The Role of Visuals in Rhetoric, Post 1

When I first read this prompt I initially thought about the role visuals play in the rhetoric employed by the advertising world. If one were to look at advertisements from 40 or 50 years ago they would look significantly different than they do today. Older ads were filled almost entirely with copy and very little artwork. This is in stark contrast to the ads we see today, which in some cases consist entirely of artwork and almost no copy whatsoever. I think one of the reasons that this is the case centers around differentiation. 50 years ago people were more willing to read all the copy on an ad, assess it, and form an opinion. Today people's attention spans are much shorter, so an ad must use its visual appeal to differentiate and make an impact quickly, before it gets passed over. In this way I think visual appeals are central to many forms of rhetoric.

In regards to what role visuals should play, I think that is largely a question of the medium in which they're being presented. In advertising, as mentioned above, I think it is perfectly acceptable to use visuals to enhance the appeal of the message. In contrast, if that same visual is used in place of a description that truthfully explains the product or service (I'm thinking claims of false advertising here, i.e. infomercials make products look much better than they are, etc.) then I believe that visuals should not be the central aspect of a rhetorical appeal. Ultimately though, what role they should play is an ethical decision, which is another post unto itself.