the verbal to the visual [is] a loss or a gain” (31). They suggest that there is no one correct answer to this question, but the idea of trading between loss and gain fascinates me.
• When discussing materiality and meaning, Kress and van Leeuwen describe how the presentation of visuals are important in making meaning, not simply an empty vessel to display the visuals. This reminds me of Marshall McLuhan’s idea that the medium is the message; while such a proclamation might be a bit broad, it reminds me that we should not examine visuals (or anything else, for that matter) separately from their presentation.
• Kress and van Leeuwen’s concept of the Given and the New (181, 183).
• When discussing modality, Kress and van Leeuwen point out that a diagram isn’t necessarily “less real” than a photograph. After all, “[r]eality is in the eye of the beholder” (158).

Questions that Came to Mind; Why?

• Kress and van Leeuwen seem to recognize the concept of the gaze (regardless of angle) but suggest that directly frontal visuals are “objective” in presentation. Considering that gazes can appear in directly frontal visuals, are Kress and van Leeuwen contradicting themselves somewhat? This particular question came to mind since the false construct of objectivity fascinates me.
• Kress and van Leeuwen point out the concept of the Given-New relation in their discussion of the meaning of composition (181). In compositions with this kind of relation, the Given appears on the left, the New on the right; the Given represents what we know, what we accept, while the New represents what we perceive as problematic (181). For instance, Lorenzo Maitani’s The Creation of Eve fits this description, as the absolute God (left) creates the problematic Eve (right) (181). However, Michelangelo’s The Creation of Adam depicts Adam as the Given and God as the New, problematizing our concept of God (181, 183). What other visuals subvert expectations by switching up the Given and the New? I explore methods subversion in my project for this course and, ultimately, my thesis; the relation of the Given to the New has the power to problematize, question, and subvert our expectations.
• While looking through Kress and van Leeuwen’s work, I came across their discussion of linear and non-linear compositions; I was reminded of B.H. Welling’s work on ecop*rnography. Would ecop*rnography be more likely to employ linear or non-linear compositions? Why? As strange as the particular terminology is, the word “ecop*rnography” captures how exploitative visual rhetoric can be when it comes to nature. I’m curious to see how others in the class feel in regard to which kind of composition is more exploitative.

References

• Barthes, R. (1977). The Rhetoric of the Image. In Handa, C. (ed.), Visual Rhetoric in a Digital World: A Critical Sourcebook (152-163). New York: Bedford, St. Martin’s.
• hooks, b. (1995). Black Vernacular: Architecture as Cultural Practice. In Handa, C. (ed.), Visual Rhetoric in a Digital World (395-400). New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
• Kress, G., and van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Readings Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. New York: Routledge.
• Welling, B.H. (2009). Ecop*rn: On the Limits of Visualizing the Nonhuman. In Dobrin, S.I., and Morey, S. (eds.), Ecosee: Image, Rhetoric, Nature. Albany: State University of New York.